|
Sports » uk.sport.football » KooKs & NetKKKops
| KooKs & NetKKKops [message #980759] |
Tue, 02 May 2006 19:34 |
|
"macfizz [at] gmail.com" <macfizz [at] gmail.com> Wrote:
>I've written to the abuse-meisters at Google Groups quite a few times
>with no response. You could probably get its ISP to shut the troll's
>access down, but as it has told us already it can go into a cyber-cafe
>anywhere and carry on once more. I dare say some folks would like to
>find the troll's real name and address and go round to discuss the
>matter human to worm, but part of the nature of this kind of pond-life
>is its anonymity.
Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1 [at] kidneys.mac.com> Wrote:
>The CH thing is not even trolling in the sense that I know it. It's
>infantile, grossly offensive cross-posting on a level that way
>out-offends "Macs suck - discuss." I've actually never seen anything
>like this before, and it makes me wonder that if he could be located
>then could he actually be prosecuted for libel?
Margolotta <naggingdoubt [at] thebackofyourmind.invalid> Wrote:
>Well he must be able to be prosecuted for something. I have resisted
>temptation but his remark that everyone with HIV is a 'dirty faggot' got to
>me. I know of a bloke with HIV (he sells The Big Issue in Oxford) - he's not
>gay - he's a haemophiliac. That's right, he acquired the virus via a blood
>transfusion. When the supplier of the blood was contacted, he didn't even
>know he was positive - he'd never been tested.
>
>You're right, it's not libellous, but it's surely designed to be provocative?
>If it had been said in public, it would be incitement to riot/violence,
>surely.
>
>There MUST be some law he can be prosecuted under, *surely*?! He can't be
>allowed to get away with it.
Norbert Lieckfeldt <n [at] lieckfeldt.com> Wrote:
>No, because there's a suspicion that he's broken the law. No-one knows
>whether he has unless he is being prosecuted by the proper authorities
>and convicted by a court of law. But the suspicion that he may have
>should be enough to bring it to the attention of prosecuting authorities
>who will come to a decision on whether to prosecute or not.
5605 <not [at] chance.com> Wrote:
>I refer you all to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. This would
>be my start point, along with recent legislation concerning the misuse
>of electronic services.
Graham W <graham [at] nospamgrahamwilson.co.uk> Wrote:
>Well, I've handed 150 of it's more offensive posts to the Old Bill, but
>doubtless it'll make little difference in the long run. That said, the
>OB did get rid of the 'Reverand' character on the East Anglia group a
>few years ago for similar postings. Seems they 'knocked on his door'
>quite early in the morning and removed computers etc. Here's hoping...
David Kennedy <davidkennedy [at] dmnc.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> Wrote:
>Anything that helps is good. Complaining to Google Groups - or his ISP -
>seems to be a waste of time and space.
Steve Firth <%steve% [at] malloc.co.uk> Wrote:
>No, a few people want to see him face due process for something that *you*
>see as trollign and others see as racial hatred and homophobia.
>I don't see reporting someone to the police for hate crimes as
>"inappropriate". Graham's to be applauded for doing the right thing.
Kit <kitzyme [at] yahoo.com> Wrote:
>People who believe that a law may have been breached are entitled to
>bring this fact to the attention of the authorities.
"Toby" <tl36265 [at] spamhole.com> Wrote:
>You'd best be careful with language like that as may well find PC Plod
>on your doorstep wanting to interview you for inciting hatred. And I'll
>be the first to stand up and make a complaint againt you.
Bonge Boo! <bingbong [at] spamcop.net> Wrote:
>Please feel free to do the same. Once we've got that shut down, if he
>continues, I'll just try to get other accounts closed.
>Anyone who has the know-how and inclination to get his ISP to terminate him,
>please feel free to correspond: powerbookboy [at] gmail.com
--
DLF
|
|
|
| Re: KooKs & NetKKKops [message #980783 ] |
Tue, 02 May 2006 20:34 |
|
DLF flushed and announced:
>"macfizz [at] gmail.com" <macfizz [at] gmail.com> Wrote:
>
>>I've written to the abuse-meisters at Google Groups quite a few times
>>with no response. You could probably get its ISP to shut the troll's
>>access down, but as it has told us already it can go into a cyber-cafe
>>anywhere and carry on once more. I dare say some folks would like to
>>find the troll's real name and address and go round to discuss the
>>matter human to worm, but part of the nature of this kind of pond-life
>>is its anonymity.
>
>Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1 [at] kidneys.mac.com> Wrote:
>
>>The CH thing is not even trolling in the sense that I know it. It's
>>infantile, grossly offensive cross-posting on a level that way
>>out-offends "Macs suck - discuss." I've actually never seen anything
>>like this before, and it makes me wonder that if he could be located
>>then could he actually be prosecuted for libel?
>
>Margolotta <naggingdoubt [at] thebackofyourmind.invalid> Wrote:
>
>>Well he must be able to be prosecuted for something. I have resisted
>>temptation but his remark that everyone with HIV is a 'dirty faggot' got to
>>me. I know of a bloke with HIV (he sells The Big Issue in Oxford) - he's not
>>gay - he's a haemophiliac. That's right, he acquired the virus via a blood
>>transfusion. When the supplier of the blood was contacted, he didn't even
>>know he was positive - he'd never been tested.
>>
>>You're right, it's not libellous, but it's surely designed to be provocative?
>>If it had been said in public, it would be incitement to riot/violence,
>>surely.
>>
>>There MUST be some law he can be prosecuted under, *surely*?! He can't be
>>allowed to get away with it.
>
>Norbert Lieckfeldt <n [at] lieckfeldt.com> Wrote:
>
>>No, because there's a suspicion that he's broken the law. No-one knows
>>whether he has unless he is being prosecuted by the proper authorities
>>and convicted by a court of law. But the suspicion that he may have
>>should be enough to bring it to the attention of prosecuting authorities
>>who will come to a decision on whether to prosecute or not.
>
>5605 <not [at] chance.com> Wrote:
>
>>I refer you all to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. This would
>>be my start point, along with recent legislation concerning the misuse
>>of electronic services.
>
>Graham W <graham [at] nospamgrahamwilson.co.uk> Wrote:
>
>>Well, I've handed 150 of it's more offensive posts to the Old Bill, but
>>doubtless it'll make little difference in the long run. That said, the
>>OB did get rid of the 'Reverand' character on the East Anglia group a
>>few years ago for similar postings. Seems they 'knocked on his door'
>>quite early in the morning and removed computers etc. Here's hoping...
>
>David Kennedy <davidkennedy [at] dmnc.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> Wrote:
>
>>Anything that helps is good. Complaining to Google Groups - or his ISP -
>>seems to be a waste of time and space.
>
>Steve Firth <%steve% [at] malloc.co.uk> Wrote:
>
>>No, a few people want to see him face due process for something that *you*
>>see as trollign and others see as racial hatred and homophobia.
>>I don't see reporting someone to the police for hate crimes as
>>"inappropriate". Graham's to be applauded for doing the right thing.
>
>Kit <kitzyme [at] yahoo.com> Wrote:
I'll give you $25 American for this one. Provided it's female and
doesn't have saggy fried egg titties.
>
>>People who believe that a law may have been breached are entitled to
>>bring this fact to the attention of the authorities.
>
>"Toby" <tl36265 [at] spamhole.com> Wrote:
>
>>You'd best be careful with language like that as may well find PC Plod
>>on your doorstep wanting to interview you for inciting hatred. And I'll
>>be the first to stand up and make a complaint againt you.
>
>Bonge Boo! <bingbong [at] spamcop.net> Wrote:
>
>>Please feel free to do the same. Once we've got that shut down, if he
>>continues, I'll just try to get other accounts closed.
>>Anyone who has the know-how and inclination to get his ISP to terminate him,
>>please feel free to correspond: powerbookboy [at] gmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: KooKs & NetKKKops [message #980827 ] |
Wed, 03 May 2006 02:48 |
|
Creepy Pilot wrote:
> DLF flushed and announced:
>
>>"macfizz [at] gmail.com" <macfizz [at] gmail.com> Wrote:
>>
>>>I've written to the abuse-meisters at Google Groups quite a few times
>>>with no response. You could probably get its ISP to shut the troll's
>>>access down, but as it has told us already it can go into a cyber-cafe
>>>anywhere and carry on once more. I dare say some folks would like to
>>>find the troll's real name and address and go round to discuss the
>>>matter human to worm, but part of the nature of this kind of pond-life
>>>is its anonymity.
>>
>>Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1 [at] kidneys.mac.com> Wrote:
>>
>>>The CH thing is not even trolling in the sense that I know it. It's
>>>infantile, grossly offensive cross-posting on a level that way
>>>out-offends "Macs suck - discuss." I've actually never seen anything
>>>like this before, and it makes me wonder that if he could be located
>>>then could he actually be prosecuted for libel?
>>
>>Margolotta <naggingdoubt [at] thebackofyourmind.invalid> Wrote:
>>
>>>Well he must be able to be prosecuted for something. I have resisted
>>>temptation but his remark that everyone with HIV is a 'dirty faggot' got to
>>>me. I know of a bloke with HIV (he sells The Big Issue in Oxford) - he's not
>>>gay - he's a haemophiliac. That's right, he acquired the virus via a blood
>>>transfusion. When the supplier of the blood was contacted, he didn't even
>>>know he was positive - he'd never been tested.
>>>
>>>You're right, it's not libellous, but it's surely designed to be provocative?
>>>If it had been said in public, it would be incitement to riot/violence,
>>>surely.
>>>
>>>There MUST be some law he can be prosecuted under, *surely*?! He can't be
>>>allowed to get away with it.
>>
>>Norbert Lieckfeldt <n [at] lieckfeldt.com> Wrote:
>>
>>>No, because there's a suspicion that he's broken the law. No-one knows
>>>whether he has unless he is being prosecuted by the proper authorities
>>>and convicted by a court of law. But the suspicion that he may have
>>>should be enough to bring it to the attention of prosecuting authorities
>>>who will come to a decision on whether to prosecute or not.
>>
>>5605 <not [at] chance.com> Wrote:
>>
>>>I refer you all to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. This would
>>>be my start point, along with recent legislation concerning the misuse
>>>of electronic services.
>>
>>Graham W <graham [at] nospamgrahamwilson.co.uk> Wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I've handed 150 of it's more offensive posts to the Old Bill, but
>>>doubtless it'll make little difference in the long run. That said, the
>>>OB did get rid of the 'Reverand' character on the East Anglia group a
>>>few years ago for similar postings. Seems they 'knocked on his door'
>>>quite early in the morning and removed computers etc. Here's hoping...
>>
>>David Kennedy <davidkennedy [at] dmnc.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> Wrote:
>>
>>>Anything that helps is good. Complaining to Google Groups - or his ISP -
>>>seems to be a waste of time and space.
>>
>>Steve Firth <%steve% [at] malloc.co.uk> Wrote:
>>
>>>No, a few people want to see him face due process for something that *you*
>>>see as trollign and others see as racial hatred and homophobia.
>>>I don't see reporting someone to the police for hate crimes as
>>>"inappropriate". Graham's to be applauded for doing the right thing.
>>
>>Kit <kitzyme [at] yahoo.com> Wrote:
>
> I'll give you $25 American for this one. Provided it's female and
> doesn't have saggy fried egg titties.
>
>>
>>>People who believe that a law may have been breached are entitled to
>>>bring this fact to the attention of the authorities.
>>
>>"Toby" <tl36265 [at] spamhole.com> Wrote:
>>
>>>You'd best be careful with language like that as may well find PC Plod
>>>on your doorstep wanting to interview you for inciting hatred. And I'll
>>>be the first to stand up and make a complaint againt you.
>>
>>Bonge Boo! <bingbong [at] spamcop.net> Wrote:
>>
>>>Please feel free to do the same. Once we've got that shut down, if he
>>>continues, I'll just try to get other accounts closed.
>>>Anyone who has the know-how and inclination to get his ISP to terminate him,
>>>please feel free to correspond: powerbookboy [at] gmail.com
>
Why are you posting this in demon.local?
--
ah
|
|
|
| Re: KooKs & NetKKKops [message #995259 ] |
Wed, 03 May 2006 15:29 |
|
ah whined:
>Creepy Pilot wrote:
>> DLF flushed and announced:
>>
>>>"macfizz [at] gmail.com" <macfizz [at] gmail.com> Wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've written to the abuse-meisters at Google Groups quite a few times
>>>>with no response. You could probably get its ISP to shut the troll's
>>>>access down, but as it has told us already it can go into a cyber-cafe
>>>>anywhere and carry on once more. I dare say some folks would like to
>>>>find the troll's real name and address and go round to discuss the
>>>>matter human to worm, but part of the nature of this kind of pond-life
>>>>is its anonymity.
>>>
>>>Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1 [at] kidneys.mac.com> Wrote:
>>>
>>>>The CH thing is not even trolling in the sense that I know it. It's
>>>>infantile, grossly offensive cross-posting on a level that way
>>>>out-offends "Macs suck - discuss." I've actually never seen anything
>>>>like this before, and it makes me wonder that if he could be located
>>>>then could he actually be prosecuted for libel?
>>>
>>>Margolotta <naggingdoubt [at] thebackofyourmind.invalid> Wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well he must be able to be prosecuted for something. I have resisted
>>>>temptation but his remark that everyone with HIV is a 'dirty faggot' got to
>>>>me. I know of a bloke with HIV (he sells The Big Issue in Oxford) - he's not
>>>>gay - he's a haemophiliac. That's right, he acquired the virus via a blood
>>>>transfusion. When the supplier of the blood was contacted, he didn't even
>>>>know he was positive - he'd never been tested.
>>>>
>>>>You're right, it's not libellous, but it's surely designed to be provocative?
>>>>If it had been said in public, it would be incitement to riot/violence,
>>>>surely.
>>>>
>>>>There MUST be some law he can be prosecuted under, *surely*?! He can't be
>>>>allowed to get away with it.
>>>
>>>Norbert Lieckfeldt <n [at] lieckfeldt.com> Wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, because there's a suspicion that he's broken the law. No-one knows
>>>>whether he has unless he is being prosecuted by the proper authorities
>>>>and convicted by a court of law. But the suspicion that he may have
>>>>should be enough to bring it to the attention of prosecuting authorities
>>>>who will come to a decision on whether to prosecute or not.
>>>
>>>5605 <not [at] chance.com> Wrote:
>>>
>>>>I refer you all to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. This would
>>>>be my start point, along with recent legislation concerning the misuse
>>>>of electronic services.
>>>
>>>Graham W <graham [at] nospamgrahamwilson.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, I've handed 150 of it's more offensive posts to the Old Bill, but
>>>>doubtless it'll make little difference in the long run. That said, the
>>>>OB did get rid of the 'Reverand' character on the East Anglia group a
>>>>few years ago for similar postings. Seems they 'knocked on his door'
>>>>quite early in the morning and removed computers etc. Here's hoping...
>>>
>>>David Kennedy <davidkennedy [at] dmnc.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>
>>>>Anything that helps is good. Complaining to Google Groups - or his ISP -
>>>>seems to be a waste of time and space.
>>>
>>>Steve Firth <%steve% [at] malloc.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, a few people want to see him face due process for something that *you*
>>>>see as trollign and others see as racial hatred and homophobia.
>>>>I don't see reporting someone to the police for hate crimes as
>>>>"inappropriate". Graham's to be applauded for doing the right thing.
>>>
>>>Kit <kitzyme [at] yahoo.com> Wrote:
>>
>> I'll give you $25 American for this one. Provided it's female and
>> doesn't have saggy fried egg titties.
>>
>>>
>>>>People who believe that a law may have been breached are entitled to
>>>>bring this fact to the attention of the authorities.
>>>
>>>"Toby" <tl36265 [at] spamhole.com> Wrote:
>>>
>>>>You'd best be careful with language like that as may well find PC Plod
>>>>on your doorstep wanting to interview you for inciting hatred. And I'll
>>>>be the first to stand up and make a complaint againt you.
>>>
>>>Bonge Boo! <bingbong [at] spamcop.net> Wrote:
>>>
>>>>Please feel free to do the same. Once we've got that shut down, if he
>>>>continues, I'll just try to get other accounts closed.
>>>>Anyone who has the know-how and inclination to get his ISP to terminate him,
>>>>please feel free to correspond: powerbookboy [at] gmail.com
>>
>
>Why are you posting this in demon.local?
The UTB owns demon.local. We will be using it as our urinal.
|
|
|
| Re: KooKs & NetKKKops [message #995361 ] |
Thu, 04 May 2006 13:19 |
|
Redundant Massacre Rat wrote:
> ah whined:
>
>>Creepy Pilot wrote:
>>> DLF flushed and announced:
>>>
>>>>"macfizz [at] gmail.com" <macfizz [at] gmail.com> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I've written to the abuse-meisters at Google Groups quite a few times
>>>>>with no response. You could probably get its ISP to shut the troll's
>>>>>access down, but as it has told us already it can go into a cyber-cafe
>>>>>anywhere and carry on once more. I dare say some folks would like to
>>>>>find the troll's real name and address and go round to discuss the
>>>>>matter human to worm, but part of the nature of this kind of pond-life
>>>>>is its anonymity.
>>>>
>>>>Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1 [at] kidneys.mac.com> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The CH thing is not even trolling in the sense that I know it. It's
>>>>>infantile, grossly offensive cross-posting on a level that way
>>>>>out-offends "Macs suck - discuss." I've actually never seen anything
>>>>>like this before, and it makes me wonder that if he could be located
>>>>>then could he actually be prosecuted for libel?
>>>>
>>>>Margolotta <naggingdoubt [at] thebackofyourmind.invalid> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well he must be able to be prosecuted for something. I have resisted
>>>>>temptation but his remark that everyone with HIV is a 'dirty faggot' got to
>>>>>me. I know of a bloke with HIV (he sells The Big Issue in Oxford) - he's not
>>>>>gay - he's a haemophiliac. That's right, he acquired the virus via a blood
>>>>>transfusion. When the supplier of the blood was contacted, he didn't even
>>>>>know he was positive - he'd never been tested.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're right, it's not libellous, but it's surely designed to be provocative?
>>>>>If it had been said in public, it would be incitement to riot/violence,
>>>>>surely.
>>>>>
>>>>>There MUST be some law he can be prosecuted under, *surely*?! He can't be
>>>>>allowed to get away with it.
>>>>
>>>>Norbert Lieckfeldt <n [at] lieckfeldt.com> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No, because there's a suspicion that he's broken the law. No-one knows
>>>>>whether he has unless he is being prosecuted by the proper authorities
>>>>>and convicted by a court of law. But the suspicion that he may have
>>>>>should be enough to bring it to the attention of prosecuting authorities
>>>>>who will come to a decision on whether to prosecute or not.
>>>>
>>>>5605 <not [at] chance.com> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I refer you all to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. This would
>>>>>be my start point, along with recent legislation concerning the misuse
>>>>>of electronic services.
>>>>
>>>>Graham W <graham [at] nospamgrahamwilson.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well, I've handed 150 of it's more offensive posts to the Old Bill, but
>>>>>doubtless it'll make little difference in the long run. That said, the
>>>>>OB did get rid of the 'Reverand' character on the East Anglia group a
>>>>>few years ago for similar postings. Seems they 'knocked on his door'
>>>>>quite early in the morning and removed computers etc. Here's hoping...
>>>>
>>>>David Kennedy <davidkennedy [at] dmnc.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Anything that helps is good. Complaining to Google Groups - or his ISP -
>>>>>seems to be a waste of time and space.
>>>>
>>>>Steve Firth <%steve% [at] malloc.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No, a few people want to see him face due process for something that *you*
>>>>>see as trollign and others see as racial hatred and homophobia.
>>>>>I don't see reporting someone to the police for hate crimes as
>>>>>"inappropriate". Graham's to be applauded for doing the right thing.
>>>>
>>>>Kit <kitzyme [at] yahoo.com> Wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll give you $25 American for this one. Provided it's female and
>>> doesn't have saggy fried egg titties.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>People who believe that a law may have been breached are entitled to
>>>>>bring this fact to the attention of the authorities.
>>>>
>>>>"Toby" <tl36265 [at] spamhole.com> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You'd best be careful with language like that as may well find PC Plod
>>>>>on your doorstep wanting to interview you for inciting hatred. And I'll
>>>>>be the first to stand up and make a complaint againt you.
>>>>
>>>>Bonge Boo! <bingbong [at] spamcop.net> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Please feel free to do the same. Once we've got that shut down, if he
>>>>>continues, I'll just try to get other accounts closed.
>>>>>Anyone who has the know-how and inclination to get his ISP to terminate him,
>>>>>please feel free to correspond: powerbookboy [at] gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>Why are you posting this in demon.local?
>
> The UTB owns demon.local. We will be using it as our urinal.
Wrong--you were consumed the moment you crossed demon.local's doorstep
That wasn't a mere lump of lard holding the door open....
--
ah
|
|
|
| Re: KooKs & NetKKKops [message #995364 ] |
Thu, 04 May 2006 15:02 |
|
ah thole wrote:
> Redundant Massacre Rat wrote:
> > ah whined:
> >
> >>Creepy Pilot wrote:
> >>> DLF flushed and announced:
> >>>
> >>>>"macfizz [at] gmail.com" <macfizz [at] gmail.com> Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I've written to the abuse-meisters at Google Groups quite a few times
> >>>>>with no response. You could probably get its ISP to shut the troll's
> >>>>>access down, but as it has told us already it can go into a cyber-cafe
> >>>>>anywhere and carry on once more. I dare say some folks would like to
> >>>>>find the troll's real name and address and go round to discuss the
> >>>>>matter human to worm, but part of the nature of this kind of pond-life
> >>>>>is its anonymity.
> >>>>
> >>>>Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1 [at] kidneys.mac.com> Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>The CH thing is not even trolling in the sense that I know it. It's
> >>>>>infantile, grossly offensive cross-posting on a level that way
> >>>>>out-offends "Macs suck - discuss." I've actually never seen anything
> >>>>>like this before, and it makes me wonder that if he could be located
> >>>>>then could he actually be prosecuted for libel?
> >>>>
> >>>>Margolotta <naggingdoubt [at] thebackofyourmind.invalid> Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Well he must be able to be prosecuted for something. I have resisted
> >>>>>temptation but his remark that everyone with HIV is a 'dirty faggot' got to
> >>>>>me. I know of a bloke with HIV (he sells The Big Issue in Oxford) - he's not
> >>>>>gay - he's a haemophiliac. That's right, he acquired the virus via a blood
> >>>>>transfusion. When the supplier of the blood was contacted, he didn't even
> >>>>>know he was positive - he'd never been tested.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You're right, it's not libellous, but it's surely designed to be provocative?
> >>>>>If it had been said in public, it would be incitement to riot/violence,
> >>>>>surely.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There MUST be some law he can be prosecuted under, *surely*?! He can't be
> >>>>>allowed to get away with it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Norbert Lieckfeldt <n [at] lieckfeldt.com> Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>No, because there's a suspicion that he's broken the law. No-one knows
> >>>>>whether he has unless he is being prosecuted by the proper authorities
> >>>>>and convicted by a court of law. But the suspicion that he may have
> >>>>>should be enough to bring it to the attention of prosecuting authorities
> >>>>>who will come to a decision on whether to prosecute or not.
> >>>>
> >>>>5605 <not [at] chance.com> Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I refer you all to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. This would
> >>>>>be my start point, along with recent legislation concerning the misuse
> >>>>>of electronic services.
> >>>>
> >>>>Graham W <graham [at] nospamgrahamwilson.co.uk> Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Well, I've handed 150 of it's more offensive posts to the Old Bill, but
> >>>>>doubtless it'll make little difference in the long run. That said, the
> >>>>>OB did get rid of the 'Reverand' character on the East Anglia group a
> >>>>>few years ago for similar postings. Seems they 'knocked on his door'
> >>>>>quite early in the morning and removed computers etc. Here's hoping...
> >>>>
> >>>>David Kennedy <davidkennedy [at] dmnc.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Anything that helps is good. Complaining to Google Groups - or his ISP -
> >>>>>seems to be a waste of time and space.
> >>>>
> >>>>Steve Firth <%steve% [at] malloc.co.uk> Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>No, a few people want to see him face due process for something that *you*
> >>>>>see as trollign and others see as racial hatred and homophobia.
> >>>>>I don't see reporting someone to the police for hate crimes as
> >>>>>"inappropriate". Graham's to be applauded for doing the right thing.
> >>>>
> >>>>Kit <kitzyme [at] yahoo.com> Wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'll give you $25 American for this one. Provided it's female and
> >>> doesn't have saggy fried egg titties.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>People who believe that a law may have been breached are entitled to
> >>>>>bring this fact to the attention of the authorities.
> >>>>
> >>>>"Toby" <tl36265 [at] spamhole.com> Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>You'd best be careful with language like that as may well find PC Plod
> >>>>>on your doorstep wanting to interview you for inciting hatred. And I'll
> >>>>>be the first to stand up and make a complaint againt you.
> >>>>
> >>>>Bonge Boo! <bingbong [at] spamcop.net> Wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Please feel free to do the same. Once we've got that shut down, if he
> >>>>>continues, I'll just try to get other accounts closed.
> >>>>>Anyone who has the know-how and inclination to get his ISP to terminate him,
> >>>>>please feel free to correspond: powerbookboy [at] gmail.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>Why are you posting this in demon.local?
> >
> > The UTB owns demon.local. We will be using it as our urinal.
>
> Wrong--you were consumed the moment you crossed demon.local's doorstep
>
> That wasn't a mere lump of lard holding the door open....
Oh no! Not the blancmange again!
|
|
|
| Re: KooKs & NetKKKops [message #995366 ] |
Thu, 04 May 2006 15:36 |
|
ah whined:
>Redundant Massacre Rat wrote:
>> ah whined:
>>
>>>Creepy Pilot wrote:
>>>> DLF flushed and announced:
>>>>
>>>>>"macfizz [at] gmail.com" <macfizz [at] gmail.com> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I've written to the abuse-meisters at Google Groups quite a few times
>>>>>>with no response. You could probably get its ISP to shut the troll's
>>>>>>access down, but as it has told us already it can go into a cyber-cafe
>>>>>>anywhere and carry on once more. I dare say some folks would like to
>>>>>>find the troll's real name and address and go round to discuss the
>>>>>>matter human to worm, but part of the nature of this kind of pond-life
>>>>>>is its anonymity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1 [at] kidneys.mac.com> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The CH thing is not even trolling in the sense that I know it. It's
>>>>>>infantile, grossly offensive cross-posting on a level that way
>>>>>>out-offends "Macs suck - discuss." I've actually never seen anything
>>>>>>like this before, and it makes me wonder that if he could be located
>>>>>>then could he actually be prosecuted for libel?
>>>>>
>>>>>Margolotta <naggingdoubt [at] thebackofyourmind.invalid> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well he must be able to be prosecuted for something. I have resisted
>>>>>>temptation but his remark that everyone with HIV is a 'dirty faggot' got to
>>>>>>me. I know of a bloke with HIV (he sells The Big Issue in Oxford) - he's not
>>>>>>gay - he's a haemophiliac. That's right, he acquired the virus via a blood
>>>>>>transfusion. When the supplier of the blood was contacted, he didn't even
>>>>>>know he was positive - he'd never been tested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're right, it's not libellous, but it's surely designed to be provocative?
>>>>>>If it had been said in public, it would be incitement to riot/violence,
>>>>>>surely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There MUST be some law he can be prosecuted under, *surely*?! He can't be
>>>>>>allowed to get away with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Norbert Lieckfeldt <n [at] lieckfeldt.com> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>No, because there's a suspicion that he's broken the law. No-one knows
>>>>>>whether he has unless he is being prosecuted by the proper authorities
>>>>>>and convicted by a court of law. But the suspicion that he may have
>>>>>>should be enough to bring it to the attention of prosecuting authorities
>>>>>>who will come to a decision on whether to prosecute or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>5605 <not [at] chance.com> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I refer you all to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. This would
>>>>>>be my start point, along with recent legislation concerning the misuse
>>>>>>of electronic services.
>>>>>
>>>>>Graham W <graham [at] nospamgrahamwilson.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, I've handed 150 of it's more offensive posts to the Old Bill, but
>>>>>>doubtless it'll make little difference in the long run. That said, the
>>>>>>OB did get rid of the 'Reverand' character on the East Anglia group a
>>>>>>few years ago for similar postings. Seems they 'knocked on his door'
>>>>>>quite early in the morning and removed computers etc. Here's hoping...
>>>>>
>>>>>David Kennedy <davidkennedy [at] dmnc.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Anything that helps is good. Complaining to Google Groups - or his ISP -
>>>>>>seems to be a waste of time and space.
>>>>>
>>>>>Steve Firth <%steve% [at] malloc.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>No, a few people want to see him face due process for something that *you*
>>>>>>see as trollign and others see as racial hatred and homophobia.
>>>>>>I don't see reporting someone to the police for hate crimes as
>>>>>>"inappropriate". Graham's to be applauded for doing the right thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Kit <kitzyme [at] yahoo.com> Wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'll give you $25 American for this one. Provided it's female and
>>>> doesn't have saggy fried egg titties.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>People who believe that a law may have been breached are entitled to
>>>>>>bring this fact to the attention of the authorities.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Toby" <tl36265 [at] spamhole.com> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You'd best be careful with language like that as may well find PC Plod
>>>>>>on your doorstep wanting to interview you for inciting hatred. And I'll
>>>>>>be the first to stand up and make a complaint againt you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bonge Boo! <bingbong [at] spamcop.net> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Please feel free to do the same. Once we've got that shut down, if he
>>>>>>continues, I'll just try to get other accounts closed.
>>>>>>Anyone who has the know-how and inclination to get his ISP to terminate him,
>>>>>>please feel free to correspond: powerbookboy [at] gmail.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why are you posting this in demon.local?
>>
>> The UTB owns demon.local. We will be using it as our urinal.
>
>Wrong--you were consumed the moment you crossed demon.local's doorstep
>
>That wasn't a mere lump of lard holding the door open....
So you're a Modonna fan then.
/wooooooooooooooosh!
;)
|
|
|
| Re: KooKs & NetKKKops [message #1017497 ] |
Sat, 06 May 2006 02:25 |
|
Mercurial Ulcer wrote:
> ah whined:
>
>>Redundant Massacre Rat wrote:
>>> ah whined:
>>>
>>>>Creepy Pilot wrote:
>>>>> DLF flushed and announced:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"macfizz [at] gmail.com" <macfizz [at] gmail.com> Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've written to the abuse-meisters at Google Groups quite a few times
>>>>>>>with no response. You could probably get its ISP to shut the troll's
>>>>>>>access down, but as it has told us already it can go into a cyber-cafe
>>>>>>>anywhere and carry on once more. I dare say some folks would like to
>>>>>>>find the troll's real name and address and go round to discuss the
>>>>>>>matter human to worm, but part of the nature of this kind of pond-life
>>>>>>>is its anonymity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1 [at] kidneys.mac.com> Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The CH thing is not even trolling in the sense that I know it. It's
>>>>>>>infantile, grossly offensive cross-posting on a level that way
>>>>>>>out-offends "Macs suck - discuss." I've actually never seen anything
>>>>>>>like this before, and it makes me wonder that if he could be located
>>>>>>>then could he actually be prosecuted for libel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Margolotta <naggingdoubt [at] thebackofyourmind.invalid> Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well he must be able to be prosecuted for something. I have resisted
>>>>>>>temptation but his remark that everyone with HIV is a 'dirty faggot' got to
>>>>>>>me. I know of a bloke with HIV (he sells The Big Issue in Oxford) - he's not
>>>>>>>gay - he's a haemophiliac. That's right, he acquired the virus via a blood
>>>>>>>transfusion. When the supplier of the blood was contacted, he didn't even
>>>>>>>know he was positive - he'd never been tested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're right, it's not libellous, but it's surely designed to be provocative?
>>>>>>>If it had been said in public, it would be incitement to riot/violence,
>>>>>>>surely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There MUST be some law he can be prosecuted under, *surely*?! He can't be
>>>>>>>allowed to get away with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Norbert Lieckfeldt <n [at] lieckfeldt.com> Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, because there's a suspicion that he's broken the law. No-one knows
>>>>>>>whether he has unless he is being prosecuted by the proper authorities
>>>>>>>and convicted by a court of law. But the suspicion that he may have
>>>>>>>should be enough to bring it to the attention of prosecuting authorities
>>>>>>>who will come to a decision on whether to prosecute or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>5605 <not [at] chance.com> Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I refer you all to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. This would
>>>>>>>be my start point, along with recent legislation concerning the misuse
>>>>>>>of electronic services.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Graham W <graham [at] nospamgrahamwilson.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, I've handed 150 of it's more offensive posts to the Old Bill, but
>>>>>>>doubtless it'll make little difference in the long run. That said, the
>>>>>>>OB did get rid of the 'Reverand' character on the East Anglia group a
>>>>>>>few years ago for similar postings. Seems they 'knocked on his door'
>>>>>>>quite early in the morning and removed computers etc. Here's hoping...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>David Kennedy <davidkennedy [at] dmnc.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anything that helps is good. Complaining to Google Groups - or his ISP -
>>>>>>>seems to be a waste of time and space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Steve Firth <%steve% [at] malloc.co.uk> Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, a few people want to see him face due process for something that *you*
>>>>>>>see as trollign and others see as racial hatred and homophobia.
>>>>>>>I don't see reporting someone to the police for hate crimes as
>>>>>>>"inappropriate". Graham's to be applauded for doing the right thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Kit <kitzyme [at] yahoo.com> Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll give you $25 American for this one. Provided it's female and
>>>>> doesn't have saggy fried egg titties.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>People who believe that a law may have been breached are entitled to
>>>>>>>bring this fact to the attention of the authorities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Toby" <tl36265 [at] spamhole.com> Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You'd best be careful with language like that as may well find PC Plod
>>>>>>>on your doorstep wanting to interview you for inciting hatred. And I'll
>>>>>>>be the first to stand up and make a complaint againt you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bonge Boo! <bingbong [at] spamcop.net> Wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please feel free to do the same. Once we've got that shut down, if he
>>>>>>>continues, I'll just try to get other accounts closed.
>>>>>>>Anyone who has the know-how and inclination to get his ISP to terminate him,
>>>>>>>please feel free to correspond: powerbookboy [at] gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why are you posting this in demon.local?
>>>
>>> The UTB owns demon.local. We will be using it as our urinal.
>>
>>Wrong--you were consumed the moment you crossed demon.local's doorstep
>>
>>That wasn't a mere lump of lard holding the door open....
>
> So you're a Modonna fan then.
I'm a Bill Laswell fan.
--
ah
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 15:30:04 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.14045 Sekunden |
