PING Richard B, here is The Secret
richard b
I don't give a damn if they are allegedly owners and operators of news
servers or ISP's.
Nobody has any more rights here than you or I.
What they do just may be a legal issue for the courts to decide upon.
As it may fall under the category of "Wired and electronic communications"
law.
Plus the fact that it may also fall under the consitution's first amendments
guarantee of freedom of speech.
You are definitely my friend in any way. Or have you forgotten how many
times you have personally attacked me? Including a threat to harm me
personally via e-mail?
Which I still have a copy of.
The only side your on is yours.
I will continue posting to any group I desire. That is my right as much as
it is yours.
If you don't like what I have to say, tough shit.
Have a nice day jerk.
By the way, I am moving tomorrow. Come on up and watch the show lame brain.
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
news:1999050300...@mail.replay.com...
: Dear Richard B,
:
: I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you unbiased, with
The
: Secret to making this go away.
:
: Drop it, man. Just drop it. Just go away, quit visiting the group, and
all
: these threats and problems you're having will disappear.
:
: See, this group is made up of an interesting demographic.
:
: About half the people here are ISP or news admins. aka people you don't
want
: to fuck with if you enjoy your peace, privacy, sanity, net connection, and
: ego. Whether or not you agree with what these people say and do is moot.
It
: just plain doesn't matter. They will eat you up and spit you out again
and
: again.
:
: And the other half are kooks and trolls. aka people who like to cause
trouble
: just for the hell of it, and who will go out of their way to piss you off.
: They have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon. A new one will come by,
see
: everyone else dissing the guy called Richard B, and they'll start doing it
: too. You are obviously falling victim as you appear to be quite
flustered.
:
: In most groups, you have two factions. The Good and The Bad. You'll post
: something, and The Bad will call it off topic and unwanted and threaten to
: fuck your mom if you don't go away. Then The Good will come to your
defence
: and tell The Bad that your post was on topic and that they should go fuck
: themselves. After a week or so of all this, back and forth, everyone will
: forget about it and things will go on as usual.
:
: This group is different. See, when The Bad doesn't like you, neither does
: The Good. When you piss this group off, no one will come to your defence.
: And you can be damn sure that no one will forget about it, especially when
: you're still here alive and kicking (fresh meat mmmmmm).
:
: I used to think you were a troll. I've changed my mind because you don't
fit
: the troll profile. Trolls LIKE to cause trouble, they do it on purpose.
But
: post after post, it appears you aren't TRYING to be dense, outrageous,
: egregious, libelous, or offensive. You aren't TRYING to stir anything up.
: That's just the way you are.
:
: I will say one thing, from a completely unbiased standpoint. If you
continue
: to post here, people will continue to ridicule you. Forever. The more
you
: try to defend yourself, the deeper you're going to dig your own hole. You
: post under an alias, deny that it was you, then later in a fit of blind
rage
: you accidentally admit it was you. Then someone calls you on it, and you
: deny it again. Sure, there are lots of people using PSI in Cincy. But
they
: don't all use the exact same release of Microsoft Outlook Express to read
and
: post news, man.
:
: They have already won, and you lost the moment you made your first post to
: this group. That's just the way it is. You have no grounds to sue anyone
in
: this group. Several others do potentially have grounds to sue you. You
: should be thankful that these people, one in particular, have chosen to
: ignore your libel instead of take you to court.
:
: Why have no cops shown up at your door? Because nobody is trying to get
you
: busted for anything. Nobody wants you in jail, because then you wouldn't
be
: any fun to play with. They're FUCKING WITH YOUR HEAD, dude. They're
calling
: you names to get a rise out of you. Guess what? It's working, and as
long
: as they keep getting a rise out of you, they're going to keep doing it.
: Forever.
:
: Do you want people to quit making fun of you here? Quit posting here.
: That's the only way it's ever going to happen. See, when you keep posting
: and blabbering, the topic NEVER dies. People will NEVER run out of fresh
new
: material to criticize you with. People will NEVER leave you alone.
Unless
: you just go away and let them focus on the next luser to stumble on in.
:
: Remember, I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you
unbiased,
: with The Secret to making this go away. If you wish to regain your peace,
I
: hope that you heed my words and partake of The Secret.
:
: Your Friend,
:
: Lurker
:
Joshua Kramer
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> About half the people here are ISP or news admins. aka people you don't want
> to fuck with if you enjoy your peace, privacy, sanity, net connection, and
> ego. Whether or not you agree with what these people say and do is moot. It
> just plain doesn't matter. They will eat you up and spit you out again and
> again.
>
> And the other half are kooks and trolls. aka people who like to cause trouble
> just for the hell of it, and who will go out of their way to piss you off.
> They have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon. A new one will come by, see
> everyone else dissing the guy called Richard B, and they'll start doing it
> too. You are obviously falling victim as you appear to be quite flustered.
What about people who are/were both?
> This group is different. See, when The Bad doesn't like you, neither does
> The Good. When you piss this group off, no one will come to your defence.
> And you can be damn sure that no one will forget about it, especially when
> you're still here alive and kicking (fresh meat mmmmmm).
FWIW I've been emailing providers of his that he has not abused from and
have informed him that the complaints they have gotten are content oriented
instead of abuse oriented. People who complain about Dick just because they
don't like him suck. Everyone who calls someone else a pedophile is kook
kabal, period. More that a fuckhead - a complete fuckhead. That's why
I'm not responding to them - anyone who responds to a complete fuckhead
is a complete fuckhead. Of course, I'm already a complete fuckhead, so that's
not relevent.
(FWIW - Dick appears to be underage, and is thus expected to be a pedophile -
I was intrested in 17 yearo-lds when I was 17. Hardly abnormal.)
> I used to think you were a troll. I've changed my mind because you don't fit
> the troll profile. Trolls LIKE to cause trouble, they do it on purpose.
We try :)
> They have already won, and you lost the moment you made your first post to
> this group. That's just the way it is. You have no grounds to sue anyone in
> this group. Several others do potentially have grounds to sue you. You
> should be thankful that these people, one in particular, have chosen to
> ignore your libel instead of take you to court.
Anyone who sues anyone over anything having to do with the internet that
didn't actually cause them to lose real physical money (IE - Libel,
Slander, Deformation of character) is a fuckhead. Anyone who makes threats
about such is a fuckhead for a limited time. He's a fuckhead, and the
oxfordsystem guy is a fuckhead. One fuckhead is just fun.
> Why have no cops shown up at your door? Because nobody is trying to get you
> busted for anything.
Problem - the new-breed-of-censor is. They don't like the content he's posted
so they are DeSotoing him.
> Remember, I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you unbiased,
> with The Secret to making this go away. If you wish to regain your peace, I
> hope that you heed my words and partake of The Secret.
The other secret? Roll with the punches. When someone tells you that they
have notified your ISP and you will die a screaming death - repeat what
they told you to stop (as long as it's not against the law or abuse of the
net - forging domain names is possibly both, certainly one) and LAUGH. Ask
Phildo about his proofreading fee. Still waiting on that collection
agency, Fuckhead (*snicker*).
--
Joshua B. Kramer, weaver of turds joshk...@iname.com
Knight of the Ancient Garter of Romath (WE ARE ALL ROMATH)
Don't try making me look like the fol, because you'll never succeed.
-Romath in <37276af5...@news.vianet.on.ca>
Joshua Kramer
<ki...@your.ass> wrote:
> Do I give a shit about their so called power?
No. That's your perogative.
> I don't give a damn if they are allegedly owners and operators of news
> servers or ISP's.
They (we) are. The people who count don't care about anything you've
done but the misplaced binaries and the domain name forgery.
> Nobody has any more rights here than you or I.
I've argued before, and I will again, that you earn extra usenet rights
by having a clue.
> What they do just may be a legal issue for the courts to decide upon.
Discussing lawsuits that involve you on usenet that have not been filed
makes you a fuckhead. Sorry.
> As it may fall under the category of "Wired and electronic communications"
> law.
You are looking fuckheadish.
> Plus the fact that it may also fall under the consitution's first amendments
> guarantee of freedom of speech.
And kooky. Stop. Just stop talking about the law. It's not going
to do anything here.
> You are definitely my friend in any way. Or have you forgotten how many
> times you have personally attacked me? Including a threat to harm me
> personally via e-mail?
nob...@replay.com is an email address of an anonymous remailer. Anyone can
post from it.
> Which I still have a copy of.
> The only side your on is yours.
It's not the same person.
> I will continue posting to any group I desire. That is my right as much as
> it is yours.
As long as it's not spam, not spew, not forged, not forged approval, and the
binaries are in the right place, yes.
> If you don't like what I have to say, tough shit.
Bravo.
> Have a nice day jerk.
He's a good person. I'm trying to be the same. Take our hint - you want to
talk about domain forgery - go ahead. However, if you want credibility you
*HAVE* to stop it with the fake lawsuits.
> By the way, I am moving tomorrow. Come on up and watch the show lame brain.
Whatever. People who count are not stalking you.
> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote
<stuff snipped>
Emperor JB
from the one that attacked you. I also believe that he was genuinely
trying to help you. If you want to stay here and get chewed up and
spit out it's your decision.
In article <7girv5$7g2$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, richard b
<ki...@your.ass> wrote:
> Do I give a shit about their so called power?
> I don't give a damn if they are allegedly owners and operators of news
> servers or ISP's.
> Nobody has any more rights here than you or I.
> What they do just may be a legal issue for the courts to decide upon.
> As it may fall under the category of "Wired and electronic communications"
> law.
> Plus the fact that it may also fall under the consitution's first amendments
> guarantee of freedom of speech.
> You are definitely my friend in any way. Or have you forgotten how many
> times you have personally attacked me? Including a threat to harm me
> personally via e-mail?
> Which I still have a copy of.
> The only side your on is yours.
> I will continue posting to any group I desire. That is my right as much as
> it is yours.
> If you don't like what I have to say, tough shit.
>
> Have a nice day jerk.
> By the way, I am moving tomorrow. Come on up and watch the show lame brain.
>
>
>
>
>
> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
> news:1999050300...@mail.replay.com...
> : Dear Richard B,
> :
> : I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you unbiased, with
> The
> : Secret to making this go away.
> :
> : Drop it, man. Just drop it. Just go away, quit visiting the group, and
> all
> : these threats and problems you're having will disappear.
> :
> : See, this group is made up of an interesting demographic.
> :
> : About half the people here are ISP or news admins. aka people you don't
> want
> : to fuck with if you enjoy your peace, privacy, sanity, net connection, and
> : ego. Whether or not you agree with what these people say and do is moot.
> It
> : just plain doesn't matter. They will eat you up and spit you out again
> and
> : again.
> :
> : And the other half are kooks and trolls. aka people who like to cause
> trouble
> : just for the hell of it, and who will go out of their way to piss you off.
> : They have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon. A new one will come by,
> see
> : everyone else dissing the guy called Richard B, and they'll start doing it
> : too. You are obviously falling victim as you appear to be quite
> flustered.
> :
> : In most groups, you have two factions. The Good and The Bad. You'll post
> : something, and The Bad will call it off topic and unwanted and threaten to
> : fuck your mom if you don't go away. Then The Good will come to your
> defence
> : and tell The Bad that your post was on topic and that they should go fuck
> : themselves. After a week or so of all this, back and forth, everyone will
> : forget about it and things will go on as usual.
> :
> : This group is different. See, when The Bad doesn't like you, neither does
> : The Good. When you piss this group off, no one will come to your defence.
> : And you can be damn sure that no one will forget about it, especially when
> : you're still here alive and kicking (fresh meat mmmmmm).
> :
> : I used to think you were a troll. I've changed my mind because you don't
> fit
> : the troll profile. Trolls LIKE to cause trouble, they do it on purpose.
> But
> : post after post, it appears you aren't TRYING to be dense, outrageous,
> : egregious, libelous, or offensive. You aren't TRYING to stir anything up.
> : That's just the way you are.
> :
> : I will say one thing, from a completely unbiased standpoint. If you
> continue
> : to post here, people will continue to ridicule you. Forever. The more
> you
> : try to defend yourself, the deeper you're going to dig your own hole. You
> : post under an alias, deny that it was you, then later in a fit of blind
> rage
> : you accidentally admit it was you. Then someone calls you on it, and you
> : deny it again. Sure, there are lots of people using PSI in Cincy. But
> they
> : don't all use the exact same release of Microsoft Outlook Express to read
> and
> : post news, man.
> :
> : They have already won, and you lost the moment you made your first post to
> : this group. That's just the way it is. You have no grounds to sue anyone
> in
> : this group. Several others do potentially have grounds to sue you. You
> : should be thankful that these people, one in particular, have chosen to
> : ignore your libel instead of take you to court.
> :
> : Why have no cops shown up at your door? Because nobody is trying to get
> you
> : busted for anything. Nobody wants you in jail, because then you wouldn't
> be
> : any fun to play with. They're FUCKING WITH YOUR HEAD, dude. They're
> calling
> : you names to get a rise out of you. Guess what? It's working, and as
> long
> : as they keep getting a rise out of you, they're going to keep doing it.
> : Forever.
> :
> : Do you want people to quit making fun of you here? Quit posting here.
> : That's the only way it's ever going to happen. See, when you keep posting
> : and blabbering, the topic NEVER dies. People will NEVER run out of fresh
> new
> : material to criticize you with. People will NEVER leave you alone.
> Unless
> : you just go away and let them focus on the next luser to stumble on in.
> :
> : Remember, I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you
> unbiased,
> : with The Secret to making this go away. If you wish to regain your peace,
> I
> : hope that you heed my words and partake of The Secret.
> :
> : Your Friend,
> :
> : Lurker
> :
--
His Imperial Majesty
Emperor JB of the Empire of New Scotland.
Imperial Web site: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2860/
alt.romath Gentleman's Club # 13
"Nobody cares... everybody is really good at pretending to care, but at their
very core, the selfish child reigns supreme."
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds, along with
the good, and let me be judged accordingly. The rest... is silence."
Internet newsgroup posting. Imperial © 1999. All rights reserved.
richard b
Having read both your replies I am impressed.
Let me clue you in on something about me I don't rarely discuss on the net.
The FBI already knows about me extensively.
When I enlisted into the US Army in 1970, I enlisted for ASA.
If you don't know what it is, your better off not knowing.
Which is one reason I keep my nose clean.
As a truck driver, I got other loads other drivers did not simply because I
was in the service.
So if they want me that bad, they can easily find me.
I have nothing to hide from them.
Being talked about I can handle.
I've been on the usenet for over a year and haven't been scared off yet.
Many have tried. Many have failed and given up.
As has oxfart.
Innocent until proven guilty.
That's the way the laws work.
Being in power and control don't necessarily give you any more rights than
the next person.
This so called forged addy thing is a farce and a half.
Internic will take your money to register any common word in the world just
the same.
Making an addy public knowledge is not a criminal act nor is it against
usenet policy.
n...@house.com
n...@home.com
n...@me.com
n...@prodigy.com
n...@cybernex.net
n...@anywhere.com
Now what are you gonna do about me displaying these possible forged addy's
turkeys?
I haven't used them. It's the sender who gets his ass into trouble with the
law.
Joshua Kramer <joshk...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:joshkramer-02...@d160.roberts.swarthmore.edu...
: In article <1999050300...@mail.replay.com>, Anonymous
: <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
:
:
: > About half the people here are ISP or news admins. aka people you don't
want
: > to fuck with if you enjoy your peace, privacy, sanity, net connection,
and
: > ego. Whether or not you agree with what these people say and do is
moot. It
: > just plain doesn't matter. They will eat you up and spit you out again
and
: > again.
: >
: > And the other half are kooks and trolls. aka people who like to cause
trouble
: > just for the hell of it, and who will go out of their way to piss you
off.
: > They have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon. A new one will come by,
see
: > everyone else dissing the guy called Richard B, and they'll start doing
it
: > too. You are obviously falling victim as you appear to be quite
flustered.
:
: What about people who are/were both?
:
: > This group is different. See, when The Bad doesn't like you, neither
does
: > The Good. When you piss this group off, no one will come to your
defence.
: > And you can be damn sure that no one will forget about it, especially
when
: > you're still here alive and kicking (fresh meat mmmmmm).
:
: FWIW I've been emailing providers of his that he has not abused from and
: have informed him that the complaints they have gotten are content
oriented
: instead of abuse oriented. People who complain about Dick just because
they
: don't like him suck. Everyone who calls someone else a pedophile is kook
: kabal, period. More that a fuckhead - a complete fuckhead. That's why
: I'm not responding to them - anyone who responds to a complete fuckhead
: is a complete fuckhead. Of course, I'm already a complete fuckhead, so
that's
: not relevent.
:
: (FWIW - Dick appears to be underage, and is thus expected to be a
pedophile -
: I was intrested in 17 yearo-lds when I was 17. Hardly abnormal.)
:
: > I used to think you were a troll. I've changed my mind because you
don't fit
: > the troll profile. Trolls LIKE to cause trouble, they do it on purpose.
:
: We try :)
:
: > They have already won, and you lost the moment you made your first post
to
: > this group. That's just the way it is. You have no grounds to sue
anyone in
: > this group. Several others do potentially have grounds to sue you. You
: > should be thankful that these people, one in particular, have chosen to
: > ignore your libel instead of take you to court.
:
: Anyone who sues anyone over anything having to do with the internet that
: didn't actually cause them to lose real physical money (IE - Libel,
: Slander, Deformation of character) is a fuckhead. Anyone who makes threats
: about such is a fuckhead for a limited time. He's a fuckhead, and the
: oxfordsystem guy is a fuckhead. One fuckhead is just fun.
:
: > Why have no cops shown up at your door? Because nobody is trying to get
you
: > busted for anything.
:
: Problem - the new-breed-of-censor is. They don't like the content he's
posted
: so they are DeSotoing him.
:
: > Remember, I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you
unbiased,
: > with The Secret to making this go away. If you wish to regain your
peace, I
: > hope that you heed my words and partake of The Secret.
:
: The other secret? Roll with the punches. When someone tells you that they
: have notified your ISP and you will die a screaming death - repeat what
: they told you to stop (as long as it's not against the law or abuse of the
: net - forging domain names is possibly both, certainly one) and LAUGH. Ask
: Phildo about his proofreading fee. Still waiting on that collection
: agency, Fuckhead (*snicker*).
:
: --
Joshua Kramer
<ki...@your.ass> wrote:
> I must say Josh, you are one most interesting person.
Thank you, I hope.
> Having read both your replies I am impressed.
I try.
> Let me clue you in on something about me I don't rarely discuss on the net.
What?
> The FBI already knows about me extensively.
Ok.
> When I enlisted into the US Army in 1970, I enlisted for ASA.
> If you don't know what it is, your better off not knowing.
> Which is one reason I keep my nose clean.
Whatever. Is this relevent? No.
> As a truck driver, I got other loads other drivers did not simply because I
> was in the service.
> So if they want me that bad, they can easily find me.
Perhaps I was not clear - *I* *Don't* *Care* *Stop* *Talking* *About* *It*
> I have nothing to hide from them.
> Being talked about I can handle.
> I've been on the usenet for over a year and haven't been scared off yet.
> Many have tried. Many have failed and given up.
> As has oxfart.
>
> Innocent until proven guilty.
> That's the way the laws work.
This is not a court.
> Being in power and control don't necessarily give you any more rights than
> the next person.
> This so called forged addy thing is a farce and a half.
No, it's not. You are adding to the load on their servers, and if they ask
you to stop, you should.
> Internic will take your money to register any common word in the world just
> the same.
I'm not discussing *LEGALITIES* - I'm discussing the internet rules of the
road - you are driving the wrong way.
> Making an addy public knowledge is not a criminal act nor is it against
> usenet policy.
No, thats absolutly your right. Look at my headers - Do you think I own
rom...@bigfoot.com? No.
> n...@house.com
> n...@home.com
> n...@me.com
> n...@prodigy.com
> n...@cybernex.net
> n...@anywhere.com
>
> Now what are you gonna do about me displaying these possible forged addy's
> turkeys?
I don't care. As long as you don't put em in the from, sender or reply-to line.
> I haven't used them. It's the sender who gets his ass into trouble with the
> law.
I don't care about the law. Everyone who mentions the law is a fuckhead. Do
you want to be a fuckhead? No? Stop mentioning the law. Focus on the
net-issue - those people don't want to deal with the email you send at them
by forging legit emails - the bounces and the like. Please don't forge
legit emails because it costs them time and money. Thank you.
Anonymous
I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you unbiased, with The
Secret to making this go away.
Drop it, man. Just drop it. Just go away, quit visiting the group, and all
these threats and problems you're having will disappear.
See, this group is made up of an interesting demographic.
About half the people here are ISP or news admins. aka people you don't want
to fuck with if you enjoy your peace, privacy, sanity, net connection, and
ego. Whether or not you agree with what these people say and do is moot. It
just plain doesn't matter. They will eat you up and spit you out again and
again.
And the other half are kooks and trolls. aka people who like to cause trouble
just for the hell of it, and who will go out of their way to piss you off.
They have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon. A new one will come by, see
everyone else dissing the guy called Richard B, and they'll start doing it
too. You are obviously falling victim as you appear to be quite flustered.
In most groups, you have two factions. The Good and The Bad. You'll post
something, and The Bad will call it off topic and unwanted and threaten to
fuck your mom if you don't go away. Then The Good will come to your defence
and tell The Bad that your post was on topic and that they should go fuck
themselves. After a week or so of all this, back and forth, everyone will
forget about it and things will go on as usual.
This group is different. See, when The Bad doesn't like you, neither does
The Good. When you piss this group off, no one will come to your defence.
And you can be damn sure that no one will forget about it, especially when
you're still here alive and kicking (fresh meat mmmmmm).
I used to think you were a troll. I've changed my mind because you don't fit
the troll profile. Trolls LIKE to cause trouble, they do it on purpose. But
post after post, it appears you aren't TRYING to be dense, outrageous,
egregious, libelous, or offensive. You aren't TRYING to stir anything up.
That's just the way you are.
I will say one thing, from a completely unbiased standpoint. If you continue
to post here, people will continue to ridicule you. Forever. The more you
try to defend yourself, the deeper you're going to dig your own hole. You
post under an alias, deny that it was you, then later in a fit of blind rage
you accidentally admit it was you. Then someone calls you on it, and you
deny it again. Sure, there are lots of people using PSI in Cincy. But they
don't all use the exact same release of Microsoft Outlook Express to read and
post news, man.
They have already won, and you lost the moment you made your first post to
this group. That's just the way it is. You have no grounds to sue anyone in
this group. Several others do potentially have grounds to sue you. You
should be thankful that these people, one in particular, have chosen to
ignore your libel instead of take you to court.
Why have no cops shown up at your door? Because nobody is trying to get you
busted for anything. Nobody wants you in jail, because then you wouldn't be
any fun to play with. They're FUCKING WITH YOUR HEAD, dude. They're calling
you names to get a rise out of you. Guess what? It's working, and as long
as they keep getting a rise out of you, they're going to keep doing it.
Forever.
Do you want people to quit making fun of you here? Quit posting here.
That's the only way it's ever going to happen. See, when you keep posting
and blabbering, the topic NEVER dies. People will NEVER run out of fresh new
material to criticize you with. People will NEVER leave you alone. Unless
you just go away and let them focus on the next luser to stumble on in.
Remember, I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you unbiased,
with The Secret to making this go away. If you wish to regain your peace, I
hope that you heed my words and partake of The Secret.
Your Friend,
Lurker
Jim Manson
>I must say Josh, you are one most interesting person.
>Having read both your replies I am impressed.
>Let me clue you in on something about me I don't rarely discuss on the net.
>The FBI already knows about me extensively.
>When I enlisted into the US Army in 1970, I enlisted for ASA.
Isn't this where he claims to have invented the internet?
Or was that a tech sargent?
I get these kooks mixed up sometimes.
richard b
That case, of which I have a copy of, involved a hell of a lot more than
just so called forgeries of domain names.
Guess I have to explain it to you since your such a dumbass.
In order not to be found out, the guy used flowers.com as his return address
probably thinking it was not a valid name. When flowers dot com got besieged
with several thousands of return hits and complaints to their ISP, flowers
dot com was kicked off the ISP.
Losing all of their business entirely. Once the ISP found out who the real
culprit was and the why's behind it, the jerk was taken to court. Basically
on fraud charges. The case decided in favor of flowers dot com and the jerk
wound up having to pay for the loss of revenue and expenses involved. Plus
maybe a little jail time.
In order to make it a fraud, or forgery, case, there has to be willfull
intent. Merely placing it in your from line is hardly signs of intent. It is
the person who uses that domain name who will wind up in court. Not the
person who merely advertises it.
Until such new laws do come into effect that cover this issue specifically,
anyone can use any domain name, fictitious or not, as an addy. Just because
a common word is a domain name doesn't make the registered owners of the
domain, the registered owners of the word.
May I suggest you look up Fur...@myhouse.com on dejanews?
Then tell me how many thousands of hits you get with him?
myhouse dot come is a registered domain name and you call me a troll?
Shit, this furball is the usenet's number one troll.
And nobody gives a damn.
Tim Millard
<hawkeyeS...@REMOVE.THIS.eelsauce.AND.THIS.com.AS.WELL.AS.THIS> wrote
in message news:372e0c08....@news.ptd.net...
: On Sun, 2 May 1999 21:36:52 -0400, "richard b" <ki...@your.ass> wrote:
:
: [ snip ]
:
: >Making an addy public knowledge is not a criminal act nor is it against
: >usenet policy.
:
: True, *if* all you're doing is mentioning them in the body of your
: post, as you did below. But, you did masquerade around with
: registered domain names in your From: line before. It's called
: forgery, and yes, it's a crime. I'm sure you know about flowers.com
: already...
:
: >n...@house.com
: >n...@home.com
: >n...@me.com
: >n...@prodigy.com
: >n...@cybernex.net
: >n...@anywhere.com
:
: >Now what are you gonna do about me displaying these possible forged
addy's
: >turkeys?
:
: Nothing, let the spambots choke on them :)
:
: [ lotta stuff snipped ]
:
: You are currently looking at Tim Millard's sig. file.
richard b
you guys around?
I sure as hell wouldn't be here.
Jim Manson <J...@Manson.com> wrote in message
news:37331334...@news.visi.com...
: "richard b" <ki...@your.ass> wrote:
:
: >I must say Josh, you are one most interesting person.
: >Having read both your replies I am impressed.
: >Let me clue you in on something about me I don't rarely discuss on the
net.
: >The FBI already knows about me extensively.
: >When I enlisted into the US Army in 1970, I enlisted for ASA.
:
:
: Isn't this where he claims to have invented the internet?
:
:
:
richard b
Read on asshole.
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:372d0deb....@nntpd.databasix.com...
: On Sun, 2 May 1999 21:36:52 -0400, "richard b" <ki...@your.ass> wrote:
:
: >I must say Josh, you are one most interesting person.
: >Having read both your replies I am impressed.
: >Let me clue you in on something about me I don't rarely discuss on the
net.
: >The FBI already knows about me extensively.
: >When I enlisted into the US Army in 1970, I enlisted for ASA.
: >If you don't know what it is, your better off not knowing.
:
: Hahahahahahahaha. THey gave you your supersekretdecoder ring and we
: should all be afraid of you. Hahahahaha. Fucking asshole.
This I won't say any more about. I enlisted when the draft was on heavy
dummy.
Didn't have to go in if I didn't want to.
You probably never were in the service at all.
:
: >Which is one reason I keep my nose clean.
:
: Naw, we know that's to keep room for all that coke that keeps you up
: posting this tripe.
Hey fool, I get high off of you assholes. Who needs the illegal shit?
:
:
: >As a truck driver, I got other loads other drivers did not simply because
I
: >was in the service.
:
: Lying puke. Those of us who have ever _REALLY_ been in the trucking
: industry know that the job goes to the first truck to show up. Timing
: is everything on long-haul trips.
:
In most cases yes. But the military does check the trucking companies for
preferred drivers in some instances. I also know of trucking where you had
to have been in the armed services or have a super clean background to get
to work for them.
I've hauled loads for both the army and the navy.
: >So if they want me that bad, they can easily find me.
: >I have nothing to hide from them.
: >Being talked about I can handle.
: >I've been on the usenet for over a year and haven't been scared off yet.
:
: Oooooh, a whole year? Wow, I'm sure impressed.
Still here ain't I fuckwit? Will be for a long time. I may even start up my
own news server in the next year or two.
:
: >Many have tried. Many have failed and given up.
: >As has oxfart.
:
: Given up on what?
Playing games with me. As your doing.
:
: >
: >Innocent until proven guilty.
: >That's the way the laws work.
:
: The laws? Which laws apply to your kookdom?
Same as yours. All of them. The ones that really count. Not your so called
laws of the usenet which most aren't worth a damn anyway.
:
: >Being in power and control don't necessarily give you any more rights
than
: >the next person.
:
: Yes, it does. THat you wish it didn't or that in a perfect world it
: didn't doesn't matter at all.
:
Never said it was a perfect world asshole. Your here right? You may be in
control of your business, but your not in control of all of them. One player
doesn't make a team.
: >This so called forged addy thing is a farce and a half.
:
: No, it's not. That's why you're smart enough to stop using others
: addresses when warned. If you use mine, I'll report your sorry ass
: too.
Report it to whom? My ISP? My news service? Be my guest. Most will just toss
it in the garbage or keep it on file until they have enough complaints to
make it worth their while. But again, if there is no intent, there is no
case.
:
: >Internic will take your money to register any common word in the world
just
: >the same.
:
: Which has nothing to do with forging an address.
If that's the case, then why is it a registered domain name issue? In order
to be registered in the USA, it's gotta go to internic.
:
: >Making an addy public knowledge is not a criminal act nor is it against
: >usenet policy.
: >
: >n...@house.com
: >n...@home.com
: >n...@me.com
: >n...@prodigy.com
: >n...@cybernex.net
: >n...@anywhere.com
: >
: >Now what are you gonna do about me displaying these possible forged
addy's
: >turkeys?
:
: Displaying them? Irrelevant. Using them as an email address? Plenty.
:
Precisely. In the from line is the same as displaying them anywhere. As long
as the name is not activated upon, no harm, no foul.
: >
: >I haven't used them. It's the sender who gets his ass into trouble with
the
: >law.
:
: You really are this dumb.
You are even dumber. You replied to this didn't you turkey?
richard b
Explain how putting something like n...@aol.com in your from line overloads
the servers?
Something has to be there to begin with.
Most newsreaders don't give a damn what it is.
Just so long as it follows the standard pattern.
What if n...@tonite.honey becomes a valid domain name tomorrow?
How does my computer know that?
Joshua Kramer
<ki...@your.ass> wrote:
> Just one question Josh.
> Explain how putting something like n...@aol.com in your from line overloads
> the servers?
People will try to email "n...@aol.com." Those emails will go to the aol.com
mail server, and will ask it to send it to their user "not."
Aol.com will have to search its database for the username "not." It will then
have to send a reply back to the originator of the message that "not" is not
a user at aol. That's a waste of not insignificant time, especially when
one considers the total number of bounced email aol has to deal with. You
cost them money. That's not right, unless you pay them.
> Something has to be there to begin with.
If you would kindly use "*@*.invalid" such that you can never blame a server.
.invalid will never be used.
> Most newsreaders don't give a damn what it is.
No problem. There's a good reason for that - I post from a Swarthmore
connection, through USWest news servers with an iname.com forwarding
address.
> Just so long as it follows the standard pattern.
> What if n...@tonite.honey becomes a valid domain name tomorrow?
Then you should not use that domain name. The RFC's have promised that
.invalid will never be used, so use that as your tld - n...@aol.com.invalid
works just fine, or just n...@aol.invalid.
> How does my computer know that?
It's not the computer that needs to do it, it's the user. Before people got
mad at you they should have asked you to change, and explained why one
should use the TLD .invalid for munges. I don't know or care if they did.
I'm telling you now. Your.ass could be a valid domain in the future, so
please don't use it either.
anonymous
number one troll. What's with you dipstick? Imagining things? Imagining you
are a BIG ARMY HERO? HaHa! You know, you could have been somebody, you could
have been a contender. Nah!
richard b wrote in message <7gj8cp$qik$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Will you stop with the damn flowers dot com case already?
>That case, of which I have a copy of, involved a hell of a lot more than
>just so called forgeries of domain names.
>Guess I have to explain it to you since your such a dumbass.
>
>
>
Sir Duke VOTM 11/98
>
> Looking for enlightenment "richard b" <ki...@your.ass> begged for our kind understanding:
>
> $Do I give a shit about their so called power?
> $I don't give a damn if they are allegedly owners and operators of news
> $servers or ISP's.
> $Nobody has any more rights here than you or I.
>
> Damn Fucking Straight!
And what the fuck does TSM stand for anyway? The Schlong Muncher?
> $What they do just may be a legal issue for the courts to decide upon.
> $As it may fall under the category of "Wired and electronic communications"
> $law.
> $Plus the fact that it may also fall under the consitution's first amendments
> $guarantee of freedom of speech.
> $You are definitely my friend in any way. Or have you forgotten how many
> $times you have personally attacked me? Including a threat to harm me
> $personally via e-mail?
> $Which I still have a copy of.
> $The only side your on is yours.
>
> It looks like Classic Pedophile Gary Lee Burnore tactics: abuse
> of remailers coupled with lies and threats.
>
> $I will continue posting to any group I desire. That is my right as much as
> $it is yours.
> $If you don't like what I have to say, tough shit.
> $
> $Have a nice day jerk.
> $By the way, I am moving tomorrow. Come on up and watch the show lame brain.
> $
> $
> $
> $
> $
> $Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
> $news:1999050300...@mail.replay.com...
> $: Dear Richard B,
> $:
> $: I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you unbiased, with
> $The
> $: Secret to making this go away.
> $:
> $: Drop it, man. Just drop it. Just go away, quit visiting the group, and
> $all
> $: these threats and problems you're having will disappear.
> $:
> $: See, this group is made up of an interesting demographic.
> $:
> $: About half the people here are ISP or news admins. aka people you don't
> $want
> $: to fuck with if you enjoy your peace, privacy, sanity, net connection, and
> $: ego. Whether or not you agree with what these people say and do is moot.
> $It
> $: just plain doesn't matter. They will eat you up and spit you out again
> $and
> $: again.
> $:
> $: And the other half are kooks and trolls. aka people who like to cause
> $trouble
> $: just for the hell of it, and who will go out of their way to piss you off.
> $: They have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon. A new one will come by,
> $see
> $: everyone else dissing the guy called Richard B, and they'll start doing it
> $: too. You are obviously falling victim as you appear to be quite
> $flustered.
> $:
> $: In most groups, you have two factions. The Good and The Bad. You'll post
> $: something, and The Bad will call it off topic and unwanted and threaten to
> $: fuck your mom if you don't go away. Then The Good will come to your
> $defence
> $: and tell The Bad that your post was on topic and that they should go fuck
> $: themselves. After a week or so of all this, back and forth, everyone will
> $: forget about it and things will go on as usual.
> $:
> $: This group is different. See, when The Bad doesn't like you, neither does
> $: The Good. When you piss this group off, no one will come to your defence.
> $: And you can be damn sure that no one will forget about it, especially when
> $: you're still here alive and kicking (fresh meat mmmmmm).
> $:
> $: I used to think you were a troll. I've changed my mind because you don't
> $fit
> $: the troll profile. Trolls LIKE to cause trouble, they do it on purpose.
> $But
> $: post after post, it appears you aren't TRYING to be dense, outrageous,
> $: egregious, libelous, or offensive. You aren't TRYING to stir anything up.
> $: That's just the way you are.
> $:
> $: I will say one thing, from a completely unbiased standpoint. If you
> $continue
> $: to post here, people will continue to ridicule you. Forever. The more
> $you
> $: try to defend yourself, the deeper you're going to dig your own hole. You
> $: post under an alias, deny that it was you, then later in a fit of blind
> $rage
> $: you accidentally admit it was you. Then someone calls you on it, and you
> $: deny it again. Sure, there are lots of people using PSI in Cincy. But
> $they
> $: don't all use the exact same release of Microsoft Outlook Express to read
> $and
> $: post news, man.
> $:
> $: They have already won, and you lost the moment you made your first post to
> $: this group. That's just the way it is. You have no grounds to sue anyone
> $in
> $: this group. Several others do potentially have grounds to sue you. You
> $: should be thankful that these people, one in particular, have chosen to
> $: ignore your libel instead of take you to court.
> $:
> $: Why have no cops shown up at your door? Because nobody is trying to get
> $you
> $: busted for anything. Nobody wants you in jail, because then you wouldn't
> $be
> $: any fun to play with. They're FUCKING WITH YOUR HEAD, dude. They're
> $calling
> $: you names to get a rise out of you. Guess what? It's working, and as
> $long
> $: as they keep getting a rise out of you, they're going to keep doing it.
> $: Forever.
> $:
> $: Do you want people to quit making fun of you here? Quit posting here.
> $: That's the only way it's ever going to happen. See, when you keep posting
> $: and blabbering, the topic NEVER dies. People will NEVER run out of fresh
> $new
> $: material to criticize you with. People will NEVER leave you alone.
> $Unless
> $: you just go away and let them focus on the next luser to stumble on in.
> $:
> $: Remember, I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you
> $unbiased,
> $: with The Secret to making this go away. If you wish to regain your peace,
> $I
> $: hope that you heed my words and partake of The Secret.
> $:
> $: Your Friend,
> $:
> $: Lurker
> $:
> $
> $
>
> Meow.
Mike Fleming's Bit Bucket
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 3 May 1999 00:23:27 -0400, richard b <ki...@your.ass>
scribed into the Great Tome of Farnarkling:
> Will you stop with the damn flowers dot com case already?
Why? Because it continues to show you up as a brain-deficient inbred hick?
> That case, of which I have a copy of, involved a hell of a lot more than
> just so called forgeries of domain names.
> Guess I have to explain it to you since your such a dumbass.
You'd have to comprehend it first, knucklehead. Cause and effect - they got
the bounces /because/ the spammer forged the domain name, much like you
have done.
Unless you own the domain name in question (or have the permission of the
owner to use it) you have ZERO rights to use it. Period. QED.
If this simple fact passes over your pointed head, then please do us a favour
and step under a passing prime mover. Save the world a lot more trouble...
Michael Fleming.
- --
Michael Fleming, Malleteer and Proud of it.
Antispam pages at http://www.eisa.net.au/~mfleming/antispam/
"I believe it was a legitimate tool to fight cabal abuse.
There is no hypocrisy" - "Antaine" attempts to justify NewsAgent
cancel abuse in <370c1d1...@news.alt.net>. *SPANK*
WAR IS PEACE -- IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH -- SPAM IS FREE SPEECH
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNy1I5+C8nDzAyop2EQJlDwCgsxWt14NJiSrL3FMJH2Q5yp5gIhYAoM3b
hKlTYERcFmFe8f2S9hGFk7zY
=L8yU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Henry
news:7girv5$7g2$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Do I give a shit about their so called power?
> Nobody has any more rights here than you or I.
You have NO rights here, you have PRIVILEGES which can be revoked for any
reason your ISP chooses to.
> What they do just may be a legal issue for the courts to decide upon.
> As it may fall under the category of "Wired and electronic
communications"
> law.
Please quote the text of this law.
> Plus the fact that it may also fall under the consitution's first
amendments
> guarantee of freedom of speech.
You're not in America here, dumbass. The First Amenedment, while it's
priciple is honored, simply is not in effect here.
> You are definitely my friend in any way. Or have you forgotten how many
> times you have personally attacked me? Including a threat to harm me
> personally via e-mail?
You stupid, stupid man. Are younow telling us that youthink there is only
one person called 'anonymous?'
> Which I still have a copy of.
> The only side your on is yours.
> I will continue posting to any group I desire. That is my right as much
as
> it is yours.
And it is my right to continue using you to feel better about myself. As
long as I have you here, I can never feel too bad about whatever my
situation may be.
> If you don't like what I have to say, tough shit.
Have you stopped trying to find that mother-daughter combo in wisconsin
yet?
> Have a nice day jerk.
> By the way, I am moving tomorrow. Come on up and watch the show lame
brain.
Hm - knowing full well that the police are investigating you, you prepare
to flee the area. You realize that doesn't bode well for your chances at
bail...
--
John Henry, a Net.Bastard
With Certificates Stating Such
http://members.tripod.com/netbastard
http://net.bastard.somewhere.net/
http://members.tripod.com/omegapowers
Delete Me
>If I invented the internet, what the sam hell would I be doing here trashing
>you guys around?
>
>I sure as hell wouldn't be here.
Yeah! He'd be doing his vice presidential duties and planning his
presidential run! :)
Delete Me
--
email: dele...@mailcity.com
Jim Manson
>If I invented the internet, what the sam hell would I be doing here trashing
>you guys around?
>
>I sure as hell wouldn't be here.
Yep, you could be sitting around reminiscing with Grubor.
SharonB
Anonymous wrote in message <1999050300...@mail.replay.com>...
>Drop it, man. Just drop it. Just go away, quit visiting the group,
>these threats and problems you're having will disappear.
Not *all* of them, some are going to follow him to Wisconsin. Aside
from that, he's going to continue to post here till he either loses all
internet connectivity or persuades all of us to his point of view.
>See, this group is made up of an interesting demographic.
I think that may be too sweeping a statement. Some of us are just
run-of-the-mill despammers coincidentally interested in usenet abuse.
>Why have no cops shown up at your door? Because nobody is trying to
get you
>busted for anything.
Actually, *I* am trying to get him busted for something. That was a
good question, though...so I called this morning and asked them.
There's still some time left for the KSP this morning, and if not?
Well, I bet Richard's file gets to Wisconsin before he does :-). I
intensely dislike pedophiles. What the various police agencies do with
all the information that's been forwarded to them by various people is,
of course, up to them...as are (speaking generally) complaints forwarded
to ISP's for various usenet/email infractions, such as domain forgeries,
misplaced binaries, etc.
It would *really* make my day if the KSP confiscated his 'puter today,
but I've been disappointed before, so I'll get over it.
--
If you believe it to be a fake address,
call the state highway patrol
.....quotes from The Stupid Richard Files
I R A Aggie
<nob...@replay.com>, in <1999050300...@mail.replay.com> wrote:
[a well written piece]
First comment: I bet he tells you to fuck off...I haven't looked at the
rest of the thread yet, so we'll see...
+ I used to think you were a troll. I've changed my mind because you
+ don't fit the troll profile. Trolls LIKE to cause trouble, they do it
+ on purpose. But post after post, it appears you aren't TRYING to be
+ dense, outrageous, egregious, libelous, or offensive. You aren't
+ TRYING to stir anything up. That's just the way you are.
Little Limp Dickie is Natural Born Troll.
+ with The Secret to making this go away. If you wish to regain your peace, I
+ hope that you heed my words and partake of The Secret.
Nah, he's not smart enough to do so...a smarter person would have stopped
when their ISP talked to them...
James
I R A Aggie
<gbur...@databasix.com>, in <372d0deb....@nntpd.databasix.com> wrote:
+ >As a truck driver, I got other loads other drivers did not simply because I
+ >was in the service.
+ Lying puke. Those of us who have ever _REALLY_ been in the trucking
+ industry know that the job goes to the first truck to show up. Timing
+ is everything on long-haul trips.
I think he's making a vague reference to making Special Deliveries for
the Company, or possibly No Such Agency.
James
I R A Aggie
<J...@Manson.com>, in <37331334...@news.visi.com> wrote:
+ Isn't this where he claims to have invented the internet?
No, that's the Internut, AlGore.
James
Joshua Kramer
<sharon...@fuse.net.removeyourfootfromyourmouth> wrote:
> Actually, *I* am trying to get him busted for something.
You are a fuckhead. This is usenet, not real life.
> I
> intensely dislike pedophiles.
He's not a pedophile - you have no proof that he's a pedophile, and by
saying he's a pedophile you become Kook Kabal - that's a classic.
> What the various police agencies do with
> all the information that's been forwarded to them by various people is,
> of course, up to them
When do you invade Canada?
Emperor JB
Tolerant" Bergmän <bergmän...@snuggliewuggliehugs.solväng.edu> wrote:
> Looking for enlightenment Emperor JB <Empe...@NewScotland.gov.net> begged
> for our kind understanding:
>
> $Hey dorkshit. I'm pretty sure that this Anonymous is a seperate entity
> $from the one that attacked you. I also believe that he was genuinely
> $trying to help you. If you want to stay here and get chewed up and
> $spit out it's your decision.
>
> Hey Romathian. Your Ancient Garter is threadbare.
I'm not Romathian. I am not a member of the garter, and I don't want
to be because who knows where Romath has kept that damned thing!
> $In article <7girv5$7g2$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, richard b
> $<ki...@your.ass> wrote:
> $
> $> Do I give a shit about their so called power?
> $> I don't give a damn if they are allegedly owners and operators of news
> $> servers or ISP's.
> $> Nobody has any more rights here than you or I.
> $> What they do just may be a legal issue for the courts to decide upon.
> $> As it may fall under the category of "Wired and electronic communications"
> $> law.
> $> Plus the fact that it may also fall under the consitution's first
> amendments
> $> guarantee of freedom of speech.
> $> You are definitely my friend in any way. Or have you forgotten how many
> $> times you have personally attacked me? Including a threat to harm me
> $> personally via e-mail?
> $> Which I still have a copy of.
> $> The only side your on is yours.
> $> I will continue posting to any group I desire. That is my right as much as
> $> it is yours.
> $> If you don't like what I have to say, tough shit.
> $>
> $> Have a nice day jerk.
> $> By the way, I am moving tomorrow. Come on up and watch the show lame brain.
> $>
> $>
> $>
> $>
> $>
> $> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
> $> news:1999050300...@mail.replay.com...
> $> : Dear Richard B,
> $> :
> $> : I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you unbiased, with
> $> The
> $> : Secret to making this go away.
> $> :
> $> : Drop it, man. Just drop it. Just go away, quit visiting the group, and
> $> all
> $> : these threats and problems you're having will disappear.
> $> :
> $> : See, this group is made up of an interesting demographic.
> $> :
> $> : About half the people here are ISP or news admins. aka people you don't
> $> want
> $> : to fuck with if you enjoy your peace, privacy, sanity, net connection,
> and
> $> : ego. Whether or not you agree with what these people say and do is moot.
> $> It
> $> : just plain doesn't matter. They will eat you up and spit you out again
> $> and
> $> : again.
> $> :
> $> : And the other half are kooks and trolls. aka people who like to cause
> $> trouble
> $> : just for the hell of it, and who will go out of their way to piss you
> off.
> $> : They have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon. A new one will come by,
> $> see
> $> : everyone else dissing the guy called Richard B, and they'll start doing
> it
> $> : too. You are obviously falling victim as you appear to be quite
> $> flustered.
> $> :
> $> : In most groups, you have two factions. The Good and The Bad. You'll
> post
> $> : something, and The Bad will call it off topic and unwanted and threaten
> to
> $> : fuck your mom if you don't go away. Then The Good will come to your
> $> defence
> $> : and tell The Bad that your post was on topic and that they should go fuck
> $> : themselves. After a week or so of all this, back and forth, everyone
> will
> $> : forget about it and things will go on as usual.
> $> :
> $> : This group is different. See, when The Bad doesn't like you, neither
> does
> $> : The Good. When you piss this group off, no one will come to your
> defence.
> $> : And you can be damn sure that no one will forget about it, especially
> when
> $> : you're still here alive and kicking (fresh meat mmmmmm).
> $> :
> $> : I used to think you were a troll. I've changed my mind because you don't
> $> fit
> $> : the troll profile. Trolls LIKE to cause trouble, they do it on purpose.
> $> But
> $> : post after post, it appears you aren't TRYING to be dense, outrageous,
> $> : egregious, libelous, or offensive. You aren't TRYING to stir anything
> up.
> $> : That's just the way you are.
> $> :
> $> : I will say one thing, from a completely unbiased standpoint. If you
> $> continue
> $> : to post here, people will continue to ridicule you. Forever. The more
> $> you
> $> : try to defend yourself, the deeper you're going to dig your own hole.
> You
> $> : post under an alias, deny that it was you, then later in a fit of blind
> $> rage
> $> : you accidentally admit it was you. Then someone calls you on it, and you
> $> : deny it again. Sure, there are lots of people using PSI in Cincy. But
> $> they
> $> : don't all use the exact same release of Microsoft Outlook Express to read
> $> and
> $> : post news, man.
> $> :
> $> : They have already won, and you lost the moment you made your first post
> to
> $> : this group. That's just the way it is. You have no grounds to sue
> anyone
> $> in
> $> : this group. Several others do potentially have grounds to sue you. You
> $> : should be thankful that these people, one in particular, have chosen to
> $> : ignore your libel instead of take you to court.
> $> :
> $> : Why have no cops shown up at your door? Because nobody is trying to get
> $> you
> $> : busted for anything. Nobody wants you in jail, because then you wouldn't
> $> be
> $> : any fun to play with. They're FUCKING WITH YOUR HEAD, dude. They're
> $> calling
> $> : you names to get a rise out of you. Guess what? It's working, and as
> $> long
> $> : as they keep getting a rise out of you, they're going to keep doing it.
> $> : Forever.
> $> :
> $> : Do you want people to quit making fun of you here? Quit posting here.
> $> : That's the only way it's ever going to happen. See, when you keep
> posting
> $> : and blabbering, the topic NEVER dies. People will NEVER run out of fresh
> $> new
> $> : material to criticize you with. People will NEVER leave you alone.
> $> Unless
> $> : you just go away and let them focus on the next luser to stumble on in.
> $> :
> $> : Remember, I am not on your side, nor am I on theirs. I come to you
> $> unbiased,
> $> : with The Secret to making this go away. If you wish to regain your
> peace,
> $> I
> $> : hope that you heed my words and partake of The Secret.
> $> :
> $> : Your Friend,
> $> :
> $> : Lurker
> $> :
> $
> $--
> $His Imperial Majesty
> $
> $Emperor JB of the Empire of New Scotland.
> $
> $Imperial Web site: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2860/
> $
> $alt.romath Gentleman's Club # 13
> $
> $"Nobody cares... everybody is really good at pretending to care, but at their
> $very core, the selfish child reigns supreme."
> $
> $"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds, along with
> $the good, and let me be judged accordingly. The rest... is silence."
> $
> $Internet newsgroup posting. Imperial © 1999. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Meow.
Anapiel
consort with scum like Dennis and Romath. Nothing you say can be believed,
and the fact that you jump on the "pedophile" crusade earmarks you
immediately to my netsavvy awareness as a fuckhead.
Here's a hint: the best way to defame someone on usenet is to lable them a
pedophile. As such, the accusation has become a little ubiquitous (I propose
there be an equivalent of Godwin's Law for this, which would allow you to
honorably kill a thread at the first use of the accusation, albeit with the
exceptions inherent in Godwin's law).
Anapiel
SharonB wrote in message <92573798...@news.remarQ.com>...
>
>Anonymous wrote in message <1999050300...@mail.replay.com>...
>>Drop it, man. Just drop it. Just go away, quit visiting the group,
>and all
>>these threats and problems you're having will disappear.
>
>
>Not *all* of them, some are going to follow him to Wisconsin. Aside
>from that, he's going to continue to post here till he either loses all
>internet connectivity or persuades all of us to his point of view.
>
>>See, this group is made up of an interesting demographic.
>
>
>I think that may be too sweeping a statement. Some of us are just
>run-of-the-mill despammers coincidentally interested in usenet abuse.
>
>>Why have no cops shown up at your door? Because nobody is trying to
>get you
>>busted for anything.
>
>Actually, *I* am trying to get him busted for something. That was a
>good question, though...so I called this morning and asked them.
>There's still some time left for the KSP this morning, and if not?
>Well, I bet Richard's file gets to Wisconsin before he does :-). I
>intensely dislike pedophiles. What the various police agencies do with
>all the information that's been forwarded to them by various people is,
Emperor JB
<ki...@your.ass> wrote:
> I must say Josh, you are one most interesting person.
> Having read both your replies I am impressed.
> Let me clue you in on something about me I don't rarely discuss on the net.
> The FBI already knows about me extensively.
> When I enlisted into the US Army in 1970, I enlisted for ASA.
What is that? Army Special Agency? Armed Forces Association? What,
tell us. Inquiring minds want to know.
> If you don't know what it is, your better off not knowing.
I want to know, please tell us.
> Which is one reason I keep my nose clean.
> As a truck driver, I got other loads other drivers did not simply because I
> was in the service.
> So if they want me that bad, they can easily find me.
> I have nothing to hide from them.
> Being talked about I can handle.
> I've been on the usenet for over a year and haven't been scared off yet.
That is nice. Most others have been here for ten years or more, I have
been on the Net since 97.
> Many have tried. Many have failed and given up.
> As has oxfart.
>
> Innocent until proven guilty.
> That's the way the laws work.
Usenet has no laws.
> Being in power and control don't necessarily give you any more rights than
> the next person.
Being on the Internet is a privilage, not a right.
> This so called forged addy thing is a farce and a half.
Not really, if the server "mail.your.ass" existed and someone tried to
email you and you don't have permission to use "your.ass", the mail
would bounce. It would cause a lot a trouble with their server and
they would hunt down the person who forged that server.
> Internic will take your money to register any common word in the world just
> the same.
> Making an addy public knowledge is not a criminal act nor is it against
> usenet policy.
>
> n...@house.com
> n...@home.com
> n...@me.com
> n...@prodigy.com
> n...@cybernex.net
> n...@anywhere.com
>
> Now what are you gonna do about me displaying these possible forged addy's
> turkeys?
Nothing since you didn't put them in the Sender: or From: lines.
> I haven't used them. It's the sender who gets his ass into trouble with the
> law.
There is no law on Usenet, only rules.
--
Terrance Richard Boyes
[snip]
> See, this group is made up of an interesting demographic.
> About half the people here are ISP or news admins. aka people you don't want
Possibly, if you include despammers like Andrew Gierth in that
category.
[snip]
> And the other half are kooks and trolls. aka people who like to cause trouble
Possibly for the most part, but there are a number of us who read
the group mainly[1] for technical interest.
[1] or for the humour value when people like richbull turn up ;~)
--
<URL:http://www.pierrot.co.uk/> Team AMIGA
You can't antagonize and influence at the same time.
Oxford Systems
Anapiel wrote in message <7gkkl4$uul$1...@news.ametro.net>...
>That's because you are a notorious net abuser from alt.spam, known to
>consort with scum like Dennis and Romath. Nothing you say can be believed,
>and the fact that you jump on the "pedophile" crusade earmarks you
>immediately to my netsavvy awareness as a fuckhead.
>
>Here's a hint: the best way to defame someone on usenet is to lable them a
>pedophile. As such, the accusation has become a little ubiquitous (I
propose
>there be an equivalent of Godwin's Law for this, which would allow you to
>honorably kill a thread at the first use of the accusation, albeit with the
>exceptions inherent in Godwin's law).
All I can say is that you don't know Richard. He is the exception to the
rule. Your "netsavy awareness" is seriously out of whack on this one and
besides that, we are rubber and you are glue...everything you say bounces
off of us and sticks to you! :)
Neener, neener!
Tim Thorne
>Hahahahahahaha. More of that "I'm gonna sue" shit? Pull-ease.
When do I get mine, Burnore?
"Odious <Odi...@home.com> is the culprit. His isp has been notified
and, since he lives in CA where others have already been imprisoned
for the same offense, he'll be looking at a bit of legal problems as
well." <36daee86...@news.primenet.com>
--
--------========>>>>>>>Special Forces<<<<<<<========--------
The Dungeon www.bigwig.net/dungeon
Visit the Dungeon and see the sights!
See Burnore's file from the North Carolina Sex Offenders Database!
See a picture of the hideous SockHippo!
Read the posts the Databasix mob didn't want you to see!
It's all one click away!
www.bigwig.net/dungeon/defectgb.htm
CNS 180
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:
^On Mon, 03 May 1999 02:51:48 GMT, Gary L. Burnore
^<gbur...@databasix.com>, in <372d0deb....@nntpd.databasix.com> wrote:
^
^+ >As a truck driver, I got other loads other drivers did not simply because
^+ >I was in the service.
^
^+ Lying puke. Those of us who have ever _REALLY_ been in the trucking
^+ industry know that the job goes to the first truck to show up. Timing
^+ is everything on long-haul trips.
^
^I think he's making a vague reference to making Special Deliveries for
^the Company, or possibly No Such Agency.
Special deliveries of pizza. That explains much.
--
I was going to say a few things on this reply, but your not worth it.
You'd only find more ways to show off your intelligence you moron.
(Richard Bullis, NANAU's Pet Kook, Apr 99)
Jim Manson
>In article <92573798...@news.remarQ.com>, "SharonB"
><sharon...@fuse.net.removeyourfootfromyourmouth> wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, *I* am trying to get him busted for something.
>
>You are a fuckhead. This is usenet, not real life.
>
>> I
>> intensely dislike pedophiles.
>
>He's not a pedophile - you have no proof that he's a pedophile, and by
>saying he's a pedophile you become Kook Kabal - that's a classic.
Um, so posting binaries of naked children from what he's admitted is a
personal collection of them doesn't indicate "pedophile"?
Uh-huh......
" Really, but they're *legal* pictures of naked children....."
Joshua Kramer
> joshk...@iname.com (Joshua Kramer) wrote:
>
> >In article <92573798...@news.remarQ.com>, "SharonB"
> ><sharon...@fuse.net.removeyourfootfromyourmouth> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Actually, *I* am trying to get him busted for something.
> >
> >You are a fuckhead. This is usenet, not real life.
> >
> >> I
> >> intensely dislike pedophiles.
> >
> >He's not a pedophile - you have no proof that he's a pedophile, and by
> >saying he's a pedophile you become Kook Kabal - that's a classic.
>
> Um, so posting binaries of naked children from what he's admitted is a
> personal collection of them doesn't indicate "pedophile"?
No, it does not. It indiciates nothing at all. Do you think calling him
a pedophile furthers your argument? No. It does nothing at all, except
call him a pedophile. That makes you a fuckhead.
1. Pedophile would involve actually wanting to have sex with the children -
you have no evidence that he wants to do so - *NONE*
2. Who the fuck cares what he posts if he posts it in the right place. Are
you a censor?
> " Really, but they're *legal* pictures of naked children....."
See alt.binaries.aoi. What did you do to fight pedophilia on the net
recently? I didn't see you standing up and screaming at them, did I -
Oh, right - you don't actually care about naked pictures of little girls,
you just think that by accusing someone else of caring you can 'beat' them
in your little power game.
Boy, such a turn around - now it's the third generation of anti-spammers
calling the third generation of kooks pedophiles. I liked it better when we
(the second generation and earlier) had the moral high ground on this
"non-related accusation" thing.
When do you invade canada, Jim?
Anapiel
Oxford Systems wrote in message <7gklvl$537$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>Anapiel wrote in message <7gkkl4$uul$1...@news.ametro.net>...
>>That's because you are a notorious net abuser from alt.spam, known to
>>consort with scum like Dennis and Romath. Nothing you say can be believed,
>>and the fact that you jump on the "pedophile" crusade earmarks you
>>immediately to my netsavvy awareness as a fuckhead.
>>
>>Here's a hint: the best way to defame someone on usenet is to lable them a
>>pedophile. As such, the accusation has become a little ubiquitous (I
>propose
>>there be an equivalent of Godwin's Law for this, which would allow you to
>>honorably kill a thread at the first use of the accusation, albeit with
the
>>exceptions inherent in Godwin's law).
>
>
>All I can say is that you don't know Richard.
No I don't. He may well be a turing machine so far as I know, or care.
Moron, troll, kook, or pedophile, it hardly matters to me. The only concern
I have is his forging of existing domains or domains that may be created.
ACTUAL net abuse. Pedophilia is a crime and should be dealt with through
LEO, not nanau.
Labelling somebody a pedophile in a usenet debate is such a common practice
that I never pay it much mind.
And I will take your word on the dejanews search; my only point is that we
haven't actually CAUGHT him engaging in sex with a minor and such the charge
of pedophilia is a little gratuitous (given his many other character flaws).
>He is the exception to the
>rule. Your "netsavy awareness" is seriously out of whack on this one >and
In general my awareness is seriously whacked-out, but that's besides the
point. . .:)
>besides that, we are rubber and you are glue...everything you say bounces
>off of us and sticks to you! :)
>
"Ahh, you are so smart, a talented usenet poster, with incredible fashion
sense and a hot body."
Damn, I'm clever. . .
Anapiel
>Neener, neener!
>
>
Oxford Systems
Anapiel wrote in message <7gkpru$579$1...@news.ametro.net>...
[snip]
>
>"Ahh, you are so smart, a talented usenet poster, with incredible fashion
>sense and a hot body."
>
>Damn, I'm clever. . .
>
>Anapiel
>
LOL!!! Glad to see you could appreciate the humour. :)
SharonB
Joshua Kramer wrote in message ...
>In article <92573798...@news.remarQ.com>, "SharonB"
><sharon...@fuse.net.removeyourfootfromyourmouth> wrote:
>You are a fuckhead. This is usenet, not real life.
>saying he's a pedophile you become Kook Kabal - that's a classic.
<sigh> I don't really know why I'm bothering, but here are my reasons.
A. He literally lives, in country terms, right around the corner from
me. I have driven (unwittingly) past his trailerpark many times.
B. He advertised for mother/daughter combos on alt.teens.lesbian located
in central Wisconsin, explaining that he would be moving there soon.
C. He advised someone advertising for children to "go hunt on aol.com",
because in his opinion, children didn't hang on that ng
(alt.sex.children)
D. He admitted to downloading kiddieporn, and posted binaries of naked
children (from his collection of same). Normal men, IMHO, don't have
photographic collections of naked children that have absolutely no
familial relationship to them.
E. He hangs out and posts in *many* pedophile groups.
Given all the above, were it to occur again, I would report it again,
kook kabal or no. Perhaps when you have children of your own, your
perspective will change. And I'd still like to see him busted for it.
In my area of the country, you're not allowed to possess it, distribute
it, or solicit it....by his own admission, he's done all three.
Lysander Spooner
<sharon...@fuse.net.removeyourfootfromyourmouth> wrote:
>Normal men, IMHO, don't have
>photographic collections of naked children that have absolutely no
>familial relationship to them.
A pediatrician might.
-- Rick
-----------
** There's an exception to every rule (except this one.) **
John Henry
> You are even dumber. You replied to this didn't you turkey?
Y'all shouldn't have mentioned the 'troll' angle. Now he'll run with it
and claimed he 'worked' everyone.
John Henry
> 1. Pedophile would involve actually wanting to have sex with the
children -
> you have no evidence that he wants to do so - *NONE*
I guess the messages from him indicating that desire, and indeed,
indicating that he knows where to find kids online, as well as bitching in
at least one case about someone *not* posting kiddy porn aren't evidence
enough?
> 2. Who the fuck cares what he posts if he posts it in the right place.
Are
> you a censor?
When it's pictures of kids my daughter's age, I care a *lot.* At some
point, the kids in those pictures were photographed naked, and now their
pictures are on the internet. That's just wrong, censorship be damned.
> > " Really, but they're *legal* pictures of naked children....."
> See alt.binaries.aoi. What did you do to fight pedophilia on the net
> recently? I didn't see you standing up and screaming at them, did I -
> Oh, right - you don't actually care about naked pictures of little
girls,
> you just think that by accusing someone else of caring you can 'beat'
them
> in your little power game.
I think you're grievouly underinformed here, Josh. Run a deja search on
this guys known aliases.
John Henry
news:7gkpru$579$1...@news.ametro.net...
> And I will take your word on the dejanews search; my only point is that
we
> haven't actually CAUGHT him engaging in sex with a minor and such the
charge
> of pedophilia is a little gratuitous (given his many other character
flaws).
The charge of posession and distribution of KP has already been proven.
10 to 1 if it was *your* kid in the pic, it would be proven to *you*, too,
but then, people withouth kids rarely relate to these issues.
Anapiel
SharonB wrote in message <92576689...@news.remarQ.com>...
>
>Joshua Kramer wrote in message ...
>>In article <92573798...@news.remarQ.com>, "SharonB"
>><sharon...@fuse.net.removeyourfootfromyourmouth> wrote:
>>You are a fuckhead. This is usenet, not real life.
>>He's not a pedophile - you have no proof that he's a pedophile, and by
>>saying he's a pedophile you become Kook Kabal - that's a classic.
>
>
><sigh> I don't really know why I'm bothering, but here are my reasons.
>A. He literally lives, in country terms, right around the corner from
>me. I have driven (unwittingly) past his trailerpark many times.
>B. He advertised for mother/daughter combos on alt.teens.lesbian located
>in central Wisconsin, explaining that he would be moving there soon.
>C. He advised someone advertising for children to "go hunt on aol.com",
>because in his opinion, children didn't hang on that ng
>(alt.sex.children)
>D. He admitted to downloading kiddieporn, and posted binaries of naked
>photographic collections of naked children that have absolutely no
>familial relationship to them.
>
>Given all the above, were it to occur again, I would report it again,
>kook kabal or no. Perhaps when you have children of your own, your
>perspective will change. And I'd still like to see him busted for it.
>In my area of the country, you're not allowed to possess it, distribute
>it, or solicit it....by his own admission, he's done all three.
>--
If what you're saying is true, then you should forward all evidence you have
to the appropriate law enforcement officers. Threatening to do so and
namecalling on the internet is all to commonplace these days. As I
understand the law, it is the possession, not requesting, of child
pornography which makes the difference. Until you have a directory listing
of his hard drive which shows the files actually there, you ain't got
diddly.
I don't like crusades and I don't like crusaders. If you've actually got a
beef with this Richard guy, then I suggest you settle it to your
satisfaction. IMHO, he's more of a source of humor at this point then a
menace to anybody (except maybe himself). When you rail against him as a
pedophile, you come off sounding like hosts of other's who've attempted to
character assassinate there targets by calling them pedophiles.
Everyone likes a whipping boy on usenet, especially one as hopelessly
clueless as Richard. I get mighty concerned when people start blurring the
line between the real world and usenet (I mean, I've posted detailed
descriptions of illegal pharmacological research conducted on myself, and
would hate the idea that someone might consider the fact that I posted it to
usenet as prima facie proof that I had engaged in illegal actions).
Protect your children from real-world molestation. Ain't nobody ever been
molested across the internet, though, so I for one could care less what
Richard the Moron posted or didn't post.
Plus, Richard the Pedophile threads are lot less amusing than Richard the
Idiot who Can't Figure the Internet Out threads/
Anapiel
SharonB
Lysander Spooner wrote in message <375017ce....@209.242.64.104>...
>On Mon, 3 May 1999 17:30:54 -0400, "SharonB"
><sharon...@fuse.net.removeyourfootfromyourmouth> wrote:
>
>>photographic collections of naked children that have absolutely no
>>familial relationship to them.
>
>
>-- Rick
>-----------
>** There's an exception to every rule (except this one.) **
You are quite correct. I sit humbly corrected :-)
*note to self--broad, sweeping generalizations are inevitably wrong*
--
remove your foot from your mouth to reply
John Henry
> If what you're saying is true, then you should forward all evidence you
have
> to the appropriate law enforcement officers.
Been done, via e- and snailmail.
> I don't like crusades and I don't like crusaders.
Then why are you crusading against the anti-pedo activism?
> menace to anybody (except maybe himself). When you rail against him as a
> pedophile, you come off sounding like hosts of other's who've attempted
to
> character assassinate there targets by calling them pedophiles.
Yeah, except in this case, there's evidence.
> Everyone likes a whipping boy on usenet, especially one as hopelessly
> clueless as Richard. I get mighty concerned when people start blurring
the
> line between the real world and usenet (I mean, I've posted detailed
> descriptions of illegal pharmacological research conducted on myself,
and
> would hate the idea that someone might consider the fact that I posted
it to
> usenet as prima facie proof that I had engaged in illegal actions).
I lost a job becuase a bunch of trolls e-mailed my place of employment.
My own fault - I shouldn't have made that known. Point being, I am all
too keenly aware of the things that can happen when IRL and NET get mixed
up...and I can say without reservation that I've never, in the time I've
been on usenet, seen a better justification for it than ol' Needle Dick.
> Protect your children from real-world molestation. Ain't nobody ever
been
> molested across the internet, though,
There are court cases which disagree with this. I'll tell you what -
first time someone tries to talk dirty to my kid, there will be another
one.
> so I for one could care less what
> Richard the Moron posted or didn't post.
Then it obviously wasn't your kid he was posting pictures of.
> Plus, Richard the Pedophile threads are lot less amusing than Richard
the
> Idiot who Can't Figure the Internet Out threads/
I'll agree to that - but as I said, in this case, the accusations and
activism are perfectly justified.
Jim Manson
>In article <3730e4d7...@news.visi.com>, J...@Manson.com (Jim Manson) wrote:
>
>> joshk...@iname.com (Joshua Kramer) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <92573798...@news.remarQ.com>, "SharonB"
>> ><sharon...@fuse.net.removeyourfootfromyourmouth> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Actually, *I* am trying to get him busted for something.
>> >
>> >You are a fuckhead. This is usenet, not real life.
>> >
>> >> I
>> >> intensely dislike pedophiles.
>> >
>> >He's not a pedophile - you have no proof that he's a pedophile, and by
>> >saying he's a pedophile you become Kook Kabal - that's a classic.
>>
>> Um, so posting binaries of naked children from what he's admitted is a
>> personal collection of them doesn't indicate "pedophile"?
>
>No, it does not. It indiciates nothing at all. Do you think calling him
>a pedophile furthers your argument? No. It does nothing at all, except
>call him a pedophile. That makes you a fuckhead.
And damned proud of it!
>
>1. Pedophile would involve actually wanting to have sex with the children -
>you have no evidence that he wants to do so - *NONE*
Wrong. Take some abnormal psych courses sometimes. It also has to do
with stimulation from viewing representations of them, not just
wanting complete contact.
>
>2. Who the fuck cares what he posts if he posts it in the right place. Are
>you a censor?
Sorry- you can make the same argument to excuse pretty much all
behavior.
Am I a censor? Regarding kids, yep I am.
>
>When do you invade canada, Jim?
Um how's Friday for you?
Jim Manson
>
>And I will take your word on the dejanews search; my only point is that we
>haven't actually CAUGHT him engaging in sex with a minor and such the charge
>of pedophilia is a little gratuitous (given his many other character flaws).
That would be child molesting, not pedophilia. Someone can be a
pedophile and never actually touch a kid. The word refers to the
sexual stimulation not the physical act.
To make something clear I have never, in the last several years on
Usenet, *ever* called anyone a pedophile or anything even remotely
similar.
In this case based on all of the information, provided by Richard
himself, the label seems to definitely fit.
On a personal level I really, really dislike pedophiles that seem to
be crossing the line into action. That would be indicated by the photo
trading, the solicitation of kids over the net for sex and other
assorted activities that Richard has been busy with.
Am I expressing my contempt for that activity? Yep.
Do I feel bad for doing so? Nope.
Can such activity on the net lead to molesting? Yep, and it's
happened more than once just in my area. I'm sure you can find
examples in your area as well. Chat rooms are a big problem for that.
To answer someone else- I have not only bitched about child
pornography but I have turned it over to people I work with in law
enforcement at the State and Federal levels, and I would do so again.
In most cases there are no ongoing discussions where the topic comes
up, they post and disappear or hang around chat rooms. In this case
Richard is staying around.
Would I turn Richard over? Not at this point since, unfortunately,
there are photos that are legal. If he posts anything that appears to
actually be classified as child pornography I will turn it over with
no hesitation at all. Child pornography is the only area that I have
that type of reaction to.
And as I said before I have no guilt whatsoever about feeling that way
and never will.
SharonB
Anapiel wrote in message <7gla8k$m9f$1...@news.ametro.net>...
>>><sharon...@fuse.net.removeyourfootfromyourmouth> wrote:
>If what you're saying is true, then you should forward all evidence you
have
>to the appropriate law enforcement officers. Threatening to do so and
>namecalling on the internet is all to commonplace these days. As I
>understand the law, it is the possession, not requesting, of child
>pornography which makes the difference. Until you have a directory
listing
>of his hard drive which shows the files actually there, you ain't got
>diddly.
I *do* appreciate both your earlier point, and this one. And I did
report it, via snailmail, email and a couple of long conversations with
the good Lt. I'll have to triple check to be certain, but I believe in
my state, requesting it also is illegal. I also agree that *I* don't
have diddly, a "properly formatted" (Richard's words) search warrant
would be necessary. If memory serves, I didn't threaten, just made a
statement of fact.
>I don't like crusades and I don't like crusaders. If you've actually
got a
>beef with this Richard guy, then I suggest you settle it to your
>satisfaction. IMHO, he's more of a source of humor at this point then a
>menace to anybody (except maybe himself). When you rail against him as
a
>pedophile, you come off sounding like hosts of other's who've attempted
to
>character assassinate there targets by calling them pedophiles.
I am in no way trying to be a crusader, I was sitting here heartily
amused by the Stupid Richard antics, totally disregarding whoever it was
that started calling him a pedophile, then Richard's *own* posts were
put up in proof. After that, and his defense of same, I would consider
it very irresponsible on my part, due to accident of geography, to not
report it. I forwarded the posts he wrote to the state police post next
door to him (which, if I remember correctly, was his suggestion).....and
I *still* remain amused by his antics :-)
>Everyone likes a whipping boy on usenet, especially one as hopelessly
>clueless as Richard. I get mighty concerned when people start blurring
the
>line between the real world and usenet (I mean, I've posted detailed
>descriptions of illegal pharmacological research conducted on myself,
and
>would hate the idea that someone might consider the fact that I posted
it to
>usenet as prima facie proof that I had engaged in illegal actions).
I agree, but I also believe this to be one of those rare instances where
the lines merged. Had I done nothing, and he does go off to Wisconsin
and matches up with that mother/daughter duo he was advertising
for...then I would consider myself partly to blame for that child's
abuse....much the same as if I knowingly let a drunk friend drive home
from my house, and he/she kills someone.
>Plus, Richard the Pedophile threads are lot less amusing than Richard
the
>Idiot who Can't Figure the Internet Out threads/
Agreed :-) Plus, it's not just the "can't" figure it out, but insults
and threatens to sue when he's warned, and does it anyway :-)...all the
while arrogantly telling the experts exactly why they are wrong and he
is right.
Jim Manson
>I agree, but I also believe this to be one of those rare instances where
>the lines merged. Had I done nothing, and he does go off to Wisconsin
>and matches up with that mother/daughter duo he was advertising
>for...then I would consider myself partly to blame for that child's
>abuse....much the same as if I knowingly let a drunk friend drive home
>from my house, and he/she kills someone.
I wouldn't worry too much. I'm next door to Wisconsin.
Let's just say that Richard should be *real* careful about setting up
anything with someone from Wisconsin on the 'net. He might be
unpleasantly surprised by who might be on the other end.
We can leave it at that.
jesus X
> What they do just may be a legal issue for the courts to decide upon.
No laws apply. Get a clue.
> Plus the fact that it may also fall under the consitution's first amendments
> guarantee of freedom of speech.
> I will continue posting to any group I desire. That is my right as much as
> it is yours.
There are no rights to access the Internet. None. This does NOT fall
under anything related to the 1st amendment. You can be cut off at
anytime, for any reason, by whoever has the access. Remember when Ross
Perot wanted to buy a half hour during prime time TV on all 3 networks?
They said no, he sued, said 1st amendment, and he LOST. Same deal here.
--
jesus X [jesusx{at}who.net] [jesusx{at}depechemode.com]
Everything not Strictly Forbidden is now Mandatory.
Think Cosmically, Act Insignificantly.
Anapiel
John Henry wrote in message <7gl9uh$kdf$1...@east44.supernews.com>...>news:7gkpru$579$1...@news.ametro.net...
>> And I will take your word on the dejanews search; my only point is that
>we
>> haven't actually CAUGHT him engaging in sex with a minor and such the
>charge
>> of pedophilia is a little gratuitous (given his many other character
>flaws).
>
>10 to 1 if it was *your* kid in the pic, it would be proven to *you*, too,
>but then, people withouth kids rarely relate to these issues.
<G>
Humanity is a virus, bub. What are you doing to stop the spread :-)?
Seriously, it wasn't your kid was it. Where are the kid-in-question's
parents? Its their job to deal with it, not a bunch of geeks on usenet, fer
chrissakes.
I mean, I specifically use protection BECAUSE I don't care enough about kids
to raise them properly.
Callous; perhaps. . .but I tend to think the child preotection resources of
our country would be better spent chasing down REAL LIFE abuse as opposed to
internet pictures. Dig?
anyways, last comment on this. . .
Anapiel
I R A Aggie
+ Seriously, it wasn't your kid was it. Where are the kid-in-question's
+ parents? Its their job to deal with it, not a bunch of geeks on usenet, fer
+ chrissakes.
When you don't oppose evil, you join it.
+ Callous; perhaps. . .but I tend to think the child preotection resources of
+ our country would be better spent chasing down REAL LIFE abuse as opposed to
+ internet pictures. Dig?
Even if those pictures show abuse?
James
John Henry
> >The charge of posession and distribution of KP has already been proven.
> >10 to 1 if it was *your* kid in the pic, it would be proven to *you*,
too,
> >but then, people withouth kids rarely relate to these issues.
> <G>
> Humanity is a virus, bub. What are you doing to stop the spread :-)?
Replicating at a 1:2 ratio ;-)
> Seriously, it wasn't your kid was it. Where are the kid-in-question's
> parents? Its their job to deal with it, not a bunch of geeks on usenet,
fer
> chrissakes.
It was parent's jobs to deal with those kids that shotthemselves inthe
80's while listening to Judas Priest and Ozzy Ozbourne. Who got sued?
More to a recent point, it's the parents job to not only educate their
kids on why it's just not cool to ostracize and harass people, as it is
also the job of parents to notice when your kid brings home an assault
rifle and leaves it sit on his dresser for weeks. You can see what a great
job the parents did of that in one word - Littleton.
More to the point - take my own situation. My daughter lives with her
mother, 800 miles away, now. This wasn't always the case, but the simple
fact is that it's neither physically or financially possible for me to be
with her every minute of every day. Children are molested and abused by
trusted relatives, trusted caregivers, and sometimes even older children.
It happens every day. So when I see *evidence* of this happening, said
evidence being, for instance, a photograph of a naked child on a usenet
newsgroup, I should just ignore it because 'the parents will take care of
it?' Now, understand, I'm not as rabid as I *should* be, ethically, on
this subject - I don't peruse the pedo groups *looking* for this stuff.
But am I going to just sit back and let these things happen, when they are
brought to my attention?
Fuck, NO.
Some people on the net know this already, but my daughter was molested
when she was 3 years old. by my then-girlfriend's brother, who was 16. I
was *sleeping in the next room and never heard a sound.* In fact, I
didn't know anything about it until my daughter complained of pain during
urination the following day, and even then I had trouble accepting it -
this was a guy I trusted, I was living with his sister and raising *her*
daughter as my own, as well as mine. He babysat for us on more than one
occassion. He covered my child's mouth, and threatened that she would be
taken away from me if she told anyone. If I hadn't been so insistent on
her telling me what happened, I may have *never* known.
I suppose that will make me a bad parent, in your eyes. It did in mine,
for a long time, until I got some reality. The simple fact is there's
nothing I could have done to see this coming, in retrospect, nor could
anything but random chance have prevented the occurence of the abuse while
it was happening. If my bladder had stirred me from sleep at that precise
moment, I'd liable be in prison myself right now. It didn't.
> I mean, I specifically use protection BECAUSE I don't care enough about
kids
> to raise them properly.
Yeah, well, hindsight is always 20-20. When my daughter was born her
mother was a clean, sober, and intelligent young woman that claimed to be
committed to the relationship we were in and ready to start a family. She
changed, and I was a single father for about 8 years. Now she's gotten
her act together, and I have a little time to work on *my* act. Life is
funny that way.
> Callous; perhaps. . .but I tend to think the child preotection resources
of
> our country would be better spent chasing down REAL LIFE abuse as
opposed to
> internet pictures. Dig?
Pray tell - exactly how do you think these pictures are taken? So you
think that the children in these pictures are really sults, playing a
role? Or constructs created in a graphic utility? KP exists because
there is a market for it. The existence of a market creates the potentiol
for profit. The potential for profit creates the desire to reap that
profit. The desire to rep that profit leads to the victimization of
children. I'm sure that some KP producers are only in it for the money,
and get no great thrill from seeing these pics. However, for people like
our beloved Richard, who obviously seek this material out, and indeed, has
indicated that he knows where to find children to accost online, there is
obviously a thrill involved, a prurient interest.
My daughter is online. She does not live with me. I can buy all the
software on the market, make sure it's installed properly, and all of
that, but the simple fact that one has to face as a parent is that you
can't hold your child's hand and protect them 24/7...and certainly less
than that in a situation such as mine. If I can have a hand in taking
even *one* pedo off the net that might potentially have someday victimized
*my* child, then every single thing I've ever done is justified, to me.
If Dickie boy gets canned for a couple of years over his crap, how many
children *won't* be violated in that time by him?
How would you like it if it was pictures of *you* he was yanking his crank
to?
You obviously haven't thought this through at all. Pornographic pictures
of children are a crime *precisely* because even if it is true that there
is no victim in Dickie's house, at one time, there was a victim in front
of that camera.
THINK.
Jim Manson
>Anapiel <hsi...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7gn4u4$kvj$1...@news.ametro.net...
>> >The charge of posession and distribution of KP has already been proven.
>> >10 to 1 if it was *your* kid in the pic, it would be proven to *you*,
>too,
>> >but then, people withouth kids rarely relate to these issues.
>
>
>You obviously haven't thought this through at all. Pornographic pictures
>of children are a crime *precisely* because even if it is true that there
>is no victim in Dickie's house, at one time, there was a victim in front
>of that camera.
>
>THINK.
Well said.