$500 REWARD FOR IDENTITY OF TROLL

Kibo informs me that Anonymous ]
stated that:

Yes, it's my .sig. No, this anonymous idiot is not me:

So I take it that you won't be claiming the $500 reward?

I was under the impr
[Snip]
be exposed. Add a good beating from an unknown assailant and you have a
powerful deterrent.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that Anonymous ]
stated that:

Yes, it's my .sig. No, this anonymous idiot is not me:

So I take it that you won't be claiming the $500 reward?

I was under the impr
[Snip]
be exposed. Add a good beating from an unknown assailant and you have a
powerful deterrent.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Kibo informs me that Anonymous ]
stated that:

Yes, it's my .sig. No, this anonymous idiot is not me:

but I'm thinking, you prolly don't disagree with his statement on
deterrent

Mxsmanic wrote:
Have the posts been judge defamatory in court?

Seems like a pretty simple question.

Anonymous writes:

So I take it that you won't be claiming the $500 reward?

I'm not entitled to or interested in any reward.

I was under the impression that over in the US premeditation makes a
difference if you murder someone, but spontaneous beating the crap out
of someone and premeditated beating the crap out of someone is
essentialy the same crime.

It has an impact on any defense that claims that the defendant "lost his
head" temporarily and committed a crime in the heat of passion. Someone
who does that would not have discussed the crime in advance.

Add a good beating from an unknown assailant and you have a
powerful deterrent.

Be careful what you wish for.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:17:11 +0100, in article

"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Ryadia writes:

The problem here Mxsmanic is the Peruvian IP address is in fact an open
relay proxy server concealing the identity of the real poster.

It's true that the originating IP address isn't always reliable.

This is precisely why Google needs to be made accountable for allowing this
sort of stuff to be posted to their servers and then publishing it to Usenet
without a care in the world for the personal damage it does to otherwise
innocent people.

It's not Google's problem. Besides, there are hundreds of other search
engines and hundreds of thousands of newsgroup servers.

Nevertheless, they ARE the publishers of the libel, and under the laws of
the country in which action is being brought, are liable once they have
been placed on notice of the defamation if they fail to remove it.

Moreover, by failing to reject posts made through well-known open
proxies, they are continuing to provide an easy path for libels to be
published through them.

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:57:15 -0700, in article

"Big Bill" wrote:

So how is Google preventing victims from finding the perp?

They are aiding and abetting the perpetrator(s) by failing to reject
posts made through well-known open proxies, thus facilitating continued
libellous postings.

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
| It's true that the originating IP address isn't always reliable.
|
| This is precisely why Google needs to be made accountable for allowing this
| sort of stuff to be posted to their servers and then publishing it to Usenet
| without a care in the world for the personal damage it does to otherwise
| innocent people.
|
| It's not Google's problem.

Well, they have insurance, don't they?

| Besides, there are hundreds of other search
| engines and hundreds of thousands of newsgroup servers.
|
|Nevertheless, they ARE the publishers of the libel, and under the laws
|of the country in which action is being brought, are liable once they
|have been placed on notice of the defamation if they fail to remove it.
|
|Moreover, by failing to reject posts made through well-known open
|proxies, they are continuing to provide an easy path for libels to be
|published through them.

I don't think it matters whether the proxy is "well-known" or not.

Just accepting posts from a proxy elevates the scrutiny that it ought
to be subject to, a kind of scrutiny that ought to be extremely
intense any way you look at it.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
| It's true that the originating IP address isn't always reliable.
|
| This is precisely why Google needs to be made accountable for allowing this
| sort of stuff to be posted to their servers and then publishing it to Usenet
| without a care in the world for the personal damage it does to otherwise
| innocent people.
|
| It's not Google's problem.

Well, they have insurance, don't they?

| Besides, there are hundreds of other search
| engines and hundreds of thousands of newsgroup servers.
|
|Nevertheless, they ARE the publishers of the libel, and under the laws
|of the country in which action is being brought, are liable once they
|have been placed on notice of the defamation if they fail to remove it.
|
|Moreover, by failing to reject posts made through well-known open
|proxies, they are continuing to provide an easy path for libels to be
|published through them.

I don't think it matters whether the proxy is "well-known" or not.

Just accepting posts from a proxy elevates the scrutiny that it ought
to be subject to, a kind of scrutiny that ought to be extremely
intense any way you look at it.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:45:39 +0000 (GMT), (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:57:15 -0700, in article

"Big Bill" wrote:

So how is Google preventing victims from finding the perp?

They are aiding and abetting the perpetrator(s) by failing to reject
posts made through well-known open proxies, thus facilitating continued
libellous postings.

I have a problem with shutting out legitimate users on the chance that
you'll also shut out people who do things we don't like. Even illegal
things.
It tends to lead to really bad policies.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"