 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / August 2007To Twisted and everyone else, I quit
Twisted's pointless and stupid comments are polluting this newsgroup so much, that I simply cannot bear to stay. Fine, I'll leave. I think everyone should killfile him now. Once he has no audience, this useless troll might finally go away. This newsgroup can return to its former useful state. If when Twisted/nebulous/moron finally leaves, if one of you could drop me an email, I'd like to know that peace finally reigns again here. Goodbye all. And I'm sorry for feeding the troll so much, that he's now so giant and so stinky. > Twisted's [insults deleted] comments are polluting this newsgroup > so much, that I simply cannot bear to stay. You're one to talk! Let's compare and contrast, shall we? Twisted Jack T Sometimes posts on-topic Yes No Starts fights No Yes Starts whole new flame threads No Yes Posts the first flame in a formerly civil thread No Yes Is just defending himself Yes No Could just walk away No Yes But won't -- Yeppers Go to hell, Jack T. The only posts I see with your name for the last several weeks in this NG are off-topic flamey ones. I normally only post on-topic, and mainly help rather than asking questions at that; until of course some numbskull attacks me for no apparent reason and I'm forced to respond in self-defense, which tends to produce threads that rapidly veer off topic and become heated if the numbskull doesn't take the hint and continues to hassle me or others join in or both. You, on the other hand, just pop up and start slinging mud in thread after thread without provocation. You are a waste of bandwidth. Good riddance, if you're genuinely going away now. [a bunch of insults deleted] > If when Twisted/nebulous/[insult] finally leaves, if one of you could > drop me an email, I'd like to know that peace finally reigns again > here. Why? The only thing you seem to come here for is to flame me. You don't post about any other topic than what a huge idiot you think I am. The only reason I can think of for your wanting to be notified of my absence is so you can then come back here and badmouth me behind my back. Nice f.cking guy! [parting shot deleted; none of the insulting things Jack suggests about me in any of his posts have a shred of truth to them.] Well, you've now alibied yourself for your impending loss of net access. Now go and download all the porn you can while it lasts. > Twisted's pointless and stupid comments are polluting this newsgroup > so much, that I simply cannot bear to stay. That's foolish. Killfile or simply ignore the flame threads, which are, fortunately, isolated. The newsgroup doesn't have any less useful discussion than it did a month ago. > Twisted's pointless and stupid comments are polluting this newsgroup > so much, that I simply cannot bear to stay. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Goodbye all. And I'm sorry for feeding the troll so much, > that he's now so giant and so stinky. Don't go, Jack. Seriously. Otherwise, Twisted will assume he was able to take down your Internet access, instead of just giving you ISP a good laugh. If you stay in the group, but just killfile him, you will make him look like the a.s that he is! Then maybe he will stop threatening to send pointless ISP abuse emails. Joe [insults me] And here I thought you'd bowed out of all this pointless fighting. Looks like you can't resist taking the odd potshot at me. I guess attacking people is to you as smoking is to a nicotine addict. You can quit and quit and quit and quit until you're blue in the face and still you'll keep doing it. :P > [insults me] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quit and quit and quit and quit until you're blue in the face and > still you'll keep doing it. :P Yawn.  SignatureJoe Attardi jattardi@gmail.com > > [insults me] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yawn. What? Is that the best insult you can come up with now? Saying you'd killfile me, not following through, and then merely calling me *boring*? You've lost your touch. :P And of course, as usual the insulting thing you implied is false. > What? Is that the best insult you can come up with now? Saying you'd > killfile me, not following through, and then merely calling me > *boring*? You've lost your touch. :P And of course, as usual the > insulting thing you implied is false. The only reason I told Jack what I did was because I suspect, like your complaints about me, his Internet access will be unaffected - but there's no way to tell if he voluntarily leaves the group. I am just trying to understand how JackT flaming you is grounds for his ISP terminating his access. If that were so, I and many others (including you, I would think) would have vanished long ago! SignatureJoe Attardi jattardi@gmail.com > I am just trying to understand how JackT flaming you is grounds for his > ISP terminating his access. His merely flaming me isn't. His attempting to invade my privacy is another matter entirely. > His merely flaming me isn't. His attempting to invade my privacy is > another matter entirely. But still not grounds for termination. Unless ISPs' Terms of Use now protect your right to privacy. Speculation about your name notwithstanding, is it also an invasion of your privacy to post something publicly available - for example your IP, which can be used to locate your ISP? SignatureJoe Attardi jattardi@gmail.com > > His merely flaming me isn't. His attempting to invade my privacy is > > another matter entirely. > > But still not grounds for termination. Unless ISPs' Terms of Use now > protect your right to privacy. ISPs' Terms of Use usually do include a clause forbidding outright- illegal activity. Privacy invasion and stalking being, in many jurisdictions, illegal. > Speculation about your name notwithstanding, is it also an invasion of > your privacy to post something publicly available - for example your IP, > which can be used to locate your ISP? I don't think users normally have an expectation of privacy in their IP/ISP, except if they use a remailer or other such anonymous routing proxy. However if they choose to use a pseudonym I think they certainly have an expectation of privacy in their real name. > ISPs' Terms of Use usually do include a clause forbidding outright- > illegal activity. Privacy invasion and stalking being, in many > jurisdictions, illegal. Posting someone's name may be an invasion of privacy, but it is certainly NOT illegal. Also, posting someone's name in itself is not nearly enough to be considered stalking. > I don't think users normally have an expectation of privacy in their > IP/ISP, except if they use a remailer or other such anonymous routing > proxy. However if they choose to use a pseudonym I think they > certainly have an expectation of privacy in their real name. Expectation, sure. But a legally protected right? Nope. SignatureJoe Attardi jattardi@gmail.com > > ISPs' Terms of Use usually do include a clause forbidding outright- > > illegal activity. Privacy invasion and stalking being, in many > > jurisdictions, illegal. > > Posting someone's name may be an invasion of privacy, but it is > certainly NOT illegal. Yes, it IS illegal, to the extent that invasion of privacy itself is illegal. > Also, posting someone's name in itself is not > nearly enough to be considered stalking. It's enough to prove intent. What other use is it, online? My pseudonym is just fine if you want to communicate with me online. The only thing you could possibly want to discover, without my cooperation, my real name for is to contact me offline in an unsolicited and probably unwelcome manner. In other words, to stalk me. None of the above changes materially if the name posted is incorrect, by the way; the attempt and the evidence of intent are still there. Someone prying into my offline details wants me stalked; someone posting the name is inciting other people to join in the stalking. Trying to incite them, perhaps, to violence. Incitement to violence is also illegal in case you hadn't noticed. [snip another false assertion] Why do you continue this? Obviously we don't agree. Obviously we won't change one another's minds. And of course, obviously you're wrong, since if you're right Jack T's obviously wrong and egregious behavior isn't wrong, yet it is, which is a paradox. You're caught in the logic of a "proof by contradiction" there. > Yes, it IS illegal, to the extent that invasion of privacy itself is > illegal. > It's enough to prove intent. No. It isn't. It suggests one possible intent. > What other use is it, online? Pointing out your eccentric and trollish past? > My pseudonym is just fine if you want to communicate with me online. The > only thing you could possibly want to discover, without my > cooperation, my real name for is to contact me offline in an > unsolicited and probably unwelcome manner. By your standards, maybe. As I mentioned before, Paul D. has a very long history of being a troll and a general Usenet kook. Pointing out that you are the same person has nothing to do with intending to stalk someone. Jeez. > None of the above changes materially if the name posted is incorrect, If it were not correct, I imagine you wouldn't be scrambling so frantically to fight it. The only way to prove it for sure is to say what your real name is, of course. > Someone prying into my offline details wants me stalked; False assumption. > someone posting the name is inciting other people to join in the stalking. False assumption. See above. > Trying to incite them, perhaps, to violence. Incitement to violence is > also illegal in case you hadn't noticed. Hahaha! If your statement includes the word "perhaps", along with drawing a huge generalization, that hardly falls under illegally inciting violence. > [snip another false assertion] Instead of snipping it and conveniently ignore it, why don't you show me where in the law you are guaranteed a right to the privacy of your name, and criminal charges for someone who reveals it? You are so full of sh.t. SignatureJoe Attardi jattardi@gmail.com > > It's enough to prove intent. > > No. It isn't. It suggests one possible intent. Yes, it is, unless you can think of a single other reason why someone might want to know my real name here. > > What other use is it, online? > > Pointing out your [insult deleted]? Insulting me is not a valid use. Regardless, the name is of no particular use in insulting me. "Twisted is an idiot" is just as insulting as "<Real Name> is an idiot". > By your standards, maybe. As I mentioned before, Paul D. has a very long > history of being a troll and a general Usenet kook. I have no idea who that even is. As I've mentioned repeatedly, that's not me. Regardless, my right to privacy online is absolute and you will not abrogate it, or even attempt to do so. My right to make a clean break online, should I ever choose to do so, likewise. Being able to make a clean break is a problem with lenders of capital and the like because it stops them being able to keep track of known bad risks so as not to lend to them again. There is no possible reason for denying me that right online, however, in a finance-free context. This means if I decide that you insulting pieces of sh.t have viciously and maliciously destroyed the reputation of "Twisted" beyond all hope of recovery and I change to, say, "Zorgon the Magnificent", any attempts to discover that Zorgon the Magnificent was Twisted are illegitimate and wrong too. I must have these lines of defense: 1. that I can ensure that nothing that happens here, where people are quite clearly very quick to anger and become outright foaming-at-the- mouth psychotically insane, affects my real life where physical harm is possible; and 2. that I can replace any online identity you ever do succeed in destroying without the replacement being quickly destroyed as well. You have no legitimate interest in knowing who anyone here "really" is, any more than I do; you're not loaning money to them after all, and you can hit ^K very quickly if you decide anyone isn't worth your time. Any such interest you did have would surely not outweigh the interest we all have in actually having the option of putting the past behind us, and in being able to evade undeserved negative consequences of any sort. Such as being badmouthed for one's good-faith attempts to help budding young Java programmers, say. > If it were not correct, I imagine you wouldn't be scrambling so > frantically to fight it. You aren't thinking enough moves ahead, my insulting enemy. I have a name that is none of your f.cking beeswax so I seek to protect it from any discovery by people who have no business knowing it and have no possible use for it that is not a misuse. Obviously, the first thing to do is to suppress and otherwise attack any accurate guess as to that name. However, selectively reacting to only accurate guesses would give the game away. So I must respond likewise to ANY guesses whatsoever. And any guesses at all are indeed clearly attempts, if not necessarily successful ones, to invade my privacy. > False assumption. No. And do not bluntly contradict me, you nasty little thing. > False assumption. See above. No. And do not bluntly contradict me, you nasty little thing. [snip Attacki laughing at me in typical rude and derisive fashion, the worm] > Instead of snipping it and conveniently ignore it, why don't you show me > where in the law you are guaranteed a right to the privacy of your name, > and criminal charges for someone who reveals it? You're the one overgeneralizing. I'm talking about my right to online anonymous free speech, not some hypothetical right to conceal my real name even in offline transactions. [insult deleted] FOAD. > Yes, it is, unless you can think of a single other reason why someone > might want to know my real name here. Curiosity is another reason. > Regardless, my right to privacy online is absolute and you will not > abrogate it, or even attempt to do so. Or else what? More empty threats. Where is your right to privacy online declared, and what law protects it? > No. And do not bluntly contradict me, you nasty little thing. > No. And do not bluntly contradict me, you nasty little thing. Or else what? Unless you plan to make good on any of your threats, you should stop with them. Who made you the moderator of this group telling people "Do not do this", "Do not do that" ? > [snip Attacki laughing at me in typical rude and derisive fashion, the worm] Sweet! The first-grade insults are back! Attacki FTW! > You're the one overgeneralizing. I'm talking about my right to online > anonymous free speech, not some hypothetical right to conceal my real > name even in offline transactions. Why are you deluded into thinking you have a legally protected right to online privacy? You're so delusional it's funny. > [insult deleted] > FOAD. Whining about an "insult" followed immediately by an insult of your own. My head asplode! SignatureJoe Attardi jattardi@gmail.com > Curiosity is another reason. Not a reason that justifies invasion of privacy. > Where is your right to privacy online declared, and what law protects it? The Supreme Court in a landmark decision in the sixties upheld the right to anonymous free speech under the First Amendment. So the First Amendment. That's the real biggie, in case you forgot, trumps lots of other laws. Yes I'm simplifying a bit for the sake of your one-digit IQ. As for an exact citation, sorry, don't have one, but some wikipedia browsing should turn it up very quickly for anyone who has at least a two-digit IQ. > Or else what? Unless you plan to make good on any of your threats, you > should stop with them. Who made you the moderator of this group telling > people "Do not do this", "Do not do that" ? I could ask the same of you, and everyone else who has tried to order *me* about. At least I am telling you to do what morality and the law should be telling you to do anyway. [snip more insults, this time of my level of education and that old standby, my mental health, not to mention some misspellings] Drop dead, a.shole. >Where is your right to privacy online declared, and what law protects it? If you live in the US, then the following should theoretically apply: Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Now, it appears to me that the courts find this amendment extremely annoying and so tend to ignore it but that's something of a different matter. It may, of course, be argued that this only gives the right of privacy online from prying government eyes and not from prying private eyes. Cheers Bent D SignatureBent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd powered by emacs >>Where is your right to privacy online declared, and what law protects it? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of privacy online from prying government eyes and not from prying > private eyes. Since the rights enumerated in the Constitution are all protections against goverment actions, it would be difficult to interpret the Ninth Amendment as providing protection against private action. >>>Where is your right to privacy online declared, and what law protects it? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >goverment actions, it would be difficult to interpret the Ninth Amendment as >providing protection against private action. Indeed. The question I answered, however, was whether or not the right exists. It does, it just doesn't protect you from all the sources that it ought to. Cheers Bent D SignatureBent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd powered by emacs Twisted schrieb: >>> [insults me] >>> And here I thought you'd bowed out of all this pointless fighting. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > *boring*? You've lost your touch. :P And of course, as usual the > insulting thing you implied is false. Twisted one word for you allthough off topic as everything... You are showing a lot of symptoms of paranoide schizophrenia. I don't know what you know about this illness but I know meanwhile a lot about it. If its detected what I assume then please take your pills.. you tried without them and you failed please take them now. If not please go see a doctor, what you have pulled off here in this forum is not normal. And I know some people in IT that live with it.. it is no hinderance or anything, but not without medication and an enormous discipline to take them. Christian > You are showing a lot of symptoms of [snip lengthy, verbose, circumlocutious insult questioning my mental health] Oh yeah? If that's true, then your mother was a dung beetle! > Twisted's pointless and stupid comments are polluting this newsgroup > so much, that I simply cannot bear to stay. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > drop me an email, I'd like to know that peace finally reigns again > here. I don't think he'll quit in the near future. If you check his profile on Google Groups, he's been posting at least since 2005, and that first post is an "I'm back" post, implying he's been posting since earlier, and has returned. http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=3f8LMxQAAABzMoDGNQrZUnNS0epIsha rOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A - Oliver > I don't think he'll quit in the near future. If you check his profile > on Google Groups, he's been posting at least since 2005, and that first > post is an "I'm back" post, implying he's been posting since earlier, and > has returned. > > http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=3f8LMxQAAABzMoDGNQrZUnNS0epIsha rOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A Good ole Paul, he never quits! SignatureJoe Attardi jattardi@gmail.com > > I don't think he'll quit in the near future. If you check his profile > > on Google Groups, he's been posting at least since 2005, and that first [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Good ole Paul, he never quits! Good ole who? > Goodbye all. And I'm sorry for feeding the troll so much, > that he's now so giant and so stinky. It's not the smell, really, so much as his refusal to bathe, or even admit that there's an invention called a shower, much less such a thing as water. I'm calling it quits (on his antics, at least), too. [Insults my hygiene, which is ludicrous given that not only has he no evidence to support his accusations, it isn't even conceivable that he could have such evidence without being something much worse himself: a stalker. Not to mention, my hygiene is just fine TYVM; as usual, this insult is simply untrue.] Good riddance. > [Insults my hygiene, which is ludicrous given that not only has he no > evidence to support his accusations, it isn't even conceivable that he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Good riddance. My favorite people in the WHOLE WORLD are people who don't understand metaphors. Second favorite is people who don't understand sarcasm. > > [Insults my hygiene, which is ludicrous given that not only has he no > > evidence to support his accusations, it isn't even conceivable that he [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > My [snip rest of implied insult] As I suspected. Another liar. I seem to be surrounded by them of late. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.