Fornits
Announcements & Tech Support => Web forum hosting => Topic started by: Anonymous on November 12, 2007, 03:17:38 PM
-
www.fornits.com (http://www.fornits.com)
11/12/07 UPDATE!
Here we go again:
Oct 10th, 2007, Our upstream hosting provider, The Planet, recieved This letter from Gabrielle C. Bozza of Broad & Cassell lawfirm in Florida essentially defaming sueschefftruth.com, careybock.com and fornits.com as "serv[ing] only to disparage and defame Ms. Scheff" and threatening litigation against The Planet if they don't delete our sites. I think it's interesting that Ms Bozza refers to her client as "it" in the final paragraph. Freudian slip? I don't know why The Planet took so long to let Sean know what was up. But we got word of it on the 12th.
But this puts our friends at lulzhost.com in the unenviable position of having to choose between staying in business and standing by their friends and ethics. Sean (Janus Zeal, the admin at lulzhost.com) pulled our shabby asses out of the fire in August when NetFirms got the demand letter (see below). He's worked hard to help us out for very little money, mostly out of solidarity and proper respect for the First Amendment. I don't know if we'll be able to continue doing business with him or not for his sake. I know he's in need of about $175 to get back reliable net access and will need to replace our business should we have to step off of his server. So please consider sending him a donation via PayPal (that donations link will go live again tomorrow, mean time, use PayPal to http://CareyBock.com/ (http://CareyBock.com/) and http://SueScheffTruth.com (http://SueScheffTruth.com).
In the event that we have to move to another server again, we will need some financial help. We're considering an arrangement with a friendly hosting provider but we'd have to come up with a rack mounted server, which would cost somewhere in the range of $1500 to $2k. Ongoing server fees would run about $60/mo. But it would give us technical and legal security well beyond what we now enjoy. Mean time, we may well have to come up with legal fees and other expenses. So if you're inclined to support the fornits in that way, please feel free to
-
Hey man, thanks for the blog! We need bloggers. Anyone want to nominate anyone else?
-
Google internet defamation and see what comes up first on the list.
This is an important story and we have been dragged into it.
-
Court Cases
The majority of case law has shown that libel poses no problem in terms of definition and fault when it comes to a plaintiff pursuing legal action against the primary publisher of said libel; however, in the case of liability of secondary parties, correct assessment of liability has not fully been determined.
We point to three major court cases in "cyberlibel" liability as keys to understanding the current climate of the courts: Cubby v. CompuServe (1991), Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (1995), and Zeran v. America Online (1996). These three cases, along with several other attempts at litigation, have driven the courts' opinions on internet libel cases. Let us begin with Cubby v. CompuServe:
Cubby, Inc. vs. CompuServe Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135(S.D.N.Y. 1991)
In this very first major published case on Internet libel, the plaintiff, Cubby, Inc. claimed damages due to one of CompuServe's hundreds of independent, self operated forums. The journalistic forum called, "Rumorville" had an eletronic gossip magazine called "Skuttlebut" on which was posted a defamatory comment about Cubby, Inc. Because CompuServe does not review the contents of publications prior to postings, the court found that CompuServe held a position analagous to a distributor -- for example, an electronic bookstore or library, thereby relieving CompuServe from the liability that a publisher would face. This finding is based on the court case Smith v. California, in which the United States Supreme Court held that a distributor must have demonstrable knowledge of the erroneous (and defamatory) content of a publication prior to dissemination in order to be held liable for releasing that content. Prior landmark cases involving plaintiffs pressing libel charges against a carrier, including N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and Western Union Telegraph v. Lesesne, have found that carriers, or distributors of published works, do not hold responsiblity for libel unless they had reasonable knowledge beforehand of the libelous material they had distributed.
Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy (1995)
After having relieved much of the responsiblity of a network service provider in regards to liability, one might have expected a similar judgment to have been passed in the case of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Again, an instance of libelous remarks over a public on-line forum triggered a company to sue a network service provider. On a widely read financial matters forum called "Money Talk," a Prodigy user had posted about Daniel Porush, the president of Stratton Oakmont, a investement securities firm, and his employees. Porush, the poster claimed, was "soon to proven criminal," and further, Stratton Oakmont, Inc., was a "cult of brokers who either lie for a living or get fired." After reading this posting on Prodigy, Porush filed suit against the network service claiming Prodigy liable for this poster's libelous claims. Prodigy, on its legal behalf, claimed the status of a distributor (as in the case of Cubby vs. CompuServe). However, Stratton Oakmont argued that due to Prodigy's editorial control over content, Prodigy should be more correctly classified as a publisher. In essence, this is because Prodigy made clear to all users that it retained the right to edit, remove, and filter messages in its system in order to ensure a "family" atmosphere on-line. Because of these claims, the court classified Prodigy as a publisher and awarded damages to Stratton Oakmont.
Zeran vs. America Online (1996)
Finally, we come to the case of Zeran vs. America Online, in which a user was victim of a malicious hoax. The plaintiff, Kenneth Zeran, had his address and phone number posted in connection with advertisements for souvenirs (T-shirts, mugs, etc.) glorifying the Oklahoma City Bombing. An unknown AOL (America Online) user had obtain Zeran's personal information and posted these ads throughout AOL. Zeran received many disturbing threats due to this hoax, and was continually harassed via telephone and post. He sued AOL claiming negligence on AOL's behalf in allowing such notices to be posted, despite the complaints and postings he had registered with AOL upon first learning of the impersonation. Using the CDA (Communications Decency Act of 1996) as its defense, AOL claimed immunity through the protection that the CDA provides Internet providers. The courts ruled in favor of America Online, upholding that interactive computer service providers may not be held liable for posting defamatory statements posted by 3rd parties via the ISP. Effectively, this decision reversed the findings of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. vs. Prodigy.
http://www-cs-education.stanford.edu/cl ... cases.html (http://www-cs-education.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sections/precedent/cases.html)
-
There's a lot more here too
http://www-cs-education.stanford.edu/cl ... ndex2.html (http://www-cs-education.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/index2.html)
-
There's a lot more here too
http://www-cs-education.stanford.edu/cl ... ndex2.html (http://www-cs-education.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/index2.html)
Antigen/Ginger/Cassandra:
It is one thing to provide access to the internet in which people of varying points of view may sometimes may take it upon themselves to say things that may or may not be found to be defamatory.
I agree, in the case cited in an earlier link, that the poster who sued AOL because defamatory things were posted about him, was asking for an impossible standard to be reached in expecting AOL to be monitoring all postings that they carried, all over the world, at all times, in order to remove libel about a certain person: that standard is just too much for any carrier in this age of broad internet use, at least until the person has retained counsel and given notice of libelous action.
So I think, according to the people who advise me at least, it's not surprising that the courts found AOL not responsible for such postings (especially when they were willing to remove libelous material once it was reported to them).
But on a board like this, where moderators and others (maybe yourself?) may be involved in "checking" (and sharing with favored co-actors?) IP addresses? "Outing" posters, posting or leading to the posting of personal information about them, even after the posted agreeement offers the option of posting anonymously?
I think that the average juror or judge might have a problem with the creepiness of acting like that. Especially if some harm comes to a poster because of such actions.
I have had name, address and a map to my home published repeatedly on your site. I checked a few days ago and these posts are still there. I would like them removed.
I've asked before, when I was physically threatened on this site, as was my underaged daughter, with rape and murder, and you ignored me. I believe that the poster who now goes by the name of Charly also had personal information including name of her son who has absolutely nothing to do with this site republished here. I understand that you ignored or refused her requests to remove this information. I don't know at this point how many others are in similar positions.
I am told that recently on a CEDU thread about Bill Valentine a poster who is well-known to me used my name and suggested that my son (who has never in any context had anything to do with this board) may have somehow threatened to rape that poster's wife in an anonymous posting. Just how wrong and malicious can your scummy little enterprise get?
I am tired of this. I am tired of getting reports of your co-conspirators posting terrible untrue things about me and my family.
If your site agreement had IN ANY WAY suggested that people could not actually be anonymous here, I would never had had anything to do with your miserable site. YOU had the greater knowledge about how your site works, you should have stated your true intentions in the agreement.
I want this ended. I want you to remove any information about me or my family right away. I am publically giving you notice on this since private contact has failed. Remove any posts about me or my family right now.
Anne Hall
The following quote, taken from one of your own above links, summarizes the state of the law in this regard. I'm betting that common decency will lead to precedents by which people will be held responsible for what they do to others, on the internet, as in real life, in this area is developed further.
Given who and what you are, I assume you don't think "common decency" should have much import in the outcome.
[Further, laws that hold sysops liable for their content can, by making the sysop's position a hazardous one, discourage people and organizations from taking on this role, therefore reducing the usefulness of the Internet as a forum for communication among all users. There are some who will argue that this ultimately results in an unnecessary restriction on free communication, and that sysops should therefore not be held liable for defamation or other violations on their services under any circumstances. Others, of course, argue that defamation is a serious enough problem, especially on a forum like the Internet where false information is so easily spread, that all possible efforts should be made to discourage it, and this extends to making sysops responsible for the material they make available. The issue is new enough that neither courts nor legislation have yet rendered definitive verdicts on these questions; only time will tell how they are ultimately answered].
-
::blah::
-
Dear Anne:
Please provide links to the posts/threads that contain information about your family. I feel the need to bump them up to the top of the forum so that we may humil... errr cut and pas... I mean umm.. investigate this more thoroughly.
thank you
tsw
ps. you still suck.
-
Ms. Hall,
I am surprised that you are alerting the average viewer to their presence, if indeed these posts actually exist. Since you brought it up, I have searched for these posts, mostly to satisfy my own prurient curiosity, but have been unable to locate them...
Please do be more specific in your claims. Now I am anxious to know what the hubbub is all about!
Concerned Viewer, living vicariously
-
I have had name, address and a map to my home published repeatedly on your site. I checked a few days ago and these posts are still there. I would like them removed.
First, you're very lucky that I happened along this thread. I don't always have time to read all the latest. Lately I've rarely found time to even keep up with the most important issues here. If you take issue with something posted here you have to contact the author and talk to them about getting it edited. If that falls through, let me know. I don't know your name so how could I possibly find it? I'm not even sure the search function is working atm.
Most of the time when a complaint such as this comes to me it turns out the person making the complaint actually let the info slip themselves, not by any admin or moderator sniffing it out.
-
And then I read the rest....
I've asked before, when I was physically threatened on this site, as was my underaged daughter, with rape and murder, and you ignored me. I believe that the poster who now goes by the name of Charly also had personal information including name of her son who has absolutely nothing to do with this site republished here. I understand that you ignored or refused her requests to remove this information. I don't know at this point how many others are in similar positions.
Yeah, you were the one who actually came to mind. Remember? You posted your real name and other details on various industry related sites and someone put it together. As to the threats against your daughter, if you really take them seriously (which I don't advise) then take it up with the person making the threats. Even if I did have time to read and edit every post, my deleting threatening words would not diminish the threat if any exists to begin with. Rather it might actually have the perverse effect of angering the threatener and obfuscating details that might help you identify them. I remember the situation w/ Charly. She posted her son's name, someone else quoted her and, possibly, filled in some other info, son was upset. I advised her to contact the author who had quoted her. She did. It is my understanding that the situation was resolved. That warms my heart, but still es no mi job, meign!
I am told that recently on a CEDU thread about Bill Valentine a poster who is well-known to me used my name and suggested that my son (who has never in any context had anything to do with this board) may have somehow threatened to rape that poster's wife in an anonymous posting. Just how wrong and malicious can your scummy little enterprise get?
I am tired of this. I am tired of getting reports of your co-conspirators posting terrible untrue things about me and my family.
Even if this were a coherent enterprise and not just an open forum server, I doubt it could even aspire to the level of malice and injustice attained by the Toughlove hate group. I'm sick and tired of getting reports of your co-conspirators torturing children, defrauding desperate parents and then punishing the victims with slapp suits, threats, defamatory statements and other cruelties when they try to blow the whistle.
If your site agreement had IN ANY WAY suggested that people could not actually be anonymous here, I would never had had anything to do with your miserable site. YOU had the greater knowledge about how your site works, you should have stated your true intentions in the agreement.
::boycott::
I want this ended. I want you to remove any information about me or my family right away. I am publically giving you notice on this since private contact has failed. Remove any posts about me or my family right now.
Anne Hall
Contact the authors. Then try and show that the information you find so offensive was in any way derived from privileged information on this server.
The following quote, taken from one of your own above links, summarizes the state of the law in this regard. I'm betting that common decency will lead to precedents by which people will be held responsible for what they do to others, on the internet, as in real life, in this area is developed further.
Given who and what you are, I assume you don't think "common decency" should have much import in the outcome.
Gee, can you be a little more insulting? Common decency dictates that the entirety of the troubled parent industry and toughlove hate group be tried as criminals, many imprisoned, some put to death and the whole sorry, sad, dark history of your sordid little mob be forever burned the collective conscience as the Nazis were at Nuremberg.
[Further, laws that hold sysops liable for their content can, by making the sysop's position a hazardous one, discourage people and organizations from taking on this role, therefore reducing the usefulness of the Internet as a forum for communication among all users. There are some who will argue that this ultimately results in an unnecessary restriction on free communication, and that sysops should therefore not be held liable for defamation or other violations on their services under any circumstances. Others, of course, argue that defamation is a serious enough problem, especially on a forum like the Internet where false information is so easily spread, that all possible efforts should be made to discourage it, and this extends to making sysops responsible for the material they make available. The issue is new enough that neither courts nor legislation have yet rendered definitive verdicts on these questions; only time will tell how they are ultimately answered].
I do think this is funny as fuck. Follow me just a little ways. I got into networking way back in the stone age when dinosaurs roamed the Kwiki mart and Wildcat with Doors under Desqvu was the shit. By the time AOL came along, the rest of Cyberia thought "America On Line" was a working title for an apocalypse novel. The geeks all understood very well, even those of us proudly born and raised in the US, this very simple thing that seems so incredibly difficult for others. If you can post whatever thought flits across your mind--drunk or sober, sane or not, informed or completely ignorant--then so can anybody else. And that is the standard by which anyone should judge the content posted by others. It's a useful thing to ponder and understand because other more controlled media is only slightly more reliable than this. "I read it on a website" is not a very compelling argument by itself.
But people go on falling for it over and over; if it's in print it must be true. :roll:
If sanity prevails, the courts and community which they serve will demand that we all grow the fuck up and take responsibility for thinking for ourselves. It's a difficult situation for those in government because, while a return to the ideals of personal responsibility and self determination would eliminate much of the overhead and expense of providing government protection for the hapless, helpless masses, it would also make us all less easy to control.
I think most of the government people along with those advocates and activists who seek new regulation are well intended. Hell, I'll even give that to most (but not all) of the program operators, staff, parents and upper level/phase kids who daily inflict these tortures on their captives. Together you all can pave a mighty fine road and I hope it brings you to your destination quickly.
I'm just glad there's finally some substantial buzz about this problem. I sleep better at night knowing people like you and your cohorts are worried enough to put so much time and effort into stifling our rampant talking out in group[/color].
Oh, and thanks to all of you jokers for tying our difficult, complicated issue to a first amendment/internet issue that has such good legs of it's own. From here on out, it doesn't really matter what I do or what you do. You can fall on the floor and have a screaming tantrum like a 5 yo jonesing for his ritalin. People are going to be looking much more closely at your social club and the industry which it has fostered and I'm guessing they won't have anywhere near the sympathy for it that you manage to believe existed so long as you could keep people from candidly discussing it.
Good luck with that.
By the way, here's another case that I think has some relevance to our situation.
This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/ (http://www.silicon.com/)
Story URL: http://www.silicon.com/research/special ... 148,00.htm (http://www.silicon.com/research/specialreports/thespamreport/0,39025001,39127148,00.htm)
Spammed man sued by alleged spammer wants cash
Legal aid the PayPal way
By Jo Best
Published: Tuesday 18 January 2005
A man who claims he has been receiving unsolicited emails from a US company for two years is now being sued by them, for branding them spammers and reporting their actions to ISPs.
Jay Stuler is now on the receiving end of a lawsuit from New Hampshire firm Atriks, which alleges Stuler caused financial harm to the firm and caused it to lose contracts. The suit also states that Stuler had been making defamatory statements, including calling CEO Brian Haberstroh a "criminal" and the company "a notorious spam gang", which the suit denies.
Stuler, however, says on his website the case is a "frivolous lawsuit designed to harass and intimidate" and claims the reason he's been sued by Atriks is because, after complaining to his ISP about the alleged spam, the company saw its accounts closed down by the service providers.
"They apparently are angry that spamming has become difficult for them and blame me," he said. "If I can be sued simply for complaining about spammers, then anyone can be."
In the court filing, Atriks states that: "The activities of Atriks, in providing internet hosting, and DMC, [a company registered at the same address as Atriks] in sending commercial email, meet the requirements of the CAN-spam Act."
Anti-spam foundation SpamHaus has listed Atriks on its register of known spam operations (ROKSO), which states the company has violated the act by using misleading subject lines.
SpamHaus also says it has had complaints that software is being installed by Atriks on users' computers without their permission - which is a felony.
"Spamhaus has received numerous reports of the VirtualMDA software discovered running on people's computers without their permission, they have no idea what it's doing or how it got installed there, and they are certainly not getting paid for the use of their computer [as Atriks/Sendmail claims to do]," the ROKSO says.
Stuler is appealing for help from the public in fighting the suit and has set up a PayPal account to pay for his legal fees and is asking for donations.
"If and when my legal bills are paid in full, any donations received will be passed on to others being harassed by frivolous lawsuits from spammers," he adds.
Here's some background
God, but do I hate spammers!
-
I have had name, address and a map to my home published repeatedly on your site. I checked a few days ago and these posts are still there. I would like them removed.
First, you're very lucky that I happened along this thread. I don't always have time to read all the latest. Lately I've rarely found time to even keep up with the most important issues here. If you take issue with something posted here you have to contact the author and talk to them about getting it edited. If that falls through, let me know. I don't know your name so how could I possibly find it? I'm not even sure the search function is working atm.
Most of the time when a complaint such as this comes to me it turns out the person making the complaint actually let the info slip themselves, not by any admin or moderator sniffing it out.
I think you're being more than a little disingenuous here Antigen. You are aware, I believe, that the posts of my information were made by individuals posting anonymously, hence, how could I possible "talk to them" about removing the information? As I recall, you gave Charly some equally pointless advice about removing personal information about her son.
How many others, Antigen, have you brushed off this way, shirking any kind of responsibility for the garbage you permit to remain on YOUR board?
I may or may not be "lucky" that you "happened" to read my post: having failed to gain any action at all by contacting you directly, at least by posting here, I got a response, that's progress I suppose, even though your response is a useless one.
The fact remains that 1) I and my minor child received threats of torture, sexual assault and murder on your board 2) someone posted information on address complete with map to my house and 3) I've brought this to your attention and you've given me useless advice and let these posts stand. And I repeat, if I had known that the pond scum who run wild here were in the habit of outing people, with access in doing so, I'd never had been here in the first place.
People who act like you, Antigen, so snide and capricious about the welfare of others---all the time trying to dignify it as "free speech" ought to be sued off the internet. I hope you are.
And don't worry about your search feature not working, I've saved all the posts and can repost them for you anytime. How about this, I send you a list of where these over-the-line posts are and you delete them? Since you own the place, at least take some responsibility for the actions of the psychos you alllow to post here.
As for "Most of the time when a complaint such as this comes to me it turns out the person making the complaint actually let the info slip themselves, not by any admin or moderator sniffing it out.", well that wouldn't pertain to my case: there's a whole strings of posts (also saved) about how I was stalked on your board (IP addresses, counters, etc) by some lunatics that you palled-up with.
What is required is a way to have you to remove the offending posts, not pointless advice.
-
Look lady, you don't have to pretend that you didn't want your address posted on this site! You know that you were the one who asked for it to be posted in the first place. If you want someone to come around to visit you that badly, why not just say so instead of putting yourself and the rest of us through this ridiculous charade?
-
We've got many survivors at Fornits saying they had a bad experience.
Then there is Ottawa claiming her and her son had a good experience.
Further, even though she claims to be here to hear the good and the bad. She continually ignores or minimizes the bad... but takes every opportunity to sing the programs praises.
She doesn't appear to me, to be the least bit interested in gathering information on what didn't work for you guys. I haven't heard her ask one person to describe in detail any particular incident. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I do when I'm gathering research. Intead she appears to be more interested in provoking survivors to rage or 'hysteria'.
Ottawa said:
I want to recreate that (good) experience for other people and so I must take on the burden of de-constructing how it happened.
AND: "And part of that is understanding what has not worked for others (letting kids with certain diagnoses into emotional growth programs, for example)."
What did you think about that comment? Read it carefully?
Call me skeptical, but me thinks that's why she's really here. To make a case that all 'survivors' of CEDU were too severely damaged, and were poor candidates- wrongly placed. That you should've instead had psych dx's and placed in mental institutions. Har!
Suggestion: Don't respond to her unless it is to tell her, in specific detail, WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU, WHO DID IT, AND WHY IT DIDN'T WORK. WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW, WHY.
Ya know, researchers are never objective. The researcher will always attempt to influence the outcome in order to prove their hypothesis. You'll probably be mentioned in her thesis.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=56010#56010 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=56010#56010)
That's why you were here O5.
You thwarted, baited, harrassed, and used CEDU survivors posting here in order to 'prove' your thesis.
Your IP addresses were posted publicly at ST.
You obviously weren't killed.
What happened to.... "there are no victims"... "you are at cause in your life"?
What did you do to create this?
Employ your CEDU skills and 'get over it'.
Isn't that what you suggested to survivors here?
-
Thanks for the background info, Deborah; much appreciated.
-
So I have a question, but don't want to 'disrupt' the thread.
Obviously: it occurred to someone somewhere that there would be opportunists waiting to take advantage of things like the 'sharing' of personal information online w/o specific permission of the individual for the purpose of profit...steps were taken to prevent and protect...
So here's my question: Why weren't opportunities just eliminated instead of preventive steps being taken...?
Or does stuff like that just come full circle to Antigen because she own's it? :roll:
...And whoever you are? Here's a reality check for you: If you don't want the entire internet/planet to know all about it, DON'T POST IT ANYWHERE!!
I fully expect any- and every-thing I've ever 'been, done and seen' to revisit me @ sometime, and probably @ the most inopportune moment, and if you don't, you really are an idiot!
...And just suppose (Insert one evil-repellant gesture in here ::seg:: ) by some act of demonism, you manage to silence Ginger here. So what. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF US. And apparantly, WE WILL NOT ALL BE SILENCED, ANYMORE.
You should be more careful how hard you push to bend reality to fit your perceptions. Life snaps back, ya know...Just as hard as you bend it
How 'bout if everyone opens their own website? And 'shares' info?
People like you ALWAYS get their comeuppance in the end. ALWAYS
-
Look lady, you don't have to pretend that you didn't want your address posted on this site! You know that you were the one who asked for it to be posted in the first place. If you want someone to come around to visit you that badly, why not just say so instead of putting yourself and the rest of us through this ridiculous charade?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I have had name, address and a map to my home published repeatedly on your site. I checked a few days ago and these posts are still there. I would like them removed.
First, you're very lucky that I happened along this thread. I don't always have time to read all the latest. Lately I've rarely found time to even keep up with the most important issues here. If you take issue with something posted here you have to contact the author and talk to them about getting it edited. If that falls through, let me know. I don't know your name so how could I possibly find it? I'm not even sure the search function is working atm.
Most of the time when a complaint such as this comes to me it turns out the person making the complaint actually let the info slip themselves, not by any admin or moderator sniffing it out.
Anne S. Hall (read slowly - "an asshole" :wink: ) actually did post all of her personal information elsewhere on the net and it was compiled from those sources (principally STRUGGLINGTEENS who conveniently posted her IP address and Anne herself who posted her email address and real name on STRUGGLINGTEENS in the profile section).
Since Anne posted her personal information of her own volition, it is she who bears the burden of consequence. It's all public information because SHE POSTED IT FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S CONSUMPTION and now she's angry because the general public is aware? Tough shit, Anne. Grow up and learn not to spread your and your children's business all over the 'net!
I'd love to see you bring a suit over this Anne. Your name will be so sullied (if it could be any more than currently) and dragged through the mud based on your own behavior and postings (including threats/libel) that it would end up with you being the big loser.
So, to recap: Annne S. Hall has identified herself by name and email address on the 'net, thusly making it public information. Then her name was looked up IN THE PHONEBOOK - also very public - and her street address was published there as well. Her street address was mapped using Google maps - also public information. Where's the crime here???
Seems like ol' Annie has reaped the rewards of her own stupid behavior and now wants someone else to pay for it. Well, fuck you Anne. YOU did it. Now YOU deal with it.
-
On 2006-01-18 21:15:00, Antigen wrote:
On 2006-01-18 20:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
Just want to make sure I've got it right.
Are you saying you don't think that DJ has outed persons on this site, posting personal info about them?
No, I really don't think he has. Can you show me an example? I think he reads quite a lot of industry related material and you post around quite a bit. And you've got that distinctive style. It ain't rocket science; you scatter the details of your life all over the net then whine when someone pays you the high compliment of reading and paying attention to what you write.
That's exactly it. You hit it right on the head. This lady put all her business out there on the internet where anyone can view it.
Example:
From Strugglingteens:
Profile for Gentiana
Member Status: Junior Member
Member Number: 4461
Registered: November 11, 2004
Posts: 2
Location: Minnesota
Occupation: psychology doctoral student
Interests: running reading gardening painting
What is your purpose in registering on this Board? (Specifics Please): support for other parents; my son is a successful RMA grad (1999)
email: Ottawa5@aol.com
Posts: 2 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Nov 2004 | Logged: 24.118.46.231 |
_________________________________________________
Here's a trace of her IP address:
IP Address 24.118.46.231 US UNITED STATES MINNESOTA ST. PAUL COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS INC
_________________________________________________
From Cedualumni:
Username Real name School
Gentiana Anne Hall Rocky Mountain
________________________________________________
YOU put it out there, Anne. I and a few others just read it. This is fundamentally different from what SHH has done.
I NEVER put my name out there precisely because I am smart enough to realize the the deep psychotic tendencies people like you have and would never give out information that people like you could use to hurt me.
Maybe if you had planned out your absolutely viscious assaults on people here just a wee bit better, you'd have retained your not-so-carefully guarded, beloved anonymity. Do you forget the disgusting and vile things you said about people in your smug arrogance bolstered by your hidden identity?
Seriously, did you READ what you wrote? What you have said here is an absolute indictment of your character and moral compass. You are nothing but a viscious animal while posting anonymously and a pompous, condescending ass while posting with your username.
You are a sick, twisted individual who has absolutely no business working with kids, EVER.
Ginger's right. She's spot on. You posted all of your information all over the internet because you have a need to be credited for your "work." Well, you got credit. Why are you crying about it now? Not very proud of what you have authored? Maybe you shouldn't have written it in the first place.
-
To try to save Antigen's latest collection of fellow-travellers any further agitation: I wasn't not talking to you.
Antigen, I take it from your lack of response that you are not interested in dealing with the fact that your board is being used to cyber-stalk me.
This in spite of the fact that I've brought the situation to your attention.
And you clearly do know about my concerns because you've already responded to them with the kind of characteristic dismissal of responsibility that calls out for a correction. Which I have to hope you get.
-
The fact remains that 1) I and my minor child received threats of torture, sexual assault and murder on your board 2) someone posted information on address complete with map to my house and 3) I've brought this to your attention and you've given me useless advice and let these posts stand. And I repeat, if I had known that the pond scum who run wild here were in the habit of outing people, with access in doing so, I'd never had been here in the first place.
People who act like you, Antigen, so snide and capricious about the welfare of others---all the time trying to dignify it as "free speech" ought to be sued off the internet. I hope you are.
Ok, one more time, logic check. Do you really think that deleting the words will in any way deter the writer(s) from whatever may be their intent? The words on silicon disk, served up fresh n hot to your screen, are not a threat. Removing them won't make the threatener any more or less threatening. In other words, doing what you say would serve exactly zero purpose in making anyone any safer.
At the same time, it would impinge on people's right to both write and to be able to read whatever they please raw, unvarnished, as it spews forth. You start tampering with that and it chills the entire discussion. Ask the good people who post to the yahoo group. I think there are three.
If anything, those posts are a cautionary tale like so many others on here that might inform the reader about a great many aspects of the toughlove hate group and the personalities who are drawn to it.
Since you own the place, at least take some responsibility for the actions of the psychos you alllow to post here.
Are you asking me to ban you? Practice some self control, woman! I'm not yo mama.
-
Since you own the place, at least take some responsibility for the actions of the psychos you alllow to post here.
Are you asking me to ban you? Practice some self control, woman! I'm not yo mama.
::roflmao::
Are you suggesting that Ginger is "at cause in your life"?
Um, your slipping. Better Work the Program.
-
To try to save Antigen's latest collection of fellow-travellers any further agitation: I wasn't [not] talking to you.
Then quit being a fucking drama queen and email her privately, then...sheesh.
Antigen, I take it from your lack of response that you are not interested in dealing with the fact that your board is being used to cyber-stalk me.
You are ridiculous. Get over yourself. Thanks.
-
Why would I cyber stalk your whorish self when I can do it in real life?
(http://http://www.campusmap.ualberta.ca/img_feature/Emily%20Murphy%20House.jpg)
-
Thank you Antigen, your above reply shows just what you are, a miserable person and a miserable American who pretends to confuse absoute lack of responsibility with true liberty.
Boy, would the Founding Fathers, who DID recognize the difference, have absolutely no time for you--- or your hypocritical justifications for putting others at risk.
Your little psycho-minion's house-post illustrates the kind of sickos who are associated with you. As if additional proof was needed.
Next stop for me is to communicate with Sue S. and her representatives who seem well on the way to putting a stop to this. I advise others who have been damaged by this web site to do the same.
If you've kept and collected phone trap records, email addresses, messages, and posts of harrassers connected with this site, why not send them to Sue & Company, the contact info is posted on the Sue Scheff thread or try her website. Let's pool what's out there and see what can be done.
It will save others what some of us have been through and, with a little luck, might even put some of the scum away for a few years--whether or not they're willing to admit outright that they are co-conspirators in this. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse as I fervently hope some of these jokers get to learn the hard way.
-
To try to save Antigen's latest collection of fellow-travellers any further agitation: I wasn't [not] talking to you.
Then quit being a fucking drama queen and email her privately, then...sheesh.
Antigen, I take it from your lack of response that you are not interested in dealing with the fact that your board is being used to cyber-stalk me.
You are ridiculous. Get over yourself. Thanks.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Thank you Antigen, your above reply shows just what you are, a miserable person and a miserable American who pretends to confuse absoute lack of responsibility with true liberty.
Boy, would the Founding Fathers, who DID recognize the difference, have absolutely no time for you--- or your hypocritical justifications for putting others at risk.
Your little psycho-minion's house-post illustrates the kind of sickos who are associated with you. As if additional proof was needed.
Next stop for me is to communicate with Sue S. and her representatives who seem well on the way to putting a stop to this. I advise others who have been damaged by this web site to do the same.
If you've kept and collected phone trap records, email addresses, messages, and posts of harrassers connected with this site, why not send them to Sue & Company, the contact info is posted on the Sue Scheff thread or try her website. Let's pool what's out there and see what can be done.
It will save others what some of us have been through and, with a little luck, might even put some of the scum away for a few years--whether or not they're willing to admit outright that they are co-conspirators in this. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse as I fervently hope some of these jokers get to learn the hard way.
Oh suck a dick, you stupid program whore. Good luck trying to make any of that stick. :roll:
"Co-conspirators," sheesh...what a drama queen you are. :cry2:
-
Thank you Antigen, your above reply shows just what you are, a miserable person and a miserable American who pretends to confuse absoute lack of responsibility with true liberty.
Boy, would the Founding Fathers, who DID recognize the difference, have absolutely no time for you--- or your hypocritical justifications for putting others at risk.
Your little psycho-minion's house-post illustrates the kind of sickos who are associated with you. As if additional proof was needed.
Was that really your house?
Next stop for me is to communicate with Sue S. and her representatives who seem well on the way to putting a stop to this. I advise others who have been damaged by this web site to do the same.
What are you actionable damages? How specifically have you been harmed?
If you've kept and collected phone trap records, email addresses, messages, and posts of harrassers connected with this site, why not send them to Sue & Company, the contact info is posted on the Sue Scheff thread or try her website. Let's pool what's out there and see what can be done.
Um, boy... that could open a can of worms. Ginger might inevitably have to release the posts in which regulars were stalked. There was also the matter of late night threats to a certain posters phone too. This could be interesting.
It will save others what some of us have been through and, with a little luck, might even put some of the scum away for a few years--whether or not they're willing to admit outright that they are co-conspirators in this. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse as I fervently hope some of these jokers get to learn the hard way.
Damn, how bad were your harrassers? Were you raped? Injured? Shot at? Abducted, but escaped? Post those docs here so others can get an idea of how bad it was !!
Still unwilling to accept that "you are at cause in your life"?
Are we to deduce that you have rejected that est/CEDU mantra? Or just choosing not to apply it to yourself. Good for the kids, not good for O5.
-
Why would I cyber stalk your whorish self when I can do it in real life?
(http://http://www.campusmap.ualberta.ca/img_feature/Emily%20Murphy%20House.jpg)
is that really her house?
I thought Cedu parents were well to do
-
is that really her house?
I thought Cedu parents were well to do
:rofl: :rofl:
-
AWWWW it's a cute house; in a two-trailers-stacked-on-top-of-each-other kind of way, don't you think?
-
I gotta start a poll to see how many people actually thought that was Anne's house.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Seriously, I don't even know the lady and frankly care nothing about her. If I actually knew where she lived I'd probably be very careful to avoid her street in fear of having my brain fried from her ambient CEDU induced rays of brain zapping.