Chat site cat fight: a lesson for many in here
Default User
chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
Fleeced
lol... well, using the chat thing at work is probably enough to sack him
in some companies. But if it was one of my employees, I'd probably have
told the lawyer to get a life. Then again, the article didn't really
explain
what the guy said that was so offensive, so maybe there's more to it.
Still pretty retarded to track someone down and complain because of
a flame war... reminds me of a lot of the trolls and morons on this group
who make similar threats.
Regards,
Fleeced
David Springthorpe
wrote:
>... reminds me of a lot of the trolls and morons on this group
>who make similar threats
"We know where you live....."
TG'sFM
Yes, it all sounds very familiar doesn't it? I assume you are
referring to our friend DAVO. For those who have him killfiled, he's
the moron who deduced that I worked for Woolies, and wrote a letter to
Roger Corbert and Gerry Harvey to complain about me. He then made two
complaints to the police, and his latest claim is that he has employed
the services of not one, but two (2) Barristers - that's right,
Barristers. Not solicitors or lawyers, but Barristers. Why a town
like Maryborough would have ANY barristers when they don't even have a
District or Supreme court is anyones guess, but that's his claim. And
all this is because I referred to his ute as 'rusty'. It really makes
you wonder what sort of life these morons live doesn't it?
Sylvia Else
> "Default User" wrote:
>
>>A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in a web
>>chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>>
>>http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
>>
>
>
> lol... well, using the chat thing at work is probably enough to sack him
> in some companies. But if it was one of my employees, I'd probably have
> told the lawyer to get a life. Then again, the article didn't really
> explain
> what the guy said that was so offensive, so maybe there's more to it.
There is.
It's in aus.sport.motor under the subject "Rally bad news for Oz". Look
for the first posting by Tony Smith.
Google Groups does not contain it all, because some of the postings were
marked no-archive, but it's recent enough not to have been flushed from
news servers.
Sylvia.
universal_striker
> Yes, it all sounds very familiar doesn't it? I assume you are
> referring to our friend DAVO. For those who have him killfiled, he's
> the moron who deduced that I worked for Woolies, and wrote a letter to
> Roger Corbert and Gerry Harvey to complain about me. He then made two
> complaints to the police, and his latest claim is that he has employed
> the services of not one, but two (2) Barristers - that's right,
> Barristers. Not solicitors or lawyers, but Barristers. Why a town
> like Maryborough would have ANY barristers when they don't even have a
> District or Supreme court is anyones guess, but that's his claim. And
> all this is because I referred to his ute as 'rusty'. It really makes
> you wonder what sort of life these morons live doesn't it?
LMFAO.
I love reading your stories. This davo character sounds like a wierdo.
Maryborough is abit like Ipswich i've heard (if you know what I mean).
steam3801
<syl...@not.at.this.address> - in a blinding flash of brilliance -
wrote:
>Fleeced wrote:
>
>> "Default User" wrote:
>>
>>>A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in a web
>>>chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>>>
>>>http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> lol... well, using the chat thing at work is probably enough to sack him
>> in some companies. But if it was one of my employees, I'd probably have
>> told the lawyer to get a life. Then again, the article didn't really
>> explain
>> what the guy said that was so offensive, so maybe there's more to it.
>
>There is.
>
>It's in aus.sport.motor under the subject "Rally bad news for Oz". Look
>for the first posting by Tony Smith.
"Chat room", eh? Once again the media show their total ignorance of
the structure and workings of the internet.
--
steam3801
No bananas kept on these premises overnight
John Howard won't retire because he knows what his government does to old people.
steam3801
blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
Why, oh why, to I smell a TT/ACA story here ....{groan}?
Fleeced
"steam3801" wrote:
>
> "Chat room", eh? Once again the media show their total ignorance of
> the structure and workings of the internet.
Heh... yeah, I was thinking that myself but didn't bother following it
up.... specifically, the article called it a "web chat room"
*sigh*
Fleeced
ralph
wrote:
>
>"Default User" wrote:
>>A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in a web
>>chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>>
>> http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
>>
>
>lol... well, using the chat thing at work is probably enough to sack him
>in some companies. But if it was one of my employees, I'd probably have
>told the lawyer to get a life. Then again, the article didn't really
>explain
>what the guy said that was so offensive, so maybe there's more to it.
>
Moreover, when the employer is Mercedes Benz, and one of their
employees is found out using a company-supplied internet connection to
offend a member of the legal profession (who probably make up at least
half their customer base), you can understand their reaction ;-)
ralph
<tryspam...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:46:18 GMT, Default User <no...@none.com> - in a
>blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>
>>A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in a web
>>chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>>
>>http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
>
>Why, oh why, to I smell a TT/ACA story here ....{groan}?
At least two:
1) Internet stalking/privacy
2) Cat lovers v. Cat haters
:D
ant
Jeezus. I can believe it though. The lawyer is mouthing threats and in my
opinion goading the cat guy. Having a nick of "Kook Wrangler" is pretty
indicative. And then uses aggressive legalese to intimidate any opposition.
The cat guy's employers (Mercedes Benz) should be protecting their employee
from this kind of aggressive "real life" harassment, but instead they side
with the harasser.
I've seen this before. The laywer should not be able to get away with this.
Who will he target next?
--
ant
Don't try to email me;
I'm borrowing the spammer du jour's addy
ant
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:46:18 GMT, Default User <no...@none.com> - in a
> blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>
> > A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in
> > a web chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
> >
> > http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
>
> Why, oh why, to I smell a TT/ACA story here ....{groan}?
Well, someone ought to get onto it, as it's pretty disgusting. What's to
stop this lawyer guy, or anyone who doesn't like what you write, harassing
you in a similar manner?
Darkfalz
Stupid self important bitch with nothing else to do. "You don't share
my opinion so I'm going to ruin your life". What fuckwads people are.
The only way he could have lost his job, as far as I can see, if he was
doing this on the work computer while at work. If he was doing this on
his own time there are no grounds for firing him.
TG'sFM
I've just been over to aus.sports.motor to read the thread involving
the Mercedes salesman. Davo gets a mention over there too. Apparently
he single handedly ruined that group a few years back - similar to how
Matthew Goodyear single handedly ruined Dingo Blue a few years back.
Hope that helps.
Darkfalz
If I draw my sword, it doesn't go back in its scabbard unless it's
tasted blood!
TG'sFM
I'm surprised nobody is blaming Howard's new IR rules for this.
ant
I think this is what happened. Kook Wrangler (smith, the lawyer) looked up
his posting IP.
And reading the group in question (aus.sport.motor), it appears that the
unhappy cat guy is none other than 'the commentator".
Anyone could do this, or something similar, to anyone here, if they were
obsessed and vicious enough. I've seen it before. It needs to be stamped
out.
the_dawg
ant wrote:
> I've seen this before. The laywer should not be able to get away with this.
> Who will he target next?
Errr, ummm - Was Trevor involved? :-p
TG'sFM
LOL. The bit I laughed at was this - "I'm pretty slow to anger and
quite peaceable really.."
He sounds like a 'thin-skin" to me.
Fleeced
"Sylvia Else" erote:
>
> Fleeced wrote:
>>
>> [snip], the article didn't really explain what the guy said that was so
>> offensive, so maybe there's more to it.
>
> There is.
>
> It's in aus.sport.motor under the subject "Rally bad news for Oz". Look
> for the first posting by Tony Smith.
Ah, so it was "thecommentator" who got sacked...
Well, having read the thread, I'd still say it's pretty standard fair for
usenet, and that it seems petty to complain about a flamewar... even
if they are being an abusive tosser.
BUT, I can see why Merc-Benz would have sacked him given that
he seems to post an awful lot of abuse using their resources...
Cheers,
Fleeced
Sylvia Else
However, it was a bit silly of "the commentator" to say "Ok Tony, I'll
call your bluff. Go right ahead. Prove to me, the readers of this NG and
my employer what a petty prick you are. Wow, what a win it will be for
you. (Stands up and applauds)"
It was also rather foolish of him to be posting such stuff via his
employer's system.
Sylvia.
Mot Adv-NSW
"ant" <felix-...@adinet.com.uy> wrote in message
news:4kpp9nF...@individual.net...
> Default User wrote:
>> A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in a
>> web chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>>
>> http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
> Jeezus. I can believe it though. The lawyer is mouthing threats and in my
> opinion goading the cat guy. Having a nick of "Kook Wrangler" is pretty
> indicative. And then uses aggressive legalese to intimidate any
> opposition. The cat guy's employers (Mercedes Benz) should be protecting
> their employee from this kind of aggressive "real life" harassment, but
> instead they side with the harasser.
Hang on Ant - It is NOT the job of an employer to protect *you* from your
own behaviour or actions. Remember, we don't know the whole story here, was
our cat supporter using the Benz Net account during employed work time, or
had he used the account otherwise when not authorised not to do so? Had he
in turn made any threats whilst using that account?
Remember, ANYTHING written in a forum, chatroom, on usenet can be called
into court for action. Example; individuals and websites that permit one to
DOB in other road users, or any person by way of 'identifier' (number plate,
etc), this is an action that can bring both the ISP and the person making
the accusation before the courts. You have a right to know your accuser and
this is appropriate.
Whilst we don't know the full story here, lets just see if this plays
further, 'he said, and he said something else etc'.
> I've seen this before. The laywer should not be able to get away with
this.
> Who will he target next?
Why should he not, IF certain realities were recognised by Smith? As a
lawyer he will take whatever action he likes provided he breaks no law doing
so. If he steps over the mark in law,- action can in turn be taken against
him. That is an IF.
Don't fall for an emotional response in defence of the seemingly ;'weak'.
Now, with references to 'slugs' one would think this is actionable, BUT it
all depends on context and what not. Makes for a great media report, but
really we don't have the full transcript.
Jeremy.
TG'sFM
ralph
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>It was also rather foolish of him to be posting such stuff via his
>employer's system.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.tv/msg/06fad66d58abf6b2?dmode=source&hl=en
Indeed ... it looks like this guy labelled some posters as "child
fuckers" for not liking cats.
I am guessing Mercedes Benz didn't appreciate it's internet connection
being used for that cause ... not entirely unreasonable, as I'm sure
even cat haters buy luxury automobiles ;-)
ant
He didn't understand (as quoted in the Telegraph article) how Kook Wrangler
managed to find him (people really need to understand what X-posting-host
means in their headers). He thought he was anonymous. He certainly wasn't
representing himself as being from Mercedes Benz.
I wonder if Mercedes Benz took the time to look at the situation before
acting? Someone posting as "Kook Wrangler" and talkign about how he goes
after people, and issuing threats right left and centre is not an innocent
party in the abuse given out by Commentator, but a participant and even
agent provocateur.
commentator really needs to investigate avenues open to him... a good lawyer
with a handle on these issues (and htey do exist) would be able to go after
the employer for their action, but more, they should be able to pursue the
lawyer for stalking, damage to livlihood and reputation and god knows what
else.
the government body he checked with took the easy way out. He needs a
rottweiler lawyer who understands the internet, and stalking/harassment
issues.
From what I can see, and I haven't read the entire thing yet, commentator
was being rude to a nickname, not a real identifiable person.
the_dawg
Mot Adv-NSW wrote:
> Remember, ANYTHING written in a forum, chatroom, on usenet can be called
> into court for action. Example; individuals and websites that permit one to
> DOB in other road users, or any person by way of 'identifier' (number plate,
Would have to be fairly specific. I fully disclaim what I say in this
NG as
meaningless total crap that belongs to a bogus company in Timbuktu. I
would still not go about disclosing other folks personal details
though.
Oz
because the Lawyer in question politely asked the OP to stop his abusive
rants, the OP basically told the Lawyer to fuck off, to which the Lawyer
provided easily obtained public domain knowledge of where the posts were
originating from and again politely asked the OP to refrain from being
abusive, another "fuck off" was forthcoming and it seemed to fizzle to an
end there like a wet sparkler, then the OP made some "Kiddie Fiddler"
references to Kook Wrangler, and that's when the shit hit the fan for "the
commentator" and I might add an apology was asked for and received, a fact
that was miss reported by the paper, they implied that the apology was for
being a tosser in the news group.
Maybe the commentator should have used a bit more discretion when he wants
to pick a fight on the internet.
Oz
Sylvia Else
None of the sacked person's personal details were disclosed, and the
information that was posted is a matter of public record anyway.
Sylvia.
the fonz
ant wrote:
>
> I've seen this before. The laywer should not be able to get away with this.
> Who will he target next?
The thing is, the lawyer seems to have been identified as 'Tony Smith'.
There can't be that many Queensland lawyers going by that name, so he's
pretty much outed.
Although he hasn't lost his job, it can't be good for his career or
reputation and I doubt he would have done what he did had he known his
name would also be splashed around the media.
Fleeced
"ant" wrote:
>
> I think this is what happened. Kook Wrangler (smith, the lawyer) looked
> up his posting IP. And reading the group in question (aus.sport.motor),
> it appears that the unhappy cat guy is none other than 'the commentator".
>
> Anyone could do this, or something similar, to anyone here, if they were
> obsessed and vicious enough. I've seen it before. It needs to be stamped
> out.
Yes and no... I think my initial reaction as an employer would have
been, "what's this guy whining about?"
BUT, it seems thecommentator was posting quite a lot using their
resources, which if done during work hours, would have made me
take a closer look. And given that he referred to two posters as
child f***ers, it's not surprising they sacked he guy.
It was pretty stupid really...
Cheers,
Fleeced
Fleeced
"ralph" wrote:
>
> steam3801 wrote:
>>
>>Why, oh why, to I smell a TT/ACA story here ....{groan}?
>
> At least two:
>
> 1) Internet stalking/privacy
> 2) Cat lovers v. Cat haters
3) (Ab)using Internet resources at work
4) Losing job/being sued for comments made on the Internet
5) Internet defamation (the guy sacked had called others child f--kers)
6) Internet addiction (spending work time posting on usenet, etc)
7) Dare I say it... "Internet rage"
Hmmm... this story could set them up for a weeks worth of
stories, at least.
Cheers,
Fleeced
Fleeced
"m泥c泱" wrote:
>
> Stalking is PRECISELY what Smith is guilty of!
He may be a pratt, but how do you figure he was guilty of stalking?
Cheers,
Fleeced
Default User
> Are you aiming this threat at anyone in particular?
>
>
What threat you crackhead? It was just a general interest posting for
fucks fucking sake.
Kelpie
"m泥c泱" <ab...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:qbife25gdp64rujem...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:15:36 +1000, "Fleeced"
> <fle...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"m泥c泱" wrote:
>>>
>>> Stalking is PRECISELY what Smith is guilty of!
>>
>>He may be a pratt, but how do you figure he was guilty of stalking?
>
> into RL and getting the guy sacked?
>
> Yes, the guy was [ab]using his employers internet account (a sackable
> offence in most cases) but it's not up to the lawyer to play "net
> nanny" and take it as far as he did.
>
> These sorts of flamewars are common, and usually die down soon enough.
> Lawyerguy wasn't even involved - he jumped in halfway. He seriously
> needs to get a life.
I think he took acceptation to being called a kiddy fucker. >
>
>
>
>
> ---------------
> Hey spambots! Harvest these:
>
> j...@swiss-invest-ltd.net
> ad...@vettimaniy.info
> postm...@vettimaniy.info
> melinda....@gmail.com
> postm...@conunpardewebs.info
> ad...@conunpardewebs.info
> postm...@spurmforyou.com
> ad...@spurmforyou.com
TG'sFM
mªdcªt wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:15:36 +1000, "Fleeced"
> <fle...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Stalking is PRECISELY what Smith is guilty of!
> >
> >He may be a pratt, but how do you figure he was guilty of stalking?
>
> into RL and getting the guy sacked?
>
> Yes, the guy was [ab]using his employers internet account (a sackable
> offence in most cases) but it's not up to the lawyer to play "net
> nanny" and take it as far as he did.
Actually, the commentator begged the lawyer guy to do it. He said that
he was sick of the lawyer guy 'threatening' to take action but not
following through with the 'threats'. So the lawyer guy acted.
Nothing wrong with that, although the lawyer guy was a bit
'thin-skinned", and allowed a few 'dots on a screen' get under his
skin. So for that, I'll shake my head in his general direction.
TG'sFM
So why the comment "a lesson for many in here"? Again I ask, are you
Fleeced
"mŞdcŞt" wrote:
>
> "Fleeced" wrote:
>>
>>He may be a pratt, but how do you figure he was guilty of stalking?
>
> into RL and getting the guy sacked?
>
> Yes, the guy was [ab]using his employers internet account (a sackable
> offence in most cases) but it's not up to the lawyer to play "net
> nanny" and take it as far as he did.
Yes - but there's a difference between being a loser and stalking.
Complaining about a flamewar and getting a guy sacked is
pretty vindictive... and the fact that he implied he'd done this
sort of thing before makes him something of a douche bag... but
he's far from a stalker.
Cheers,
Fleeced
steam3801
- in a blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>Darkfalz wrote:
>> Default User wrote:
>> > A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in
>> > a web chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>> >
>> > http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
>>
>> Stupid self important bitch with nothing else to do. "You don't share
>> my opinion so I'm going to ruin your life". What fuckwads people are.
>>
>> The only way he could have lost his job, as far as I can see, if he
>> was doing this on the work computer while at work. If he was doing
>> this on his own time there are no grounds for firing him.
>
>I think this is what happened. Kook Wrangler (smith, the lawyer) looked up
>his posting IP.
Yeh, and the IP lookup shows he was using Merceds-Benz server to
connect - a record in the public domain..
>And reading the group in question (aus.sport.motor), it appears that the
>unhappy cat guy is none other than 'the commentator".
Had to laugh at that - a frequent habitué of my killfile list.
>Anyone could do this, or something similar, to anyone here, if they were
>obsessed and vicious enough. I've seen it before. It needs to be stamped
>out.
--
steam3801
No bananas kept on these premises overnight
John Howard won't retire because he knows what his government does to old people.
steam3801
a blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>
>"mŞdcŞt" wrote:
>>
>> Stalking is PRECISELY what Smith is guilty of!
>
>He may be a pratt, but how do you figure he was guilty of stalking?
Read the post in that newsgroup. Kooky used thecommentator's usenet
posting to trace information in the public domain, and published
details of thecommenator's IP, internet connection, domain details,
etc.
Then when contacted by The Daily Terrorgraph, he (Kooky) threatened
then with Qld stalking laws if they tried the same same method to
track him down through his usenet postings!!
Oz
"steam3801" <tryspam...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:t3mfe2pu17fqgfds1...@4ax.com...
what a load of shit
the Lawyer in question even posted details about how to contact him in the
thread, if the Telegraph's Journalist (and I use this term loosely) had
bothered to read the whole thread (if your reading this, I have it all
archived on my computer) he would know this.
another case of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
Oz
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> So why the comment "a lesson for many in here"? Again I ask, are you
> aiming this threat at anyone in particular?
Given the parallels, Darkfalz and Kelpie, presumably.
TG'sFM
I'm assuming that your presumption is correct.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> "mªdcªt" <ab...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> > These sorts of flamewars are common, and usually die down soon enough.
> > Lawyerguy wasn't even involved - he jumped in halfway. He seriously
> > needs to get a life.
>
> I think he took acceptation to being called a kiddy fucker.
Whereas I take exception to your careless spellign.
Wolfgang Wildeblood
Although, You and I really should have done more to track down and
punish the "Dave -Turner" troll, given the amount of disruption he
caused this ng with his ill-conceived attempt to prove we were the same
person. Anyone who is willing to cause that much inconvenience for
thousands of other Usenet users, just to indulge his/her own personal
paranoic fantasy, really needs to be made an example of. Perhaps we
should consult this Tony Smith / Kook Wrangler fellow?
TG'sFM
David Turner has already been taken care of. As from 8pm tonight that
is. Hope that helps.
Simon K
news:KELFg.14608$rP1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in a web
>chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
If in real life he's anything like his internet persona, they would probably
have sacked him eventually anyways. Other people were probably working while
he sat on his butt getting paid to surf newsgroups.
Wayne
> A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in a web
> chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>
> http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
>
>
If it is who I think it is, he is not a lawyer, but a legal secretary.
That's if I have the right person - there are a few Tony Smiths about in
the legal circles.
steam3801
Uh duh! Of course. That's the whole point of the stupidity of the
Daily Terrorgraph's story.
Sylvia Else
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:15:36 +1000, "Fleeced" <fle...@mail.com> - in
> a blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>
>
>>"m泥c泱" wrote:
>>
>>>Stalking is PRECISELY what Smith is guilty of!
>>
>>He may be a pratt, but how do you figure he was guilty of stalking?
>
>
> Read the post in that newsgroup. Kooky used thecommentator's usenet
> posting to trace information in the public domain, and published
> details of thecommenator's IP, internet connection, domain details,
> etc.
>
> Then when contacted by The Daily Terrorgraph, he (Kooky) threatened
> then with Qld stalking laws if they tried the same same method to
> track him down through his usenet postings!!
Probably a test to find out how little the reporter knew about QLD law,
because section 359D of the QLD Criminal Code expressly excludes from
being stalking "reasonable conduct engaged in by a person for the
person's lawful trade, business or occupation."
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Does the Tony Smith you're thinking of live in Cairns?
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:46:18 GMT, Default User <no...@none.com> - in a
> blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>
>
>>A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in a web
>>chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>>
>>http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
>
>
> Why, oh why, to I smell a TT/ACA story here ....{groan}?
Look on the bright side - after the TT/ACA stories, we'll get a Chaser's
War story.
Sylvia.
Default User
Max Hart
whatever & a few of their cyber heavy mates I told them all to make my
lunch, provided them with all my contact details & they backed down as
predicted.
There's just some kind of piss weak thing about cyber heavies.
Muttley has been stalking people on this site for years but his rave
about being an boxer seems in reality to be that he's been punched in
the ring frequently, but seems to think this qualifies him as a boxer.
shorebreak
Does anyone know if this Tony Smith the same Tony Smith that the Septic
was always arguing with?
Obviously Tony Smith is not an uncommon name so the potential for
confusion is quite large.
Wayne
I do not know for certain the location. One that springs to mind
immediately works for one of the Govt departments here in Qld.
Wayne
> After getting all kinds of threats from Mosely, his mate TJ or PJ or
> whatever & a few of their cyber heavy mates I told them all to make my
> lunch, provided them with all my contact details & they backed down as
> predicted.
>
> There's just some kind of piss weak thing about cyber heavies.
>
> Muttley has been stalking people on this site for years but his rave
> about being an boxer seems in reality to be that he's been punched in
> the ring frequently, but seems to think this qualifies him as a boxer.
Quite a number of people read and write - this does not make them
intelligent.
BTW, that is not a dig at you, just a commentary.
TG'sFM
He posted his po box address, so it should be easy to figure out if
he's your guy or not.
TG'sFM
What evidence do you have that I'm on crack? And please answer the
original question. Who was your threat aimed at?
TG'sFM
Does this guy we're talking about live in Cairns. The postcode is for
the Cairns area, but the fax number is a Brisbane number. It is a MCI
Worldcom number, so presumably it's an Engin (or similar) number, so it
could be anywhere in Australia.
Darkfalz
Well I'm still waiting for the cops to appear at my door courtesy of
the local chapter of the jewish hate league, but nothing yet. Fucking
jews!
catperson
Tony Smith, Cairns lawyer, is a notorious cyber bully and internet
stalker with a foul mouth and, according to one of the legal forums he
makes himself a nuisance on, strange connections and a partner who
dwells on the cusp of the underworld. Strange that he threatened this
Dave Mercedes salesman fellow, because Smith is guilty of truly foul
behaviour on the net. How hilarious that he threatened the Tele
reporter with stalking legislation!!!
Hopefully sensible people will contact mercedes benz and suggest that
counselling would have been a better response to the abuse of chat
forums at work.
Cat
ant
> "mŞdcŞt" wrote:
> >
> > Stalking is PRECISELY what Smith is guilty of!
>
> He may be a pratt, but how do you figure he was guilty of stalking?
Going after someone offline, for a quarrel online, finding out details about
their lives, and acting on that information to cause them harm and distress.
--
ant
Don't try to email me;
I'm borrowing the spammer du jour's addy
Kelpie
"ant" <felix-...@adinet.com.uy> wrote in message
news:4kqsguF...@individual.net...
> Fleeced wrote:
>> "mŞdcŞt" wrote:
>> >
>> > Stalking is PRECISELY what Smith is guilty of!
>>
>> He may be a pratt, but how do you figure he was guilty of stalking?
>
> Going after someone offline, for a quarrel online, finding out details
> about their lives, and acting on that information to cause them harm and
> distress.
Don't forget ant, he was called a paedophile.
Brendan Pratt
> BUT, it seems thecommentator was posting quite a lot using their
> resources, which if done during work hours, would have made me
> take a closer look. And given that he referred to two posters as
> child f***ers, it's not surprising they sacked he guy.
>
> It was pretty stupid really...
I think this is really the reason why he was sacked... using work's
computers for private and unauthorised purposes, and considering the
"offensive language" being used, I can't see anything else M-B could do
on it... however IANAL. :)
Dr Down
And he was only there a month
Would you keep anyone on that brought this upon your company in the
first month they were there plus using company time to post threats to
people
Maybe he could get a job working for Mitsubishi htreatening people to
buy th 380 and if they didn't call them kiddy fiddlers
the fonz
ralph wrote:
> Moreover, when the employer is Mercedes Benz, and one of their
> employees is found out using a company-supplied internet connection to
> offend a member of the legal profession (who probably make up at least
> half their customer base), you can understand their reaction ;-)
MB portray themselves as a silk suit wearing top-of-the-rung for
winners only brand. They don't want some guy calling others pedophiles
using the company net account. It's bad for business. They wouldn't
give a shit who was right or wrong in the debate.
catperson
>
> Don't forget ant, he was called a paedophile.
> >
> >
> > --
> > a
paedophile - don't. Here's a typical Tony Smith post (this is one of
the few among dozens on several legal forums I could find that is
postable). He is quite happy to defame all and sundry. Remember, this
is a professional lawyer - not a car salesman, posting here. He is
actually required by his profession to adhere to certain standards.
Cat
From: The K00k Wrangler - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 12:47 pm
Not yet rated
"Toaster Boi falls into a very special, yet at the same time, sad group
of
people.
You see, he was smart enough to get entry to a University, but not
smart
enough to stay there. Hence the resentment he has harboured all his
life,
he just knows there is a better life out there, just not good enough to
make it happen.
His sad decline at Uni apparently finished up with him either offering
or
actually providing oral sex to a tutor in exchange for a pass mark.
According to the original poster on the topic, who made some claims
about
being at Uni at the same time as toaster-boi, he was caught in the act,
and that after the offending organ belonging to the staff member was
removed from his mouth, he was given a brief opportunity to offer a
defence, following which he was "sent down", sacked, dismissed, given
the
spear etc. "
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> Tony Smith, Cairns lawyer, is a notorious cyber bully and internet
> stalker with a foul mouth and, according to one of the legal forums he
> makes himself a nuisance on, strange connections and a partner who
> dwells on the cusp of the underworld.
He's shagging Naomi Robson?
google...@sensation.net.au
> A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in a web
> chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>
> http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
It's been removed. Does anyone have the text and the balls to post it?
Sylvia Else
It's only been moved. Follow the link from "Chat site cat fight" on
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sunday
Sylvia.
Orator
> Fleeced wrote:
>
>>"Default User" wrote:
>>
>>>A SYDNEY man lost his job after an argument about domestic cats in a web
>>>chat room drew a vicious response from an incensed lawyer.
>>>
>>>http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,20184908-5006002,00.html
>>>
>>
>>lol... well, using the chat thing at work is probably enough to sack him
>>in some companies. But if it was one of my employees, I'd probably have
>>told the lawyer to get a life. Then again, the article didn't really
>>explain
>>what the guy said that was so offensive, so maybe there's more to it.
>>
>>Still pretty retarded to track someone down and complain because of
>>a flame war... reminds me of a lot of the trolls and morons on this group
>>who make similar threats.
>
>
> Yes, it all sounds very familiar doesn't it? I assume you are
> referring to our friend DAVO. For those who have him killfiled, he's
> the moron who deduced that I worked for Woolies, and wrote a letter to
> Roger Corbert and Gerry Harvey to complain about me. He then made two
> complaints to the police, and his latest claim is that he has employed
> the services of not one, but two (2) Barristers - that's right,
> Barristers. Not solicitors or lawyers, but Barristers. Why a town
> like Maryborough would have ANY barristers when they don't even have a
> District or Supreme court is anyones guess, but that's his claim. And
> all this is because I referred to his ute as 'rusty'.
Well you stuffed up, didn't you. You should have called it "feral", the
proper term for a rusty ute.
> It really makes
> you wonder what sort of life these morons live doesn't it?
Cackling Pipes
Orator wrote:
"if I decide to draw my sword, it doesn't go back in the scabbard until
it has tasted blood"
I had flash to Comic Book Guy
Dave is a good guy, Tony Smith on the other hand...
Phil Alison
"catperson" <bells...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156062521.7...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
TG'sFM
Phil Alison wrote:
> * He's no lawyer do a search on google groups.
Er newbie, he's a barrister, not a solicitor. That's why he doesn't
appear on the Qld Law Society register. He's a rather well known ex-
member of parliament, and has a history for this sort of thing. I'm
surprised though that he is now denying it was him.
Dr Down
I got a website saying you are a wanker
Orator
You have the wrong guy! This one is in Cairns and his details can be
found plastered all over usenet groups when one does as suggested.
Orator
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:02:35 +1000, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>>It was also rather foolish of him to be posting such stuff via his
>>employer's system.
>>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.tv/msg/06fad66d58abf6b2?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> Indeed ... it looks like this guy labelled some posters as "child
> fuckers" for not liking cats.
Wouldn't that refer to an immature "mother fucker"?
> I am guessing Mercedes Benz didn't appreciate it's internet connection
> being used for that cause ... not entirely unreasonable, as I'm sure
> even cat haters buy luxury automobiles ;-)
Fair enough if the bosses equipment is being abused, they can be sacked.
On the other hand what sort of an un-Australian arsehole goes and dobs
in someone to their boss, whining about getting some abuse?