Posted by Peter Parsnip on 10/25/05 18:48

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 :-)

--
1> Peter Parsnip
2> Compliance
3> Further compliance
4> At the limit of compliance
5> Non-compliant. As always.

[Back to original message]