Announcements & Tech Support > Web forum hosting
Visit www.fornits.com
Antigen:
And then I read the rest....
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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!
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
::boycott::
--- Quote ---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
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---[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].
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/
Story URL: http://www.silicon.com/research/special ... 148,00.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.
--- End quote ---
Here's some background
God, but do I hate spammers!
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""Antigen"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Anonymous:
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?
Deborah:
--- Quote from: ""Deborah"" ---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.
--- End quote ---
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?
Froderik:
Thanks for the background info, Deborah; much appreciated.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version