|
|
Posted by ah on 10/31/05 01:56
Phillip Kyle wrote:
> ah <splifingate@gmail.com> verbally sodomised in
> news:gHT8f.2110$sF6.219@trnddc03:
>
>> Phillip Kyle wrote:
>>> ah <splifingate@gmail.com> verbally sodomised in
>>> news:23e8f.31979$gF4.23048@trnddc07:
>>>
>>>> Phillip Kyle wrote:
>>>>> peterparsnip@gmail.com (Peter Parsnip) verbally sodomised in
>>>>> news:djmbqc$46j$6@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Be still! and revere Phillip Kyle, who blessed us with their
>>>>>> presence on 25 Oct 2005...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> peterparsnip@gmail.com (Peter Parsnip) verbally sodomised in
>>>>>>> news:djlumc$set$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Be still! and revere Phillip Kyle, who blessed us with their
>>>>>>>> presence on 25 Oct 2005...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ted Capuano <lx3nwn7@kzhg6.com> verbally sodomised in
>>>>>>>>> news:ko0rl1tncp7t19943jqcndm65mj5ib0htb@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:23:52 +0000 (UTC), "Richard Dewsbery"
>>>>>>>>>> <richard@dewsbery.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, it's that special time again. So please do not feed the
>>>>>>>>>>>trolls. Particularly the cross-posting variety.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you the Richard Dewsbery who wrote this to the now exposed
>>>>>>>>>> private mailing list "ng_abuse"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <Quote>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ISPs have to tread warily where posters using their services are
>>>>>>>>>> libelling other people. Although I am not a media lawyer, I
>>>>>>>>>> would cite as authority for the proposition that an ISP can be
>>>>>>>>>> liable for acts of its subscribers the case of Godfrey vs Demon
>>>>>>>>>> Internet.
>>>>>>>>>> Although the case was ultimately settled out of court by Demon,
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> first instance ruling had held that they could be liable for
>>>>>>>>>> carrying posts authored by a third party if they didn't remove
>>>>>>>>>> the posts when asked from the servers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The effect of this is to make all ISPs think carefully about
>>>>>>>>>> whether they want bloody nuisances as customers, as each time
>>>>>>>>>> the nuisance posts something insulting the victim can complain,
>>>>>>>>>> and if the message isn't deleted at source, the ISP gets to pay
>>>>>>>>>> damages. After a few complaints from different individuals, the
>>>>>>>>>> ISP is well advised to pull the account rather than risk missing
>>>>>>>>>> a few deletions and getting whacked by a High Court defamation
>>>>>>>>>> suit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I gather that some of the current crop of most virulent trolls
>>>>>>>>>> may be real people, with an academic access to the net. Either
>>>>>>>>>> the academic establishment is acting as its own ISP, or it has
>>>>>>>>>> an outside ISP - it matters not, a few cease and desist letters
>>>>>>>>>> and either ought to pull the offenders' net priveleges.
>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of what certain news server admins may think about it
>>>>>>>>>> (letters involving lawyers in suits usually end up on more
>>>>>>>>>> important desks).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What we need is concrete evidence of how the messages are being
>>>>>>>>>> posted, and by whom and to what servers; some innocent victims
>>>>>>>>>> who have been the subject of defamatory postings; and some
>>>>>>>>>> sharply- worded letters before action to the ISP or
>>>>>>>>>> establishment through which the abuse has been posted.
>>>>>>>>>> Sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it seems that the only other
>>>>>>>>>> solutions require us to put up with the little gits. I'll
>>>>>>>>>> happily help out with any letters before action - with the
>>>>>>>>>> provisos that I'm not an expert on defamation, nor will I be
>>>>>>>>>> involved in any litigation either as claimant or representative.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> </Quote>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, he's also the kind gentleman who sent me this nice email:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <Quote>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From : Richard Dewsbery <richard@dewsbery.freeserve.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>> Sent : Saturday, January 3, 2004 1:07 PM
>>>>>>>>> To : <philkyle2003@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Subject : Crossposting Twats
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>>>>>>> Received: from dswu232.btconnect.com ([193.113.154.43]) by
>>>>>>>>> mc11-f7.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sat, 3
>>>>>>>>> Jan 2004 05:09:02 -0800 Received: from xpbox (actually host
>>>>>>>>> 242.116.120.213.in-addr.arpa) by dswu232 with SMTP-CUST (XT-PP);
>>>>>>>>> Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:07:38 +0000 X-Message-Info:
>>>>>>>>> JGTYoYF78jExmRhYTKFgsFwAHHwYGw7B X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>>>>>>>> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
>>>>>>>>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
>>>>>>>>> Return-Path: richard@dewsbery.freeserve.co.uk
>>>>>>>>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2004 13:09:03.0051 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>> FILETIME=[C26DC9B0:01C3D1FA]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>>>>>>> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008D_01C3D1FA.834FA550"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
>>>>>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you the twat that is cross-posting all sorts of garbage to
>>>>>>>>> half the UK newsgroups, or an unwittin g victim of some other
>>>>>>>>> twat using your website address?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> R M Dewsbery
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> </Quote>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like a clown we should go after :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeedy. Let's just say URC for good measure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imagine if I was a completely innocent poster with that email
>>>>>>> address and that landed in it. Do you think I'd reply?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't help but feel that I would be committing suicide if my name
>>>>>> was R M Dingleberry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure he got teased at school. I bet he became a hall monitor so
>>>>> he could wreak his vengance by being a jobsworth.
>>>>
>>>> 'jobsworth' . . . I like that.
>>>>
>>>> We never had anything like that when I was growing up.
>>>
>>> COunt yourself lucky. Lots of adult jobsworths as well. Most of them
>>> seem to reside in uk.*
>>
>> Hmmm . . . there might be something to this.
>>
>> Are they all Catholic?
>
> I doubt it.
Hmm..
--
ah
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|