Please explain?
BlackShadow
What I'd appreciate is some explanation about is the puerile feud going on
with Annika and noons and their many and varied socks.
Each seems to accusing the other of being a paedophile and making nasty
suggestions about the other's children and their relationship to them.
This is of concern, it has been going on for some time and seems to show no
indication of abating. My concern is as to whether there is even a remote
trace of truth in either of their claims.
I feel that the Police need to become involved. These are people who spend
an inordinate amount of time on the net (a place where genuine paedophiles
frequent) and are interested to some small degree in photography, another
paedophile trait.
If they are totally innocent of all the paedophile related charges they are
hurling at each other, then nothing will happen to them. Not directly.
I am going to make a formal, written complaint to the Police. I will make
my approach through a reasonably senior Police Officer who I have known for
some years and trust him to hand it down to the relevant section for a full
investigation. I will make it plain that I am not at all sure that either
is in fact a paedophile, but as there is a potential for a children to be
involved, that I feel a very thorough investigation is advisable.
I will of course, not be using "BlackShadow" but my correct name and title.
It is likely that nothing will come of it once the Police finish
investigating; I think that in all probability they are just two immature
twits who have chosen an unfortunate way of expressing invective. A bit
like shouting "terrorist" in an airport when you think about the way
suspected paedophiles are investigated nowadays.
Most paedophile investigations last at least two years before the suspected
paedophile is either charged or dropped to an inactive level. (I don't
think that they are ever actually cleared.)
During that two years, all email, newsgroup posting, landlines and cell
phone calls are monitored. Their neighbours and workmates are subtly
questioned and their families' medical records examined. Their children's
school staff will be queried and any ex spouses or children also
questioned. The Police don't even need to query the news servers like
motzarella, google or individual etc., they work directly with the ISPs of
the suspects. That power came into force in Queensland this week, the last
Australian state to comply. The Police are probably going to be anxious to
use their new "no warrant required" powers.
I can't imagine why people would do this.
Police *cannot* and will not ignore a suspect child abuse or paedophile
issue, even if they immediately suspect that the person involved is just an
idiot with a loud mouth and not really a paedophile. Of course, as long
nothing else they do is illicit, if their possessions are all legitimate,
if they don't have vindictive exes, if their employers are open-minded, if
their neighbours are understanding and trust them, if the kids at their
children's school don't gossip, then all will be ok - as long as they
aren't paedophiles.
Oh, and most suspects get attention from the tax office and immigration to
check on income and travel. I almost forgot that one.
I am not kidding, after all, it is a civil duty and it costs me nothing but
a letter not much longer nor different to this post. Usually the suspect
won't even be aware of Police attention for months, not until rumours from
neighbours or workmates etc., start to reach them.
The reason I feel this way? Because the old saw about smoke and fire has
some truth in it. If these two continue with the paedophile abuse and
comments about each other's children, this needs to happen. One or both of
them might be a deviate. Maybe they are paedophiles who had a falling out -
who can tell with all these accusations muddying the waters?
Why don't the two of you claim to be relatives of Bin Laden and threaten to
blow each other up - that would attract less official attention than
calling each other a paedophile.
One thing is absolutely certain, whether you are paedophiles or not, you
are both idiots to keep shouting paedophile the way you do.
BlackShadow
Maybe when the Police seize their computers for a forensic examination
they'll post some images and we can see if either one of them is actually a
photographer. :)
Annika1980
> What I'd appreciate is some explanation about is the puerile feud going on
> with Annika and noons and their many and varied socks.
No socks on my end and I've never known Noons to use any either,
although I'm sure he wished he had a few times.
It all started when Noons objected to my posting in aus.photo.
He seems to think it is an Australian-only club and any outsider that
posts there gets met with a quick "FUCK OFF AUS.PHOTO!"
Like the other Net Nanny, Johhny Mac, Noons has a particular hardon
for crossposts to aus.photo.
Any time I make a photo-related post or post one of my pics there and
it is a crosspost, he will hijack the thread with his usual "BRET IS A
PEDO" nonsense.
There is very little I can do about it other than give him the same
thing back. That way, someone searching for NUNO SOUTO on the web may
come across it and question him about it just as some of my relatives
have questioned me about his lies. He sets such a wonderful example
for his kids.
Alan Browne
> What I'd appreciate is some explanation about is the puerile feud going
> on with Annika and noons and their many and varied socks.
Really not worth the bother and certainly not worth the effort you put
into your post.
I've KF'd Noons as I haven't seen a single useful post from him, ever.
Oh, while I'm here, please do submit up to 3 photos for the shoot-in to:
si DAHT moderator & gmail DAHT com
See the rulz and mandate:
http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/open
Deadline is tomorrow evening ... wherever you are...
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
D-Mac
I suppose your innocence in all this is what prevents you from not
posting your irrelevant crap in Aus.Photo is it?
Before any fight can end, one of the combatants needs to simply stop.
Your past performance in flame wars isn't looking good when it comes to
the likely hood of you being the hero who does stop.
You never know, it could just all go away if you stopped cross posting
your American specific messages into an Australian specific newsgroup.
Noons might be an oddball but no more so than you, Bret. He has the high
ground in this fight. You are engaged in posting foreign messages to an
Australian newsgroup. Why don't you just stop?
Helen
I know nothing about Noons. Just from his presence on the newsgroups,
anyone can see how he displays a very unpleasant, violent and
aggressive combative attitude. As Annika1980 has described, that is
exactly how it all started. Anyone who is a fan or supports
Annika1980's photography is an enemy to Nuno Souto. Thus his violent
attacks begin, and instead of just sitting back and taking it,
retaliation emerges.
Souto is trying his utmost best to destroy Annika1980's personna, and
in doing so, has labeled him the most vile and disgusting human being
on the face of the earth: a pedophile.
We are close friends and I will state my reputation, and swear to this
on the Holy Bible that Annika1980 is NOT, I repeat NOT a pedophile.
It started as a joke and snowballed into a horrible rumor with no
truth to it at all.
I verify this to be the truth and anyone can contact me through this
email address.
Helen
John McWilliams
> On Aug 30, 1:21 pm, BlackShadow <vinc...@rules.com> wrote:
>
>> What I'd appreciate is some explanation about is the puerile feud going on
>> with Annika and noons and their many and varied socks.
>
> No socks on my end and I've never known Noons to use any either,
> although I'm sure he wished he had a few times.
>
> It all started when Noons objected to my posting in aus.photo.
No, it didn't all start there.
> He seems to think it is an Australian-only club and any outsider that
> posts there gets met with a quick "FUCK OFF AUS.PHOTO!"
>
> Like the other Net Nanny, Johhny Mac, Noons has a particular hardon
> for crossposts to aus.photo.
> Any time I make a photo-related post or post one of my pics there and
> it is a crosspost, he will hijack the thread with his usual "BRET IS A
> PEDO" nonsense.
>
> There is very little I can do about it other than give him the same
> thing back. That way, someone searching for NUNO SOUTO on the web may
> come across it and question him about it just as some of my relatives
> have questioned me about his lies. He sets such a wonderful example
> for his kids.
You could simply stop the baiting, taunting and especially the
cross-posting. That's the "little" you can do. Hah!
You and a few others - fortunately a very few- are the only ones who
consistently start x-posts. You and "Rita" are the two who do the most
of it, and the ones I will set followups to r.p.d. when I want.
--
lsmft
k
"Usenet Police"
| I'm glad I don't live in whatever fascist/communist country you live in
| where vindictive people see nothing wrong with turning in complete
| strangers (who might just be the same person using two different names)
| to the police for something written in a newsgroup, and making
| accusations that don't have a chance of holding up in a proper court of
| law.
..
The
| favorite line from the jack booted thugs known as "law enforcement
| officers" in countries where the citizens have no rights to begin with.
|
| You do live in China, right?
sounds like the us/uk/aus to me..
George Kerby
On 8/30/08 2:50 PM, in article g9c8au$g1f$1...@cb.generation-online.de, "D-Mac"
<do...@D-Mac.info> wrote:
Shit. And all this time I thought "aus.photo" was all about Austin. You
folks know Texas is still a Republic?
Noons
> On Aug 30, 1:21 pm, BlackShadow <vinc...@rules.com> wrote:
>
>> What I'd appreciate is some explanation about is the puerile feud going on
>> with Annika and noons and their many and varied socks.
and you think you'll get one from a male poster who uses
a woman's name? And a false aol id?
That will happen soon.
Please do send your "concerns" to the police. I have
sent mine a looong time ago.
> No socks on my end and I've never known Noons to use any either,
> although I'm sure he wished he had a few times.
Yeah. right....
> It all started when Noons objected to my posting in aus.photo.
No. It all started with your constant CROSS-POSTING to
aus.photo, on subjects that have nothing to do with that
newsgroup, and when you were asked POLITELY to stop,
to which you responded with your usual aggravated and
insulting bullying.
And you copped it back in spades: apparently, you do not
realize the centre of the world is far from your doorstep
and NO ONE has to put up with your constant bullying.
> He seems to think it is an Australian-only club and any outsider that
> posts there gets met with a quick "FUCK OFF AUS.PHOTO!"
No. Only off-topic and insulting CROSS-POSTERS like you.
Period.
> Like the other Net Nanny, Johhny Mac, Noons has a particular hardon
> for crossposts to aus.photo.
I'm glad in your own words you finally admitted that there is a
difference between posting and CROSS-POSTING and what you do is
the latter.
> Any time I make a photo-related post or post one of my pics there and
> it is a crosspost, he will hijack the thread with his usual "BRET IS A
> PEDO" nonsense.
No. I did that only AFTER you refused to stop cross-posting
and insulted my family and children by posting photos of them
which you had defaced. That EARNED you a CANCELLATION of your
aol account.
It's YOUR CANCELLED ACCOUNT, dickhead. Not mine.
Everyone can guess why but it's a fact, which you simply
cannot deny.
> There is very little I can do about it other than give him the same
> thing back.
Really? Wait until authorities catch on to the rest of
your photography, well kept in a safe place. And the little
"exploits" you had stashed away in your aol account and have
been duly saved so they can be shown to the appropriate
audience.
> That way, someone searching for NUNO SOUTO on the web may
> come across it and question him about it just as some of my relatives
> have questioned me about his lies.
You started something you could not finish. I warned
you that involving kids in your stupid little vendetta
would buy you a LOT of trouble. Your reply was to insult
those kids, like the good CHILD-ABUSER you are.
It's started affecting your professional life and it
will continue to do so until you are locked up as you
should be.
> He sets such a wonderful example
> for his kids.
Indeed I do: It's called DO NOT PUT UP with a bully.
I'm proud of them for never have done so. And at
least I have kids to teach, while you got nothing.
That's why you are so eager to use kids to attack
responsible adults, isn't it, you filthy
PEDOPHILE and CHILD-ABUSER!
Noons
>
> I know nothing about Noons. Just from his presence on the newsgroups,
> anyone can see how he displays a very unpleasant, violent and
> aggressive combative attitude.
You got that right, "Helen": you know NOTHING.
> Souto is trying his utmost best to destroy Annika1980's personna, and
> in doing so, has labeled him the most vile and disgusting human being
> on the face of the earth: a pedophile.
Absolutely. And I shall continue until he either gets
locked up or sued out of his pants. And guess what:
YOU will NOT be able to stop me. Hurts to hear
the truth once doesn't it, you lying sack of shit!
> We are close friends
We know that, Helen. Can you stop stating the OBVIOUS?
> and I will state my reputation,
and your "close friendship", stated above by you, immediately
disqualifies ANYTHING you say as conflict of interest,
you stupid lying bitch!
> and swear to this
> on the Holy Bible
you know where you can shove your "holy" bible,
don't you?
> that Annika1980 is NOT, I repeat NOT a pedophile.
I disagree. He is a PEDOPHILE and a CHILD-ABUSER,
and you aid and abet him.
> It started as a joke and snowballed into a horrible rumor with no
> truth to it at all.
Let's keep laughing then: we'll see who laughs last.
For smeone who claims to know a lot about law,
you prove again and again that not only are you incapable
of conducting yourself in a lawful manner in public
but you also have NO CLUE about international law.
> I verify this to be the truth and anyone can contact me through this
> email address.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
How about this, then:
FUCK OFF aus.photo, you STUPID BITCH!
Helen
"> Souto is trying his utmost best to destroy Annika1980's personna,
and
> in doing so, has labeled him the most vile and disgusting human being
> on the face of the earth: a pedophile. Helen"
"Absolutely. And I shall continue until he either gets
locked up or sued out of his pants. And guess what:
YOU will NOT be able to stop me. Hurts to hear
the truth once doesn't it, you lying sack of shit! noons"
As you can see, he even admits here that he will stop at nothing to
destroy a man whom he has never met. This is proof of Souto's
constant vicious attacks on Annika1980 or anyone who is a friend of
Annika1980. He will stop at nothing to destroy him. And in this case
has falsely labeled him a pedophile. I have done nothing whatsoever to
provoke his attacks, yet he finds it satisfying to try to demean,
belittle and insult me with sexist and personal attacks.
"> Maybe when the Police seize their computers for a forensic
examination
> they'll post some images and we can see if either one of them is actually a
> photographer. :) Black Shadow"
You will definitely find that Annika1980 is indeed a professional
photographer. His work and contributions in the field of photography
are indeed genuine on the newsgroups.
Annika1980
>
> You could simply stop the baiting, taunting and especially the
> cross-posting. That's the "little" you can do. Hah!
>
> You and a few others - fortunately a very few- are the only ones who
> consistently start x-posts. You and "Rita" are the two who do the most
> of it, and the ones I will set followups to r.p.d. when I want.
Funny though, when Rita or someone else does it they don't get the
RITA IS A PEDOPHILE treatment.
Annika1980
> Please do send your "concerns" to the police. I have
> sent mine a looong time ago.
How did that work out for ya?
I'm guessing that they simply ignored the rantings of a raving loon.
==================
> I'm glad in your own words you finally admitted that there is a
> difference between posting and CROSS-POSTING and what you do is
> the latter.
I've never stated otherwise. However, when you were called on the
carpet for your cross-posting you blamed it on Google. LOL!
===========================
>
> > Any time I make a photo-related post or post one of my pics there and
> > it is a crosspost, he will hijack the thread with his usual "BRET IS A
> > PEDO" nonsense.
>
> No. I did that only AFTER you refused to stop cross-posting
> and insulted my family and children by posting photos of them
> which you had defaced.
That's bullshit. It was your constant libelous harrassment that
precipitated that episode. Check the Google.
Of course, facts mean nothing to you.
===========================
>That EARNED you a CANCELLATION of your
> aol account.
>
> It's YOUR CANCELLED ACCOUNT, dickhead. Not mine.
Funny thing about AOL. They'll take the word of a fruitcake without
even consulting the member who has been with them for 13 years.
At least I didn't lose my Google account like you did.
Oh well, it took about 2 minutes to set up a new account on AOL.
============================
>
> It's started affecting your professional life and it
> will continue to do so until you are locked up as you
> should be.
How is it affecting my professional life? And bad news for you since
they don't lock people up based on the libelous rantings of a drunken
madman. D-Mac had the local sheriff on the case and guess what
happened there? They locked up the sheriff! He's looking at 10 years
now, for real. (Nothing to do with me, though.)
======================
>
> > He sets such a wonderful example
> > for his kids.
>
> Indeed I do: It's called DO NOT PUT UP with a bully.
> I'm proud of them for never have done so. And at
> least I have kids to teach, while you got nothing.
You have no idea what I have or don't have except what I choose to
tell ya. And I'm sure your kids will grow up to be just like their
daddy .... cussing at everyone who betters them in some area and
degrading women. Yeah, a fine example indeed. Of lowlife scum, that
is.
BlackShadow
> In article <6htds8F...@mid.individual.net>,
> BlackShadow <vin...@rules.com> wrote:
>
>> Police *cannot* and will not ignore a suspect child abuse or paedophile
>> issue, even if they immediately suspect that the person involved is just an
>> idiot with a loud mouth and not really a paedophile. Of course, as long
>> nothing else they do is illicit, if their possessions are all legitimate,
>> if they don't have vindictive exes, if their employers are open-minded, if
>> their neighbours are understanding and trust them, if the kids at their
>> children's school don't gossip, then all will be ok - as long as they
>> aren't paedophiles.
>
> where vindictive people see nothing wrong with turning in complete
> strangers (who might just be the same person using two different names)
> to the police for something written in a newsgroup,
If what is written consists of consistent claims that the other is a
paedophile then you could consider a person who ignored it as more
vindictive toward children.
> and making
> accusations that don't have a chance of holding up in a proper court of
> law.
I have made no accusation, they have, and if any of it is true then it will
a Police action in a criminal court. No tort law involved here.
>
> Try it here buddy-boy and you'll be facing a defamation lawsuit a mile
> long that will take the rest of your life to pay off.
Do you have any more puff and bluster? That first bit didn't have much effect.
Reporting a possible crime is not actionable. If it goes further it will be
the Police who make the decision and I doubt they are likely to be sued for
defamation. They don't prosecute without evidence. If the people who have
been accusing each other of being a paedophile are inconvenienced by a
period of close Police scrutiny, then it is something they should have
considered before choosing this particular path. There are two things that
authorities don't take lightly in modern western society, potential
terrorism and potential child molesting.
> "Nothing to fear
> from an illegal search if you've got nothing to hide", hunh?
So they tell me - the honest people that is. Other's opinions may differ. I
gather yours does. Can we ask why?
> The favorite line from the jack booted thugs known as "law enforcement
> officers" in countries where the citizens have no rights to begin with.
Nobody had any rights to begin with, it was law enforcement that secured
and now maintains those rights.
> You do live in China, right?
How did you guess?
Interestingly, after an "off the record" conversation this morning with a
member of an organisation called "Police Task Force Argos" about this
matter, I was told that non-paedophiles, in Police experience, are so
uncomfortable with paedophilia that they won't use the term, even joking or
as a term of abuse. The nice lady Police Officer tells me that true
paedophiles do tend to use it a lot to offend other people. That
conversation will continued on Monday afternoon. She, and a couple of her
compatriots are coming to visit and have a chat about the matter, but this
time it will be "on the record".
Of even more interest is the fact that Police forces have an international
cooperative agreement to aid each other in investigations of this nature.
The US Police won't ignore a request from the Australian Police to
investigate someone if it gets to that stage. At the moment I am pretty
sure it will. Already joint Australian/US Police plus FBI and Interpol have
brought charges against several hundred paedophiles from all over the
world. Often, she told me, they start with a tip as inconsequential as
this. Look at a coupleof months ago when all those people were arrested
simply for having their IP addresses logged by a Russian server that
carried child pornography. That was Task Force Argos in action. Two of them
committed suicide as soon as they were charged and many of them have
already been sentenced to long goal terms. That started when someone on a
news group accused another of being a paedophile, but in that case they
really were. I wonder what will happen in this case? Many of them had
deleted all files but the Police were still able to have them resurrected.
They weren't thorough enough.
Do you know what one of the first things the Police do is? They have a list
of all WEB and FTP addresses, plus peer to peer IP addresses that have been
known to support child porn or other (violent rape, bestiality) porn and
they run a check to see using their suspect's ISP records to see whether
the suspect has ever visited those sites. If they have, then the hunt is
definitely on. This is a very interesting experience for me, I'm getting to
meet some very interesting people and learn about some interesting techniques.
BlackShadow
Noons
> Do you know what one of the first things the Police do is? They have a list
> of all WEB and FTP addresses, plus peer to peer IP addresses that have been
> known to support child porn or other (violent rape, bestiality) porn and
> they run a check to see using their suspect's ISP records to see whether
> the suspect has ever visited those sites. If they have, then the hunt is
> definitely on. This is a very interesting experience for me, I'm getting to
> meet some very interesting people and learn about some interesting techniques.
Oh boy: is Bret in trouble!
Particularly when they find out his extensive posts
in pedophile support groups here in the Usenet!
LOL!
Noons
> > Please do send your "concerns" to the police. I have
> > sent mine a looong time ago.
>
> How did that work out for ya?
It worked perfectly: we nailed the freakin bastard
and he's been locked up. Wanna be next? With
GREAT pleasure!
> I'm guessing that they simply ignored the rantings of a raving loon.
Keep dreaming.
> > I'm glad in your own words you finally admitted that there is a
> > difference between posting and CROSS-POSTING and what you do is
> > the latter.
>
> I've never stated otherwise.
Bullshit. You stated in the previous reply to this one
precisely otherwise and repeatedly. It's there for anyone with
a normal attention span to read.
> However, when you were called on the
> carpet for your cross-posting you blamed it on Google. LOL!
Really? That was ONCE, and I did NOT START the
thread cross-posting: YOU did.
The cross-post initiator is YOU and proof is all over
the google records, you demented LIAR!
> > No. I did that only AFTER you refused to stop cross-posting
> > and insulted my family and children by posting photos of them
> > which you had defaced.
>
> That's bullshit. It was your constant libelous harrassment that
> precipitated that episode.
Oh, so it's an "episode" that is "bullshit"?
So what is it? An "episode"?
Or the cold, grim reality of truth?
Do you even understand the IDIOCY of that statement
of yours above, you MORON?
Thanks for openly admitting the enormity of your crime.
Nothing like giving net criminals enough rope:
they always hang themselves. Always. Too
stupid to do otherwise.
> Check the Google.
I did and so did the MANY other posters who OPENLY
commented on what sort of crap coward you are for
attacking children. Some of them are even from your
troll stable in rsg.
> Of course, facts mean nothing to you.
Keep ignoring the obvious, coward. That will
go down well in your record.
> >That EARNED you a CANCELLATION of your
> > aol account.
>
> > It's YOUR CANCELLED ACCOUNT, dickhead. Not mine.
>
> Funny thing about AOL. They'll take the word of a fruitcake without
> even consulting the member who has been with them for 13 years.
Funny thing about AOL: they do NOT like copyright violators
and photo defacers like YOU! "time there" means NOTHING
when dealing with criminal activities, in case you haven't yet
fathomed. It's only YOUR account gone, dickhead. Stay
in denial all you like, cold hard facts just won't go away.
> At least I didn't lose my Google account like you did.
Did I? So, what is this? And do you want me to
send you an email from that "lost account"?
I *DO* know as well where to send it.
> Oh well, it took about 2 minutes to set up a new account on AOL.
Just not the same name which you can
use to store your filth.
> How is it affecting my professional life?
Because Helen says so. You really don't reason
much before spouting off, do you dickhead?
> And bad news for you since
> they don't lock people up based on the libelous rantings of a drunken
> madman.
And bad news for you when international police find out
about your long history of posting in pedophile related
newsgroups and other filth in which you wallow.
Nothing to do with drunks, in case you haven't
noticed I hardly ever drink: it's against my religion.
But let's not let facts interfere with your deranged
rants.
> D-Mac had the local sheriff on the case and guess what
> happened there? They locked up the sheriff! He's looking at 10 years
> now, for real. (Nothing to do with me, though.)
You haven't got it yet, have you? I don't give a FIG
what D-MAc does, says, did, or was! Couldn't care
less. This stupid fixation you have with his activities
and your immediate assumption that everyone is related
to him is the main reason why you'll go down on this
matter: you're so off the mark with your D-Mac comments
relating to me! LOL!
Mind you: I love to explore that little weakness of yours.
Shows you for the idiotic moron you really are.
> You have no idea what I have or don't have except what I choose to
> tell ya.
You are an impotent redneck in a small town who thinks
the world is at his door because you figured out how to use
a computer. You got no kids whatsoever, by your own
admission. That is WHY you HATE anyone who has got them.
> And I'm sure your kids will grow up to be just like their
> daddy ....
I certainly hope they can match me, although of course
I'm certain they will exceed me. And I'm proud of that
and of them. Something you'll never be able to grasp.
> cussing at everyone who betters them in some area
BWAHAHAHAHA!
you really have no clue, do you? I don't give a SHIT
about photography, you dickhead. It's a hobby,
very simply. Couldn't care less who is better or
worse, moron: I don't do this for a living and never
will. Unlike you, who has a lot to lose on that ground.
Keep attacking sand castles and windmills, you'll have
a lot of success! LOL!
> and
> degrading women.
Narh, not "women". Woman. Her Usenet avatar is
"Helen" and she is a filthy liar and a Usenet
scammer who aids and abets PEDOPHILES
and CHILD-ABUSERS such as YOU!
> Yeah, a fine example indeed. Of lowlife scum, that
> is.
We'll see. Problem is: you won't have any descendents,
while I shall. Sucks to be a "dead end" like you,
doesn't it?
Noons
Funny though, Rita and the others do NOT use
defaced photos of someone else's children to
attack adults. Like you do, you disgusting,
low-life PEDOPHILE and CHILD-ABUSER!
Chris H
<vin...@rules.com> writes
>Usenet Police wrote:
>> In article <6htds8F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> BlackShadow <vin...@rules.com> wrote:
>
>Reporting a possible crime is not actionable. If it goes further it
>will be the Police who make the decision and I doubt they are likely to
>be sued for defamation.
They could prosecute for wasting police time.
>Interestingly, after an "off the record" conversation this morning with
>a member of an organisation called "Police Task Force Argos" about this
>matter, I was told that non-paedophiles, in Police experience, are so
>uncomfortable with paedophilia that they won't use the term, even
>joking or as a term of abuse.
They the Police person has little of no experience of Internet news
groups. It may be the case in Australia but on the 'net you find a lot
of very childish abuse goes on.
>The nice lady Police Officer tells me that true paedophiles do tend to
>use it a lot to offend other people.
That does not fit with information I have.
> That conversation will continued on Monday afternoon. She, and a
>couple of her compatriots are coming to visit and have a chat about the
>matter, but this time it will be "on the record".
I think you are wasting a lot of police resourses pointlessly.
>Of even more interest is the fact that Police forces have an
>international cooperative agreement to aid each other in investigations
>of this nature.
Only to a point
> The US Police won't ignore a request from the Australian Police to
>investigate someone if it gets to that stage.
They are quite likely to. The US LEA and government have refused direct
requests for evidence on multiple homicide investigations.
>Do you know what one of the first things the Police do is? They have a
>list of all WEB and FTP addresses, plus peer to peer IP addresses that
>have been known to support child porn or other (violent rape,
>bestiality) porn and they run a check to see using their suspect's ISP
>records to see whether the suspect has ever visited those sites. If
>they have, then the hunt is definitely on. This is a very interesting
>experience for me, I'm getting to meet some very interesting people and
>learn about some interesting techniques.
Why are you so interested in pedophilia?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
zen
"BlackShadow" <vin...@rules.com> wrote in message
news:6humcpF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Do you know what one of the first things the Police do is?
Explain all their carefully worked out top secret procedures to
the first Joe who walks in off the street ?
zen
>
> BlackShadow
Alan LeHun
says...
> Interestingly, after an "off the record" conversation this morning with a
> member of an organisation called "Police Task Force Argos" about this
> matter, I was told that non-paedophiles, in Police experience, are so
> uncomfortable with paedophilia that they won't use the term, even joking or
> as a term of abuse.
>
You seem to have no trouble using it.
--
Alan LeHun
BlackShadow
> In message <6humcpF...@mid.individual.net>, BlackShadow
> <vin...@rules.com> writes
>> Usenet Police wrote:
>>> In article <6htds8F...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> BlackShadow <vin...@rules.com> wrote:
>>
>> Reporting a possible crime is not actionable. If it goes further it
>> will be the Police who make the decision and I doubt they are likely
>> to be sued for defamation.
>
> They could prosecute for wasting police time.
How? They are not being forced to act on deliberately false information?
They make the decision to act or not based on what you provide them. All
that I have provided them is well documented in Google.
>
>> Interestingly, after an "off the record" conversation this morning
>> with a member of an organisation called "Police Task Force Argos"
>> about this matter, I was told that non-paedophiles, in Police
>> experience, are so uncomfortable with paedophilia that they won't use
>> the term, even joking or as a term of abuse.
>
> They the Police person has little of no experience of Internet news
> groups. It may be the case in Australia but on the 'net you find a lot
> of very childish abuse goes on.
They have vast experience, why do you think that they have initiated so
many successful prosecutions internationally? Don't you read news headlines?
>
>> The nice lady Police Officer tells me that true paedophiles do tend to
>> use it a lot to offend other people.
>
> That does not fit with information I have.
I am sure that there is an almost unaccountable number of things that don't
fir the information that you have.
>
>> That conversation will continued on Monday afternoon. She, and a
>> couple of her compatriots are coming to visit and have a chat about
>> the matter, but this time it will be "on the record".
>
> I think you are wasting a lot of police resourses pointlessly.
It is their decision. They have initiated successful investigations based
on similar newsgroup data.
>
>> Of even more interest is the fact that Police forces have an
>> international cooperative agreement to aid each other in
>> investigations of this nature.
>
> Only to a point
No, it is to the point where shared resources no longer require political
intervention or legal requests or warrants.
>
>> The US Police won't ignore a request from the Australian Police to
>> investigate someone if it gets to that stage.
>
> They are quite likely to.
They never have yet. They may decide that there is not point in furthering
the investigation, but not until they have had a close look. They don't do
what TV cops do and work on "hunches".
> The US LEA and government have refused direct
> requests for evidence on multiple homicide investigations.
This is nothing to do with homicide and I doubt that your claim is true.
Australia and the US have had several recent high profile cooperations on
homicide's.
>
>> Do you know what one of the first things the Police do is? They have a
>> list of all WEB and FTP addresses, plus peer to peer IP addresses that
>> have been known to support child porn or other (violent rape,
>> bestiality) porn and they run a check to see using their suspect's ISP
>> records to see whether the suspect has ever visited those sites. If
>> they have, then the hunt is definitely on. This is a very interesting
>> experience for me, I'm getting to meet some very interesting people
>> and learn about some interesting techniques.
>
> Why are you so interested in pedophilia?
I am interested in seeing accusations of paedophilia that are probably
unfounded, but just *might* be true, incessantly bandied about in
newsgroups that by nature are hobby and family oriented.
Annika might be just a maggot with no sense of decorum plus a foul mouth
and mind, but I have seen enough of his posts to be damned sure that I
don't want him looking at images of my daughters or wife. Noons is also
foul mouthed and abusive, but he is the one being provoked by Annika by
attacks on his daughter and character etc.
I think that based on performance, Annika is far more likely to be a
paedophile than noons, but then I am not an investigator with the time or
resources to make that determination. The Police can and will. He has made
comments about a very young girl's physical attributes that most men,
certainly fathers, would not dream of doing. Unless of course they really
were paedophiles. Regardless of whether he is a paedophile or not, he is as
about appealing as a puddle of dog's vomit to any decent father of young girls.
Now do you understand my interest?
BlackShadow
BlackShadow
There is nothing top secret about it, and I am not just a "Joe off the
street" I have a long established relationship with other areas of Policing
that don't include this sort of thing. It gets me a degree of courteous
acceptance.
I have posted nothing that they haven't publicised themselves during the
huge international joint AFP/FBI paedophile operation earlier this year.
Some senior AFP (Australia Federal Police) were reprimanded for releasing
investigative details prior to the completion of all the arrests but
responded with: "If they know how easy it is for us to catch them it is
less likely to happen." Sort of like road traffic red light cameras, if
they weren't common knowledge more people would speed.
BlackShadow
BlackShadow
I have a great deal of trouble with it, that is why I am taking this course
of action.
BlackShadow
Helen
> How is it affecting my professional life? Annika1980
"Because Helen says so. You really don't reason
much before spouting off, do you dickhead?"noons
The lies never cease for him. When have I ever stated that it is
affecting your professional or private life?
I stated Nuno Souto will stop at nothing to TRY.
Helen
BTW: I replied to you because I refuse to reply to that thing.
Robert Coe
: On Aug 31, 5:58 am, Helen <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > I know nothing about Noons. Just from his presence on the newsgroups,
: > anyone can see how he displays a very unpleasant, violent and
: > aggressive combative attitude.
:
: You got that right, "Helen": you know NOTHING.
Well, arguably "she" knows enough not to get into a pissing contest with a
sock puppet.
: > Souto is trying his utmost best to destroy Annika1980's personna, and
: > in doing so, has labeled him the most vile and disgusting human being
: > on the face of the earth: a pedophile.
:
: Absolutely. And I shall continue until he either gets
: locked up or sued out of his pants. And guess what:
: YOU will NOT be able to stop me. Hurts to hear
: the truth once doesn't it, you lying sack of shit!
Curse me, Noons, I'm getting a bit old and senile, and I've been hanging
around these photography newsgroups for less than two years. So I've somehow
missed seeing any proof of your allegations. Can't you at least provide us
with some reason why we should believe you instead of Bret?
: > We are close friends
:
: We know that, Helen. Can you stop stating the OBVIOUS?
:
: > and I will state my reputation,
:
: and your "close friendship", stated above by you, immediately
: disqualifies ANYTHING you say as conflict of interest,
: you stupid lying bitch!
:
: > and swear to this
: > on the Holy Bible
:
: you know where you can shove your "holy" bible,
: don't you?
:
: > that Annika1980 is NOT, I repeat NOT a pedophile.
:
: I disagree. He is a PEDOPHILE and a CHILD-ABUSER,
: and you aid and abet him.
:
: > It started as a joke and snowballed into a horrible rumor with no
: > truth to it at all.
:
: Let's keep laughing then: we'll see who laughs last.
: For smeone who claims to know a lot about law,
: you prove again and again that not only are you incapable
: of conducting yourself in a lawful manner in public
: but you also have NO CLUE about international law.
Since you bring it up, how's your knowledge of that subject? I assume you know
that the USA doesn't recognize "international law" except to the extent that
our treaty obligations require it. Can you explain what treaties apply in this
case and how you propose to establish their relevance?
: > I verify this to be the truth and anyone can contact me through this
: > email address.
:
: BWAHAHAHAHA!
:
: How about this, then:
: FUCK OFF aus.photo, you STUPID BITCH!
One thing that puzzles me: If you're so fastidious about keeping irrelevant
stuff out of aus.photo, why do *you* persist in cross-posting this thread
there?
Bob
Alan Browne
> Funny though, when Rita or someone else does it they don't get the
> RITA IS A PEDOPHILE treatment.
Who cares what particular treatment they get ... it still fouls the NG.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
>
> BTW: I replied to you because I refuse to reply to that thing.
Why not just stop fouling the group with this nonsense? Don't reply to
the braindead like Noons, directly or otherwise... Seems sometime in
the past you said you would do exactly that...
PS: Where are your SI submissions?
Helen
wrote:
Yes I did say that and I agree with you to not reply to the
braindead. I just needed to set the record straight this one last
time on yet another lie of his.
PS look for my SI submission today.
Helen
Alan Browne
> PS look for my SI submission today.
Plural, please. 3 per customer!
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> PS: Where are your SI submissions?
>>
>
> Can an alleged "sockpuppet" actually submit to the SI? And *if* Helen
> really was a "sock," and the owner also submitted as well, then would
> this not be more than the three submissions allowed...
I have no reason to believe she is a sock and as you carefully use
adverbs like alleged, then apparently neither do you.
I look forward t your SI submissions as well.
>
>
> - JT
> wishes all the readership in Australia a happy September 1st.
What's so special in Australia about 09.01? ...
here, Canada (and US "Labor Day") Sept. 1 is "Labour Day" (or rather 1st
Monday of Sept.)
Alan Browne
> Moose & Squirrel wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> PS: Where are your SI submissions?
>>>
>>
>> Can an alleged "sockpuppet" actually submit to the SI? And *if* Helen
>> really was a "sock," and the owner also submitted as well, then would
>> this not be more than the three submissions allowed...
>
> I have no reason to believe she is a sock and as you carefully use
> adverbs like alleged, then apparently neither do you.
adjective. /sigh/
Frank ess
Alan Browne wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Moose & Squirrel wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> PS: Where are your SI submissions?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can an alleged "sockpuppet" actually submit to the SI? And *if*
>>> Helen really was a "sock," and the owner also submitted as well,
>>> then would this not be more than the three submissions allowed...
>>
>> I have no reason to believe she is a sock and as you carefully use
>> adverbs like alleged, then apparently neither do you.
>
> adjective. /sigh/
When you catch an adjective, kill it.
-Mark Twain
--
Frank ess
Alan Browne
I don't kill what I won't eat. I eat a lot of spiders and mosquitoes
because of that...
Robert Coe
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
: Alan Browne wrote:
: > Moose & Squirrel wrote:
: >> Alan Browne wrote:
: >
: >>> PS: Where are your SI submissions?
: >>>
: >>
: >> Can an alleged "sockpuppet" actually submit to the SI? And *if* Helen
: >> really was a "sock," and the owner also submitted as well, then would
: >> this not be more than the three submissions allowed...
: >
: > I have no reason to believe she is a sock and as you carefully use
: > adverbs like alleged, then apparently neither do you.
:
: adjective. /sigh/
I believe most grammarians would call it a verbal (specifically an adjectival
past participle). Unlike "true" adjectives, it's not subject to comparison.
Moving right on ...
Given the email address problems you've reported, would it be possible for you
to publish the names of those from whom you *have* received SI submissions?
I've yet to see a confirmation of the three images I sent to the replacement
address, and I'm concerned that they (along with my earlier submission to the
bogus address) may be wallowing in the bit bucket somewhere.
Bob
Alan Browne
> I've yet to see a confirmation of the three images I sent to the replacement
> address, and I'm concerned that they (along with my earlier submission to the
> bogus address) may be wallowing in the bit bucket somewhere.
I sent you a reply at 10:41 EDST yesterday stating that all 3 have been
received.
John McWilliams
> On Aug 30, 6:30 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You could simply stop the baiting, taunting and especially the
>> cross-posting. That's the "little" you can do. Hah!
>>
>> You and a few others - fortunately a very few- are the only ones who
>> consistently start x-posts. You and "Rita" are the two who do the most
>> of it, and the ones I will set followups to r.p.d. when I want.
>
> RITA IS A PEDOPHILE treatment.
I don't think anyone thinks that's amusing. Peculiar funny, yes.
Might be yet another reason to stop x-posting to aus.photo, as well as
not cross posting, period.
--
john mcwilliams
ASAAR
> > - JT
> > wishes all the readership in Australia a happy September 1st.
>
> What's so special in Australia about 09.01? ...
>
> here, Canada (and US "Labor Day") Sept. 1 is "Labour Day" (or rather 1st
> Monday of Sept.)
Not necessarily what Rocky and Bullwinkle had in mind, but there
is a :
> Security Treaty Between the United States, Australia, and New Zealand
> (ANZUS); September 1, 1951
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/usmulti/usmu002.htm
ASAAR
>> When you catch an adjective, kill it.
>> -Mark Twain
>
> I don't kill what I won't eat. I eat a lot of spiders and mosquitoes
> because of that...
We'll make you eat your words for that, bub. <g>
Annika1980
>
> in case you haven't noticed I hardly ever drink: it's against my religion.
Is that why you hardly ever beat your wife and only rarely abuse your
daughter? What religion is that ..... 7th Day Atheist?
> you really have no clue, do you? I don't give a SHIT
> about photography, you dickhead.
Obviously.
SneakyP
news:2008083012075477923-savageduck@savagenet:
> On 2008-08-30 10:21:06 -0700, BlackShadow <vin...@rules.com> said:
>
>> No, I'm not Pauline Hanson nor is she my aunty.
>
> Well that is sad.
>
>>
>> What I'd appreciate is some explanation about is the puerile feud
>> going on with Annika and noons and their many and varied socks.
>
>
> If somebody could explain it, you might start bleeding from your eyes
> and/or ears. You might forgo ever going online again. You might become
> a stealth warrior and eliminate them for the benefit of all mankind,
> or you might retire to a mounain top to contemplate your navel.
>
> So don't question it, just sit back and enjoy the show.
>
There wasn't any question about it. The OP is simply making an overt
statement about turning posters in for "pedophilia" while making the
statement that people who flame with the "pedo" tag are in fact begging
for covert LE involvement in their lives, to be notated in a
non-purgeable "pedophile" investigation file. Sounds about right.
AFAIKT - this k00kfight is nothing more than arguments about who has the
best equipment, shooting talent, etc...and can't win with simple debates
so the lowest common denominator usenet flameword appears. DumbDumb
isn't interested to k/f those posts. For the record, these trolltards
should put their money in their mouths, shit and get off the pot, stop
with the whines, whatever, and just file a report to their police about
each other, but they dont because they know it's just a silly trolling
flamewar.
That OP doesn't take this in that light - and thinks that reporting
these rediculous trolls will make the LEA thank them with applauds and
accolades, (or so he wants the trolls to believe). Yeah RRRRIGHT.
More importantly, so he thinks, is that the threat of report is enough
to make some other people to stop posting their flamewars. RRRRIGHT #2.
That fallacy is quacky...Just report them and complain to their
provider. No bluffs are needed. Take it real life - just be sure to
note your motivation here. No more needs done, besides a kf entry. LE
might ask why you continue to see them if you complained about them in
the first place.
It depends, is it worth prosecution over name calling ninnies?
--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.
Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)
Atheist Chaplain
nice troll BTW, one post and all these fish
Oh and your full of shit, just thought you should know :-)
--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg
BlackShadow
> "BlackShadow" <vin...@rules.com> wrote in message
> news:6hvl9qF...@mid.individual.net...
>> zen wrote:
>>> "BlackShadow" <vin...@rules.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6humcpF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> Do you know what one of the first things the Police do is?
>>>
>>> Explain all their carefully worked out top secret procedures to
>>> the first Joe who walks in off the street ?
>> There is nothing top secret about it, and I am not just a "Joe off the
>> street" I have a long established relationship with other areas of
>> Policing that don't include this sort of thing. It gets me a degree of
>> courteous acceptance.
>>
>> I have posted nothing that they haven't publicised themselves during the
>> huge international joint AFP/FBI paedophile operation earlier this year.
>> Some senior AFP (Australia Federal Police) were reprimanded for releasing
>> investigative details prior to the completion of all the arrests but
>> responded with: "If they know how easy it is for us to catch them it is
>> less likely to happen." Sort of like road traffic red light cameras, if
>> they weren't common knowledge more people would speed.
>>
>>
>> BlackShadow
>
> nice troll BTW, one post and all these fish
> Oh and your full of shit, just thought you should know :-)
Oh? I don't have a full of shit, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Or did you mean "you're full of shit"?
It ain't a troll, it is a response, and it has been looked at by relevant
Police and is in the initial stages of being acted on. They spent several
hours examining posts from both parties, feel that in all likelihood they
are both just being idiots, but one, and they did not specify which one,
makes them a little uneasy. Has some indicators that are often associated
with true paedophiles.
For the record, if I was in a position where I had to put real money on it,
I don't think that either of them are likely to be genuine paedophiles, but
I think that Annika presents as someone who could easily lean that way.
Let the good times roll. :)
BlackShadow
Noons
> >> There is nothing top secret about it, and I am not just a "Joe off the
> >> street" I have a long established relationship with other areas of
> >> Policing that don't include this sort of thing. It gets me a degree of
> >> courteous acceptance.
In that case you would know what a "secret level security
clearance" for the ADF means? Then again, maybe not...
>
> Let the good times roll. :)
I'm more than willing to provide more evidence
for the song and dance. Been collecting it for a
looooong time! Safely stashed away, too.
Noons
> On Aug 31, 3:10 am, Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > in case you haven't noticed I hardly ever drink: it's against my religion.
>
> Is that why you hardly ever beat your wife and only rarely abuse your
> daughter? What religion is that ..... 7th Day Atheist?
another one for the record. Kep ait it,
coward. It only shows to the evidence the
filthy quality of your thought process.
>
> > you really have no clue, do you? I don't give a SHIT
> > about photography, you dickhead.
>
> Obviously.
Of course. It's only a hobby. In your case
though, it's gonna hurt when you're stopped
from doing it...
Noons
> > The lies never cease for him. When have I ever stated that it is
> > affecting your professional or private life?
> > I stated Nuno Souto will stop at nothing to TRY.
>
> BTW: I replied to you because I refuse to reply to that thing.
Keep trying, STUPID BITCH!
I'll just keep telling you to
FUCK OFF aus.photo.
Just in case you think you are "so smart" in
getting me to reply to you in this thread, like
you richly deserve, your attack is clear and on
record, therefore:
FUCK OFF aus.photo, you STUPID BITCH!
what, you thought you could say whatever
you wanted without copping it back in spades?
Keep dreaming, STUPID BITCH!
Noons
wrote:
> > BTW: I replied to you because I refuse to reply to that thing.
>
> Why not just stop fouling the group with this nonsense? Don't reply to
> the braindead like Noons, directly or otherwise... Seems sometime in
> the past you said you would do exactly that...
what did I tell you, she loves me!
> PS: Where are your SI submissions?
nowhere to be seen, she doesn't
take photos.
Noons
> Well, arguably "she" knows enough not to get into a pissing contest with a
> sock puppet.
Of course she does: she's very close to the sock-puppet
master.
> Curse me, Noons, I'm getting a bit old and senile, and I've been hanging
> around these photography newsgroups for less than two years.
Why should I curse you? I don't attack old men, like Bret
and his sock puppets from rec.sport.golf do.
Ask him: he'll promptly claim it was anyone else but him.
As usual.
> So I've somehow
> missed seeing any proof of your allegations. Can't you at least provide us
> with some reason why we should believe you instead of Bret?
Why don't you pick up the google search interface
and look up the posts from your hero Bret back
in, say, March to end of April 2008?
It doesn't take a degree in IT-savvy, you know?
> : Let's keep laughing then: we'll see who laughs last.
> : For smeone who claims to know a lot about law,
> : you prove again and again that not only are you incapable
> : of conducting yourself in a lawful manner in public
> : but you also have NO CLUE about international law.
>
> Since you bring it up, how's your knowledge of that subject?
None. The difference of course is that I NEVER claimed
I did. Helen on the other hand is an "expert" in any subject
she spouts on. Search for her "experience" with handling
child-abuse "records", which she claims to havea copy
of. Illegal, of course, as demonstrated a few days later
by a subject matter person who actually exposed her lies.
> I assume you know
> that the USA doesn't recognize "international law" except to the extent that
> our treaty obligations require it. Can you explain what treaties apply in this
> case and how you propose to establish their relevance?
I think you got me confused with the person
who started this thread: I made no claims about
such "establish their relevance". Kindly direct
your inquiries to the appropriate person.
Might actually help you to realise that I post
as only myself and never have used a sock puppet,
like Bret does. That means other folks' posts
are NOT mine and do not speak for me.
Clear?
> One thing that puzzles me: If you're so fastidious about keeping irrelevant
> stuff out of aus.photo, why do *you* persist in cross-posting this thread
> there?
to reinforce the point that such off-topic
cross-posting behaviour is not welcome there.
Thanks for asking.
Atheist Chaplain
and now I know you're full of shit :-) but hey just keep bleating away to
the uneducated masses, I'm sure most of them believe you Hahahahahaha!
Troll!
and not only a troll but a grammar kop as well.
--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
Peter
news:bLKdnc88Bdo0SibV...@supernews.com...
> There's nothing wrong with spending 10 or 15 minutes a day to stir the
> pot,
> so to say.
How about those of us who try to have an intelligent discourse while certain
folks, who very well may be incapable of same, just troll onwards.
> I agree that many here have too much time and emotional
> investment in the groups. But this leads you back to what you're dealing
> with. Most likely these folks are a bunch of washed up senile geezers
> that
> really have nothing else better to do.
>
> I've learned long ago that trying to help people on Usenet is a futile
> effort. The people that genuinely come here for help are met with
> negativity and bickering.
And there are many who genuinely want to help and many who actually get good
information. There are latent A-holes in real life who can come out without
fear of exposure. I truly feel sorry for them.
>Then you have the people "regulars" that morph to
> try to get attention by passing off seeming innocent questions for the
> sake
> of getting a response.
You mean like trying to start a Nikon v Canon debate?
>That's why I find it is best to sit back and
> stimulate on my own terms and pace.
>
So you believe in self gratification?
Glad you have a sense of humor.
--
Peter
John McWilliams
"Rita" is also superior to the rest of the group here. It's his
playground, and so anything goes, including incessant cross posting.
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
Annika1980
>
> > Well, the Nikon vs Canon thing is great wholesome family oriented
> > stimulation. Really, what's better than stoking the fire in otherwise
> > boring newsgroups than to get a good Nikon vs Canon war stoked?
>
> You just love to stir the pot, and I think that even Brett is in on the joke.
>
More than you know, duck.
Annika1980
>
> Why should I curse you? I don't attack old men, like Bret
> and his sock puppets from rec.sport.golf do.
> Ask him: he'll promptly claim it was anyone else but him.
> As usual.
First off, dipshit, I don't use sockpuppets. A Google search will
reveal that I am approaching the 40,000 post mark. Now when the Hell
would I have time to use socks? And why would I want to? I say what
I need to say as it is.
Secondly, if you are referring to George Hibbard on the golf group he
was a friend of mine. He even sent me his book and golf tape for
free.
Ask him if you don't believe me. I think he's still around.
So please stop spreading your lies.
Ray Fischer
>As for the playground, you're right. I single handedly stimulate enough
>idiots to drop the noise floor to the point of being nonexistent.
So you're a malicious asshole who is determined to destroy these
newsgroups.
How special.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Busted Frog
> On Sep 1, 6:13 am, Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why should I curse you? I don't attack old men, like Bret
>> and his sock puppets from rec.sport.golf do.
>> Ask him: he'll promptly claim it was anyone else but him.
>> As usual.
>
> First off, dipshit, I don't use sockpuppets. A Google search will
> reveal that I am approaching the 40,000 post mark. Now when the Hell
> would I have time to use socks? And why would I want to? I say what
> I need to say as it is.
He googles himself!
If that doesn't say it all then nothing can.
Ribbit
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>> As for the playground, you're right. I single handedly stimulate
>>> enough idiots to drop the noise floor to the point of being
>>> nonexistent.
>>
>> So you're a malicious asshole who is determined to destroy these
>> newsgroups.
>
Yes. You just stated as much.
> just a concerned citizen that is taking back the groups to bring peace
Don't lie to me, asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Noons
> You just love to stir the pot, and I think that even Brett is in on the joke.
Didn't you know this is all "sponsored" by
pbase and its pack of trolls? That site is such
a loser's rathole the only way for them to drum up
traffic is to scam and shill the newsgroups looking
for equivalent low-lifes.
This is what they do all the time: invade a newsgroup
with low traffic and stir the pot with their multiple
sock puppets and self-replies, then claim it's all
"high traffic" even though 90% of it is just stupid,
deranged of-topic trolling.
Bret has just confirmed this once more.
Some day folks will learn that all the trolls in
this and other newsgroups are really doing nothing
but shill and scam one single site. Until then, they will
simpy be exposed.
It's a well known technique from prior the dotcom
burst that apparently these morons think can continue
to be milked forever without ever being exposed.
Notice how anything exposing that troll-hole pbase
site is immediately pounced upon by the pack of
scammers and shills.
Noons
> reveal that I am approaching the 40,000 post mark. Now when the Hell
> would I have time to use socks? And why would I want to? I say what
> I need to say as it is.
40000 posts? More like a few hundred thousand,
if one adds up your troll personas and sock puppets.
You don't have much of a life, do you?
> Secondly, if you are referring to George Hibbard on the golf group he
> was a friend of mine. He even sent me his book and golf tape for
> free.
> Ask him if you don't believe me. I think he's still around.
You shilled a book and golf tape off him so you could
pass it on to one of your arse-kissers to keep attacking
the old man. Which makes you even more despicable
in your cowardly attitude and low-life scam than the
original attacker.
> So please stop spreading your lies.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Annika1980
> Didn't you know this is all "sponsored" by pbase and its pack of trolls?
Boy, Noons, you are all over it! We thought we could fool you, but
you saw right through our ruse. I thought that by Rita using Flickr
we could throw you off the scent, but like a bloodhound you tracked us
down.
No foolin you! Tell the truth, did you figure this out all by
yourself or did you have to emply D-Mac's crack Arkansas detective
squad to help you?
Well, since there is no point in postponing the announcement I guess
I'll make it offcial here. PBase is currently in negotiations and by
this time next month we will be buying out Microsoft, Google, and
Adobe.
And by this time next year, we should own most of the internet.
You will be assimilated!
Noons
>
> Boy, Noons, you are all over it! We thought we could fool you, but
Why did I know you'd straight away jump in "defense"
of your troll hole and their scams and shills?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Like I said:
"Notice how anything exposing that troll-hole pbase
site is immediately pounced upon by the pack of
scammers and shills."
Oh btw: your little child-abuse coward "art"
seems to have been removed. Could it be that
there is a smidgeon of honesty and law-abidance
in that troll hole? Or are you afraid of losing
yet another sack of shit place to keep your
child-abuse deranged crap?
Alan Browne
> On Sep 2, 7:07 pm, Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Didn't you know this is all "sponsored" by pbase and its pack of trolls?
>
> Boy, Noons, you are all over it! We thought we could fool you, but
> you saw right through our ruse. I thought that by Rita using Flickr
> we could throw you off the scent, but like a bloodhound you tracked us
> down.
I think we can get SI sponsorship from photo.net next time.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Annika1980
"Waah, waah, waah!"
Hey Noons, it's not to late to get in those Shoot-In submissions.
Maybe you'll get lucky and the next mandate will be "Big Noses."
BlackShadow
Do some Googling on the Taskforce Argos, check some of the Australian
Newspaper archives. Argos is not reticent about making their presence or
their methods public. Their attitude seems to be to get rid of paedophiles
by any means necessary, if they can't arrest all of them, then scare them
by letting them know how easy it is to track them and make them aware that
they will eventually get caught. If no one buys child porn, there will be
little point in creating child porn seems to be the reasoning. A roundabout
way of trying to protect children. Every time they make some more well
publicised arrests, they include a warning that if people keep using peer
to peer or off shore websites (Russian mostly, they claim) they will
eventually be arrested.
> Troll!
> and not only a troll but a grammar kop as well.
No, not really but sometimes I like jerking people's chains. Must be a
result of a misspent youth. ;) Come to think of it, maybe it isn't all
misspent, I seem to have some change left. Now, where to spend it?
BlackShadow
BlackShadow
> On Sep 1, 7:05 pm, BlackShadow <vinc...@rules.com> wrote:
>
>>>> There is nothing top secret about it, and I am not just a "Joe off the
>>>> street" I have a long established relationship with other areas of
>>>> Policing that don't include this sort of thing. It gets me a degree of
>>>> courteous acceptance.
>
> clearance" for the ADF means? Then again, maybe not...
Yes, it is nonsense. What has the ADF to do with either the AFP or any
State Police Service?
It is all over now in as far as my participation goes, they are not going
to allow me any form of access to the progress they make or fail to make,
so I expect that if anything eventually comes of it I will read about it
like the rest of the world.
The only two new bits of information I gleaned was regarding their
immediate interest in one of the parties, (and they are not prepared to say
which one) is simply because that person or someone using their computer
facilities has already been flagged. Either someone else has made a
complaint, as I did, or that person has been visiting sites or downloading
from PTP servers that have Police attention.
The second thing is that once someone is flagged, they check their credit
card history to see whether they have ever paid for access to porn via a
known financial conduit associated with child exploitation sites. They are
happy to let people know this sort of thing, they have even mentioned it in
news interviews.
That is how they work, a weighting system, a person gets flagged for
various reasons and when they have a several flags, they then consider that
person worthy of more detailed scrutiny. Credit card checks are an initial
part of that closer scrutiny.
BlackShadow
Atheist Chaplain
do some googling one chain of evidence, unless your actually a police
officer, working on the case, regardless of how "friendly" you are with the
police, they will never do their research with a civilian standing over
their shoulder and then discuss intimate details and suppositions about the
case to you, especially if they know your going to go and blab it all over
the news groups. now fuck off and try and troll the dickheads over at
alt.kooks
--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg
Atheist Chaplain
> Noons wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 7:05 pm, BlackShadow <vinc...@rules.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> There is nothing top secret about it, and I am not just a "Joe off the
>>>>> street" I have a long established relationship with other areas of
>>>>> Policing that don't include this sort of thing. It gets me a degree of
>>>>> courteous acceptance.
>>
>> In that case you would know what a "secret level security
>> clearance" for the ADF means? Then again, maybe not...
>
> Yes, it is nonsense. What has the ADF to do with either the AFP or any
> State Police Service?
>
what it means oh dickhead of enormous size, is that Noons has been vetted up
the kazoo by authorities with far better credentials than the average Johnny
plod. and to maintain his clearance he will be regularly and randomly
investigated, any hint of paedophilia would have his credentials pulled from
under him so fast his feet would still be smoking.
yet another reason why your so full of shit, the swarm of fly's around your
head actually register on satellite images.
Noons
>
> >> In that case you would know what a "secret level security
> >> clearance" for the ADF means? Then again, maybe not...
>
> > Yes, it is nonsense. What has the ADF to do with either the AFP or any
> > State Police Service?
>
> what it means oh dickhead of enormous size, is that Noons has been vetted up
> the kazoo by authorities with far better credentials than the average Johnny
> plod. and to maintain his clearance he will be regularly and randomly
> investigated, any hint of paedophilia would have his credentials pulled from
> under him so fast his feet would still be smoking.
> yet another reason why your so full of shit, the swarm of fly's around your
> head actually register on satellite images.
LOL! C'mon, Chaplain: it's not that bad!
The guy doesn't know what those things mean,
it's all "nonsense" to him.
'sOK, I don't mind. Only thing anyone can find
in my credit cards is purchases from ebnay for
photo hardware. Bret on the other hand is gonna
have to explain all those online casino bets
at Hoosiers and the other crap he keeps sending
for. That will be fun to lookup.
Noons
> On Sep 2, 7:40 pm, Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Waah, waah, waah!"
Rita, get cracking you STUPID BITCH:
your love needs a change of diapers.
Noons
wrote:
>
> I think we can get SI sponsorship from photo.net next time.
Why not try the online casinos you folks frequent?
Noons
> from PTP servers that have Police attention.
'scuse the ignorance but what on earth is a "PTP server"?
Kwyjibo
"Noons" <wizo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b530921e-9889-439a...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 3, 4:33 pm, BlackShadow <vinc...@rules.com> wrote:
>> from PTP servers that have Police attention.
> 'scuse the ignorance but what on earth is a "PTP server"?
I think he meant P2P (peer to peer)
--
Kwyj.
Annika1980
> Only thing anyone can find
> in my credit cards is purchases from ebnay for
> photo hardware. Bret on the other hand is gonna
> have to explain all those online casino bets
> at Hoosiers and the other crap he keeps sending
> for. That will be fun to lookup.
yawn
Dude, if you're gonna keep making up stuff at least try to make up
something that makes sense or something that I would actually do. Like
webcamming with your daughter. She thinks I'm cute, ya know.
Noons
> On Sep 3, 6:55 am, Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Only thing anyone can find
> > in my credit cards is purchases from ebnay for
> > photo hardware. Bret on the other hand is gonna
> > have to explain all those online casino bets
> > at Hoosiers and the other crap he keeps sending
> > for. That will be fun to lookup.
>
> something that makes sense or something that I would actually do. Like
> webcamming with your daughter. She thinks I'm cute, ya know.
BWAHAHAHA! we don't even *own* a webcam, moron!
you keep deluding yourself: that will be fun to see
when they fish out all the "disturbing" photos and
videos together with your online gambling crap.
Annika1980
>
> > Dude, if you're gonna keep making up stuff at least try to make up
> > something that makes sense or something that I would actually do. Like
> > webcamming with your daughter. She thinks I'm cute, ya know.
>
> BWAHAHAHA! we don't even *own* a webcam, moron!
> you keep deluding yourself: that will be fun to see
> when they fish out all the "disturbing" photos and
> videos together with your online gambling crap.
OK, so I made it up. Just like you do with all your BS.
Where did you think up the gambling angle anyway?
Doesn't make much sense to me.
BlackShadow
> "BlackShadow" <vin...@rules.com> wrote in message
> news:6i6pbtF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Noons wrote:
>>> On Sep 1, 7:05 pm, BlackShadow <vinc...@rules.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> There is nothing top secret about it, and I am not just a "Joe off the
>>>>>> street" I have a long established relationship with other areas of
>>>>>> Policing that don't include this sort of thing. It gets me a degree of
>>>>>> courteous acceptance.
>>> In that case you would know what a "secret level security
>>> clearance" for the ADF means? Then again, maybe not...
>> Yes, it is nonsense. What has the ADF to do with either the AFP or any
>> State Police Service?
>>
>
> what it means oh dickhead of enormous size,
I thought that only my wife know about that. Have you been been peeping
through bedroom windows?
> is that Noons has been vetted up
> the kazoo by authorities with far better credentials than the average Johnny
> plod.
Do I detect the faint aroma of performing socks?
You seem to be familiar with an inordinate amount of personal detail
related to another Usenet denizen - and remarkably defensive of him.
> and to maintain his clearance he will be regularly and randomly
> investigated, any hint of paedophilia would have his credentials pulled from
> under him so fast his feet would still be smoking.
If that was so, yes, but those hints are often hidden as is evidenced by
the extraordinarily high numbers of officials/MPs and even judges who are
also vetted. Nothing is discovered until they make a slip-up in another area.
If he does have a level of security clearance it has little meaning,
secretaries in public service have such clearance.
ASIO is the organisation that was used to vet me, back when such things had
import. That ended in the early eighties when I moved from a military to
private sector existence. I was not anyone of great note, just had the
usual clearance associated with rank and area of endeavor. I imagine that
little has changed in the interim. ASIO was alway good for comedic relief
but not much else.
> yet another reason why your so full of shit, the swarm of fly's around your
> head actually register on satellite images.
You thought that up all by yourself? How mature and erudite. You are
beginning to sound like Noons. That aroma is getting stronger. :)
BTW, I was told that one of them had piqued interest, but not told which
one. Maybe it wasn't Noons, or maybe if he *did* have some degree of
clearance, that is what interested them. The appalling and immature
standard of public behaviour of someone who should know better. ;)
BlackShadow
Noons
> Do I detect the faint aroma of performing socks?
>
> You seem to be familiar with an inordinate amount of personal detail
> related to another Usenet denizen - and remarkably defensive of him.
Actually, that shows perfectly well you got
NO CLUE what you talking about.
The Chaplain and I have had quite a few disagreements.
Last thing in his mind is socks. But let's not let
simple facts get in the way of a good old fashioned,
false insinuation and troll, shall we?
> ASIO is the organisation that was used to vet me, back when such things had
> import.
Who do you think installed the first Oracle database
at ASIO? Hint: it was installed in a Compaq 386
"luggable" and it was version 4.1.4 for DOS.
In 1987.
> little has changed in the interim. ASIO was alway good for comedic relief
> but not much else.
I'm glad you have such a great opinion of them.
> You thought that up all by yourself? How mature and erudite. You are
> beginning to sound like Noons. That aroma is getting stronger. :)
Gawd, another kook...
> BTW, I was told that one of them had piqued interest, but not told which
> one. Maybe it wasn't Noons, or maybe if he *did* have some degree of
> clearance, that is what interested them. The appalling and immature
> standard of public behaviour of someone who should know better. ;)
Who cares who "piqued interest"? We all know
it was Bret, due to some of the photos he has in his site
and his past record of trolling the pedophile sites.
So what?
And you are the one who "knows better"?
Do you have ANY clue how many morons with
your sort of self-righteous attitude I've
met and left by the wayside in DECADES of
online life?
Moron... Wasted enough time with you
<plonk>
Noons
> > > Dude, if you're gonna keep making up stuff at least try to make up
> > > something that makes sense or something that I would actually do. Like
> > > webcamming with your daughter. She thinks I'm cute, ya know.
>
> > BWAHAHAHA! we don't even *own* a webcam, moron!
> > you keep deluding yourself: that will be fun to see
> > when they fish out all the "disturbing" photos and
> > videos together with your online gambling crap.
>
> OK, so I made it up.
Just like 99% of your "photos"? Everyone knows that.
Besides, it would be completely moronic for someone
accused of child abuse to actually claim to have
indulged in it, wouldn't it? Then again, we all know
what a moron you are...
> Just like you do with all your BS.
The fundamental factual and confirmed difference
between us is that I do NOT post defaced photos of
children to attack adults. While you do,
CHILD-ABUSER!
> Where did you think up the gambling angle anyway?
> Doesn't make much sense to me.
Of course not. Definitely not the sort of thing
one wants to have in his baggage when trying to
appear squeaky clean, is it?
Annika1980
> But let's not let simple facts get in the way of a good old fashioned,
> false insinuation and troll, shall we?
BWAHAAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAA !!!
Yeah, let's not. I think you just busted the irony meter.
Now I can't wait to hear your reply about my massive porn collection,
my millions lost in online gambling and how I robbed the local liquor
store.
KOOK.
Alan Browne
> Now I can't wait to hear your reply about my massive porn collection,
> my millions lost in online gambling and how I robbed the local liquor
> store.
Cash or whiskey?
BlackShadow
> On Sep 5, 7:55 am, BlackShadow <vinc...@rules.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Do I detect the faint aroma of performing socks?
>>
>> You seem to be familiar with an inordinate amount of personal detail
>> related to another Usenet denizen - and remarkably defensive of him.
>
> Actually, that shows perfectly well you got
> NO CLUE what you talking about.
> The Chaplain and I have had quite a few disagreements.
> Last thing in his mind is socks. But let's not let
> simple facts get in the way of a good old fashioned,
> false insinuation and troll, shall we?
>
>
>
>
>> ASIO is the organisation that was used to vet me, back when such things had
>> import.
>
> Who do you think installed the first Oracle database
> at ASIO? Hint: it was installed in a Compaq 386
> "luggable" and it was version 4.1.4 for DOS.
> In 1987.
>
I know little about ASIO other than the obvious gleaned from a clumsy and
inefficient vetting system observed by people who they "security vetted". I
was stationed in Canberra through the latter part of the seventies until
the early eighties and I heard of lot of gossip and jokes, but little of
real substance. A Compaq 386 Luggable sounds a little like one of those jokes.
All Oracle databases of that era that I was associated with were on VAX
systems running Unix. You installed a database for ASIO on a 386 dos based
system? It must have had impressive capacity and speed. What did they use
it for? To keep track of their lunch orders?
What you are claiming can only reinforce ASIO's status as a cause for mirth.
You worked for Prime? I seem to recall that they had the contract for ASIO
and Immigration. No, you couldn't have worked for them, they wouldn't try
to use a 386 portable as an Oracle server.
>
>> little has changed in the interim. ASIO was alway good for comedic relief
>> but not much else.
>
> I'm glad you have such a great opinion of them.
Oh, I do, and I am glad you're glad. It thrills me to bring you a little
happiness.
>
>> You thought that up all by yourself? How mature and erudite. You are
>> beginning to sound like Noons. That aroma is getting stronger. :)
>
> Gawd, another kook...
Kooks object to poor grammar, bad language and an abusive manner? Well,
what do you know - I must be a kook.
>
>
>> BTW, I was told that one of them had piqued interest, but not told which
>> one. Maybe it wasn't Noons, or maybe if he *did* have some degree of
>> clearance, that is what interested them. The appalling and immature
>> standard of public behaviour of someone who should know better. ;)
>
> Who cares who "piqued interest"? We all know
> it was Bret, due to some of the photos he has in his site
> and his past record of trolling the pedophile sites.
> So what?
I don't know, they gave no indication but I suspect for reasons that I will
keep confidential that you are correct.
> And you are the one who "knows better"?
Knows better than who?
> Do you have ANY clue how many morons with
> your sort of self-righteous attitude I've
> met and left by the wayside in DECADES of
> online life?
None?
Did I get it right?
>
> Moron... Wasted enough time with you
> <plonk>
Plonk?
Doesn't that usually mean I win? Is there some sort of prize?
BlackShadow
Noons
> Yeah, let's not. I think you just busted the irony meter.
really? Want me to point out your posts abusing
children with defaced photos which you copied in
breach of copyright? That's what got you a
closed account in aol, dickhead. Nothing else.
And you're getting pretty close at pbase.
But let's not do he work of the police,
shall we?
> Now I can't wait to hear your reply about my massive porn collection,
> my millions lost in online gambling and how I robbed the local liquor
> store.
Yikes! That too? Glad you admitted it openly!
BWAHAHAHA!
Atheist Chaplain
> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>> "BlackShadow" <vin...@rules.com> wrote in message
>> news:6i6pbtF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Noons wrote:
>>>> On Sep 1, 7:05 pm, BlackShadow <vinc...@rules.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing top secret about it, and I am not just a "Joe off
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> street" I have a long established relationship with other areas of
>>>>>>> Policing that don't include this sort of thing. It gets me a degree
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> courteous acceptance.
>>>> In that case you would know what a "secret level security
>>>> clearance" for the ADF means? Then again, maybe not...
>>> Yes, it is nonsense. What has the ADF to do with either the AFP or any
>>> State Police Service?
>>>
>>
>> what it means oh dickhead of enormous size,
>
> I thought that only my wife know about that. Have you been been peeping
> through bedroom windows?
>
>> is that Noons has been vetted up the kazoo by authorities with far better
>> credentials than the average Johnny plod.
>
> Do I detect the faint aroma of performing socks?
>
you seem to be completely lost here. maybe a quick search trough the
archives will enlighten you, I have, on many many occasions called noons all
maner of names and disagreed mist verciferously with him on an variety of
subjects, but this being usenet, it is OK to call someone a sea hunt in one
post and then remmenis over seperate similar expiriences in another, that is
how I come to know a bit about Noons ADF quals, as I had similar quals when
I was in the Army
> You seem to be familiar with an inordinate amount of personal detail
> related to another Usenet denizen - and remarkably defensive of him.
>
No, not defensive of him, or brett for that matter, but when I see an
obvious trool, I call it :-)
>> and to maintain his clearance he will be regularly and randomly
>> investigated, any hint of paedophilia would have his credentials pulled
>> from under him so fast his feet would still be smoking.
>
> If that was so, yes, but those hints are often hidden as is evidenced by
> the extraordinarily high numbers of officials/MPs and even judges who are
> also vetted. Nothing is discovered until they make a slip-up in another
> area.
>
Keep thinking that :-)
> If he does have a level of security clearance it has little meaning,
> secretaries in public service have such clearance.
>
true to a very small degree.......
> ASIO is the organisation that was used to vet me, back when such things
> had import. That ended in the early eighties when I moved from a military
> to private sector existence. I was not anyone of great note, just had the
> usual clearance associated with rank and area of endeavor. I imagine that
> little has changed in the interim. ASIO was alway good for comedic relief
> but not much else.
>
Well for a start ASIO hasnt done an ADF vett for decades
>> yet another reason why your so full of shit, the swarm of fly's around
>> your head actually register on satellite images.
>
> You thought that up all by yourself? How mature and erudite. You are
> beginning to sound like Noons. That aroma is getting stronger. :)
>
How clueless of you, yet again, can you detect a common thread in your
thinking process here???
> BTW, I was told that one of them had piqued interest, but not told which
> one. Maybe it wasn't Noons, or maybe if he *did* have some degree of
> clearance, that is what interested them. The appalling and immature
> standard of public behaviour of someone who should know better. ;)
>
> BlackShadow
And again I call bullshit, you would have filed a report, the nice officer
at the desk may have organised a statement to be taken, then you would have
been thanked and shown the door, the officer would have then filed the
report and the station Superintendant would have eventualy decided if it
merited further investigation, if it did, it would have landed on someones
desk in a time frame measured in hours, if not days. you would not be
present during any of this. end of story.
And if they did do as you say, now that you have blabbed this all over
Usenet, either of the accused could have this thrown out of any court in
their relative countrys, the officers you made your initial complaint to
would be looking at a career wrecking internal investigation, if not career
ending. and then Noons and Brett could have their briefs hunt you down and
litigate you out of existence. :-)
do you see where your bullshit is heading??
Noons
> subjects, but this being usenet, it is OK to call someone a sea hunt in one
> post and then remmenis over seperate similar expiriences in another, that is
And I'll gladly join you on a poison of your choice
over that! But let's not dwell too much on this:
it might make this fella's head explode...
Atheist Chaplain
==========================================================
Ditto, as long as you don't want to meet me in the park so you can punch my
head in ;-)
I only wish I wasn't in such a hurry when I wrote it as my spelling was
atrocious :-)
my only excuse is they are all deliberate mistakes so he can play spelling
kop again <walks away whistling and looking skyward>
--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
Atheist Chaplain
> Noons wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 7:55 am, BlackShadow <vinc...@rules.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do I detect the faint aroma of performing socks?
>>>
>>> You seem to be familiar with an inordinate amount of personal detail
>>> related to another Usenet denizen - and remarkably defensive of him.
>>
>> Actually, that shows perfectly well you got
>> NO CLUE what you talking about.
>> The Chaplain and I have had quite a few disagreements.
>> Last thing in his mind is socks. But let's not let
>> simple facts get in the way of a good old fashioned,
>> false insinuation and troll, shall we?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ASIO is the organisation that was used to vet me, back when such things
>>> had
>>> import.
>>
>> Who do you think installed the first Oracle database
>> at ASIO? Hint: it was installed in a Compaq 386
>> "luggable" and it was version 4.1.4 for DOS.
>> In 1987.
>>
>
> I know little about ASIO other than the obvious gleaned from a clumsy and
> inefficient vetting system observed by people who they "security vetted".
> I was stationed in Canberra through the latter part of the seventies until
> the early eighties and I heard of lot of gossip and jokes, but little of
> real substance.
A common thread in your posting style as well, next you will be telling us
your were stationed at the "Deakin" building :-)
A Compaq 386 Luggable sounds a little like one of those jokes.
>
> All Oracle databases of that era that I was associated with were on VAX
> systems running Unix. You installed a database for ASIO on a 386 dos based
> system? It must have had impressive capacity and speed. What did they use
> it for? To keep track of their lunch orders?
>
Funny, I don't see any mention of a "Server", just an Oracle DB
> What you are claiming can only reinforce ASIO's status as a cause for
> mirth.
>
> You worked for Prime? I seem to recall that they had the contract for ASIO
> and Immigration. No, you couldn't have worked for them, they wouldn't try
> to use a 386 portable as an Oracle server.
>
>>
>>> little has changed in the interim. ASIO was alway good for comedic
>>> relief
>>> but not much else.
>>
>> I'm glad you have such a great opinion of them.
>
> Oh, I do, and I am glad you're glad. It thrills me to bring you a little
> happiness.
>
>>
>>> You thought that up all by yourself? How mature and erudite. You are
>>> beginning to sound like Noons. That aroma is getting stronger. :)
>>
>> Gawd, another kook...
>
> Kooks object to poor grammar, bad language and an abusive manner? Well,
> what do you know - I must be a kook.
>
Admitting your problems is the first step to getting help, you seem to have
taken that first step, don't stop now, get help!!
>>
>>
>>> BTW, I was told that one of them had piqued interest, but not told which
>>> one. Maybe it wasn't Noons, or maybe if he *did* have some degree of
>>> clearance, that is what interested them. The appalling and immature
>>> standard of public behaviour of someone who should know better. ;)
>>
And anyone with a glimmer of police procedure would know your a lying sack
of shit, or up to your armpits in corrupt or incompetent police.
What's the event number of your complaint, maybe we can assist the police
with their enquiries ??
>> Who cares who "piqued interest"? We all know
>> it was Bret, due to some of the photos he has in his site
>> and his past record of trolling the pedophile sites.
>> So what?
>
> I don't know, they gave no indication but I suspect for reasons that I
> will keep confidential that you are correct.
>
So caught out in a lie and now your claiming confidentiality, how
convenient.
>> And you are the one who "knows better"?
>
> Knows better than who?
>
>> Do you have ANY clue how many morons with
>> your sort of self-righteous attitude I've
>> met and left by the wayside in DECADES of
>> online life?
>
> None?
>
> Did I get it right?
>
I imagine the answer is "NO" but then its not like you have a record here of
being correct on much, and I suppose your used to being wrong.
>>
>> Moron... Wasted enough time with you
>> <plonk>
>
> Plonk?
>
> Doesn't that usually mean I win? Is there some sort of prize?
>
yeah, you get "Idiot of the Week" award, here's your prize, now don't let
the door hit you on the arse on the way out :-)
> BlackShadow