notifying particular thread to wake up.

[nebulous99]

If you go back a couple of posts in this thread we find:

me> Most people drop that type of talk when they make 16 ...
you> I'm just talking to you in language suitable for your age group,

Do we agree that you claim I am in the agre group of 16 ?

And if you go back a bit further in this thread to a post of
October 9th then I told you:

#I have only used usenet in 16 years

Do we agree that I have told you that I have used usenew for 16
years ?

I suggested you might be a little brat whose parents don't
sufficiently monitor your net access.
You've claimed to have used the net for 16 years.

These events are consistent with a lot of possible states of the
world, including the ones in which you're a lying little brat whose
parents don't sufficiently monitor his net access.

 

[nebulous99]

I do.

You don't. You can take that crown off, King Nothing. You're acting
like a lying little brat who's parents don't sufficiently monitor
their computer use -- acting especially awfully because it's his
birthday and he thinks that makes him God-for-a-day and the pointy
"Happy Birthday" cone on his head makes him absolute and
unquestionable ruler. Not aware of the curious manner in which it
resembles a crown far less than it does a dunce cap...

When you join usenet. Everybody can comment whatever they want in
your posts or about you.

You forget this little thing called "the newsgroup's charter". If this
were alt.fan.twisted0n3 you might be right. In
comp.lang.java.programmer, everybody can comment whatever they want
about Java instead.

It was not your fathers lawyer I was thinking about !

Well, tough, because he should be your biggest fear right now, if you
plan on continuing this harassment campaign that is. Of course, if you
plan to shut up and restrict your future posts to in-bounds subjects
such as Java, then you have nothing to worry about.

I can not imagine anyone that would want to join you ...

Of course not, since you hate me and have quite demonstrably thrown
all logic to the wind and started acting purely on emotion. You little
twerp; you cannot gain anything by continuing this and depending on
what lines you cross you stand to lose a great deal. Give it up
already and get back to harmless and enjoyable activities like Java-
related discussions.

 

[Owen Jacobson]

I'd be in violation of something in their TOS long before I'd be in
violation of the law. ....
How absolutely fascinating. A computer that could be one I took over
with a trojan and remotely control from my secret underground lair in
Kazakhstan, for all you can tell by any conceivable analysis of my
post headers. ....
You might want to track that one down some time, torrent it

The contradiction between the first statement and the other two is so
bald you'd think he did it on purpose.

 

[Owen Jacobson]

You don't.

Actually, in a very meaningful sense he does. You have said, on
occasion, that you will always reply to posts you believe are
"attacks" -- that you feel you *must* reply. That policy, and
particularly telling others about that policy, gives people control
over you. It takes very little effort to make you either break that
policy or to make you act as I like.

Go on. I want you to post. I want you to post a reply to *any* of
this or my previous two posts. That's all I want; I don't care
particularly what it says.

What now?

 

[nebulous99]

I don't think Paul/Twisted/Neb/BB has the necessary feedback
logic built in.

My name is not Paul, and the "feedback logic" is quite simple: you act
hostile, and I will not allow you to alter my behavior because it is
likely to be a trap of some sort, but I will rebut any and all
incorrect negative claims about me that anyone makes in public
regardless.

If you want me to shut up, shut up about me. If you don't, you
guarantee that I don't, and therefore ensure that you don't get what
you want.

If you want me to do something self-destructive, you have better odds
of success by praying to whatever gods you believe in or wishing on a
penny and throwing it into a well than you do by trying to trick me,
including with reverse psychology. My IQ is probably five times yours.
It's physically impossible for you to outsmart me, as surely as it is
for you to life a three-ton weight with one arm and no assistance from
machinery or other people. Best bet in that case is to give up. Stop
concerning yourself with what happens to some other guy you haven't
even really met -- or maybe did, and actually liked, but you don't
realize that it's the same guy.

If you want to discuss Java, then get back to doing so and let off-
topic threads drop. Nothing compels you to stay -- you can rebut
anything you feel is a negative claim made about you that is still
outstanding, while not making any about me, and then killfile these
off-topic threads safely.

 

[nebulous99]

Your refusal to cite *any* law or provide *any* case reference

is absence of evidence. It is not evidence of absence. There is
certainly a Supreme Court case establishing the right to privacy. I
just don't have a reference handy, and I'm not about to go do your
googling for you on your say-so as if you were somehow my boss. If
you're really curious do your own research dammit! You lost any right
to request favors from me, such as my doing your searches for you,
when you started behaving hostilely toward me. I will certainly not be
so stupid as to actually be generous to you given your present nasty
pattern of behavior. Do you think my middle name is "Floormat" or
something? *chuckles* You poor, stupid jerk.

[snip stuff about "defensive snivelling" when people call me on my
supposed "lies"; yep, the twerp called me a liar again]

You have no right to "call me" on anything. Keep your nose in your own
fucking business and stick to discussing Java.

The burden of proof is on people with clearly malicious intent to
provide some sort of justification for their continued hostile
activities, NOT for their victim to prove that they are violating the
law. If and when it comes time to resolve this matter in the legal
arena, it will be prosecutors, grand juries, regular juries, and
judges that prove that you are violating the law and convict and
sentence you, not I.

I am the one quietly minding my own business until attacked, and then
responding in my own defense. You are the one attacking without
provocation and furthermore reattacking every time I block one of your
blows and then try to disengage and get back to minding my own
business. Or rather, one of the ones doing so.

If someone threatens me with a knife, what should I have to do? Cite
chapter and verse of the Criminal Code to convince them not to stab
me, rather than take immediate defensive action such as brandishing a
large chair at them?

More to the point, if someone is peeping through my windows with
binoculars from across the street and also loudly trumpeting his
negative opinion of me to anyone in the street who will listen, should
I really have to first google up some court precedents and prove that
peeping Tom behavior is against both community standards and the law?
No, I should be able to shut him up somehow, and close my blinds. If
he uses some magnet or something to try to reopen my blinds from a
distance I should surely have some legal recourse there, too. And all
without my having to first prove anything to him, or do anything at
all except (maybe) make it clear to him that his behavior is against
my wishes and warn him of the consequences if he continues.

[a bunch of vicious lying insults]

Go to hell.

 

[Owen Jacobson]

is absence of evidence. It is not evidence of absence. There is
certainly a Supreme Court case establishing the right to privacy. I
just don't have a reference handy, and I'm not about to go do your
googling for you on your say-so as if you were somehow my boss.

It's not exactly my say-so here. I'm only telling you to back up your
own statements, since you're the one claiming people are breaking the
law. It's your job to support your own claims by connecting specific
actions to specific laws, case precedent, ISP policies, or whatever
other piece of support you have beyond pure assertion.

Claiming that it's my job to back up your statements is asinine at
best, and makes you look like you *can't* do it yourself. I certainly
don't believe you can, and I'm not about to try to guess what twisted
thought process you'll use to connect some random privacy law to the
use of publicly-visible information that you're providing for us, like
your IP address and your writing style in an internet flamefest.

The burden of proof is on people with clearly malicious intent to
provide some sort of justification for their continued hostile
activities

It's fun to make you dance. That's my entire justification. I make
no bones about it; you're a great toy since you're so *predictable*
and yet so amusing. I'd take it to email if I thought there was a
chance in hell you'd keep dancing.

I also hope you recognize the flaws in your approach to social
interaction, but I'm not exactly holding my breath on that.

NOT for their victim to prove that they are violating the
law.

Uh, actually... Both Canada and the US have a presumption of
innocence in criminal cases and a preponderance of evidence
requirement in civil cases. You actually do need to demonstrate that
we've broken the law in the former case or that we've caused you a
variety of harm the law allows restitution for in the latter case.
You should know this; your friend the lawyer could've explained it to
you in a few minutes, or you could've found out for yourself.

If and when it comes time to resolve this matter in the legal
arena, it will be prosecutors, grand juries, regular juries, and
judges that prove that you are violating the law and convict and
sentence you, not I.

But first you have to press charges, or file a suit. Both of those
involve naming specific laws or contractual obligations and providing
evidence that anyone's violated them. Then you (or your lawyer, on
your behalf) have to support it in court, if whoever you end up
accusing contests them at all. I'm only asking you to show us now,
without costing you anything but the time to outline specific examples
and the laws or policies being violated. That's certainly less
demanding for everyone involved than what you'd have to do to actually
follow through on your "warnings" about legal action.

If someone threatens me with a knife, what should I have to do? Cite
chapter and verse of the Criminal Code to convince them not to stab
me, rather than take immediate defensive action such as brandishing a
large chair at them?

Irrelevant example. Even assuming you could make *something* stick,
nothing anyone here has done is equivalent in the eyes of the law to
attempted murder or assault. Furthermore, if you beat someone with a
chair and then claim they attacked you with a knife, you would have to
show the court some kind of evidence that you were, in fact, attacked
with a knife and that your self-defence was not excessive. Depending
on the jurisdiction, you may also have to demonstrate that you did not
incite the attack yourself.

More to the point, if someone is peeping through my windows with
binoculars from across the street

Irrelevant and distracting example number two. We're not looking in
your windows; anyone who wants to can easily look at public
information contained in your posts, which is all anyone *has* done.

Argument by analogy is often a ruse to disguise poor or unsupportable
arguments. You certainly have a knack for choosing loaded examples
that, had they any relationship to the discussion, would support your
point of view. However, since it's trivial to see gaping differences
between your analogies and what's actually going on, you come off as a
blowhard instead. There's a reason I don't use analogies in my post,
and it's not because I lack the imagination.

and also loudly trumpeting his negative opinion of me to anyone who will
listen

An action to which we're all entitled as a basic human right. You're
certainly free to share your opinion that we're all a bunch of... how
did you put it? "Assholes"? Statements of opinion are protected from
slander and libel laws as long as they are either demonstrably true or
not framed as statements of fact.

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

1. I don't recall ever explicitly agreeing to any such thing.

Did you, upon becoming an adult citizen, explicitly sign I form that you
agree not to kill or maim anybody and that you expect to follow anyone
of the myriad of laws? No. Therefore, we can take at as granted that we
are bound by certain contracts without explicit agreement.

I will quote one of your posts verbatim. This is its message-id for
future reference:
<[email protected]>

> #Links to non-free software or information should be clearly marked as
> #such in the newsgroup postings, and good free alternatives should be
> #mentioned as well so that people may make an informed choice,
>
> is not usenet standard.

It is a norm of usenetters going back ten years or more. It may not be
formally documented in an RFC but that does not matter.



So we are expected to abide by a `norm of usenetters [sic]' even though
I never explicitly agreed to? My IronyMeter 2000 just broke because of
this...

[ ... ]
>

"Drum up hostility?" Bleh, you're even more paranoid than a certain JSH
over at sci.math.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read in a usenet post, which is
definitely a remarkable achievement that qualifies you for nomination
for the Idiot of the Year Award. Consider yourself so nominated (and
therefore in distinguished company -- the current President of the
United States, for one).

If that's the stupidest thing you've ever heard, then you REALLY need to
start expanding your viewing horizons.

Also, I never remembered explicitly agreeing to be considered a stupid
poster... :-D

Anyways, cite for me--complete with message-id--an example of a post
where somebody is drumming up hostility.

I see a hypothetical question. What if the sky were green?

The sky turning green won't kill me. [ Snip insult ]

<pathetic_whine>Stop insulting me!</pathetic_whine>

I'm sorry. JSH asks much better hypothetical questions. Why, his posts
are nothing but hypothetical questions. At least you have content in there.

Fact is, I'm darn close to angelic here, which
is why you so desperately and somewhat imaginatively keep making
insulting comparisons intended to elicit knee-jerk responses.
> [ snip several insults ]

/me laughs uproariously.

How about cursing at me several dozen times in one message?
Are maybe several threats to contact the ISP?

If you truly want to seem angelic, do what Mahatma Gandhi did: simply
ignore the vicious insults. I've done it, I am doing it, and nothing you
can say will make me stop doing it.

Anyone can pick up mud and sling it. It takes real moral character to
sit there and take it (or serious experience). Many
religions--including, I am sure, yours--preach that one should merely be
accepting of abuse. I have also found through experience that it kills
the abuse quicker than any other method.

Are you claiming to be Canadian then? Because if you are, say, a
Floridian, or from some other state that still has the DP on the
books, you can certainly face the chair or its equivalent for first-
degree murder, if convicted of that charge.

If I commit a crime in Canada, then I am subject to Canada's laws [*],
even if I am an American. These laws include sentencing: the fact that I
may come from a place that has the death penalty is irrelevant. Canada
does not have the death penalty, therefore I can not be put on death row
for committing a sufficiently heinous crime.

You might want to track that one down some time, torrent it, watch it,
and take heed. All of you.

By your logic, you can now be charged with `conspiracy to violate
copyright.' Call the RIAA! Call the MPAA! We have found a notorious
pirate that must be stopped at all costs!

Hmm... chances are that you are going to ignore the entire contents of
my posts because of my tendency to try to write humorously when I get
really agitated at something. Ah well, I should have practiced my French...

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

1. I don't recall ever explicitly agreeing to any such thing.

That does not prevent it from applying.

2. Invasion of privacy does NOT fall within the bounds of law.

This is a public forum, so it is impossible to invade privacy here.

3. Anything I post HERE might be fair game to analyze in a response TO
THAT POST. Something that I (allegedly) posted to another thread, an
entirely different newsgroup, or not even to a newsgroup at all is
quite another matter.

Nope. People comment on what they want to comment.

Maybe not. Probably the majority of victims of premeditated murder
didn't think anyone honestly wanted to kill them at the time, either,
but proved to be tragically wrong. Better safe than sorry.

There is an old saying: "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that
that they are not after you".

The sky turning green won't kill me. A crazed stalker inspired to foam
at the mouth by one of you assholes very well might. For that matter,
one of you assholes very well might.

I think you are grossly overestimating your importance.

Yeah, except that I'm not a psychopath, whereas I can't vouch that for
some of you, and certainly not for whatever lurkers may be reading
your shit silently and sharpening knives obsessively when they aren't
hiding them away because it's the day of the week their parole officer
always chooses for "surprise" inspections and visits.

Trying to convince a potentially enormous number of people (how many
lurk here? No way of knowing. How many could? About two billion, give
or take) that I'm the worst thing since ... whatever ... isn't
incitement to violence? You're trying to make people hate me. Stir up
a (virtual, at least for now) lynch mob. What do you honestly expect
them to do if they find me? Curse me and throw rotten tomatoes at me?
They can do that just as well online, and some of them already are.

No, you just aid, abet, and encourage them, in the hopes of escaping
liability for the consequences of your misdeeds. Fortunately there's a
whole category of criminal law for dealing with conspiracy and
incitement and similar behavior in which one gets others to do one's
dirty work. Others that face serious enough charges and are directly
tied to the crime, and thus are very amenable to plea bargains, and
likely to turn on whoever originally hired them, collaborated with
them, or just plain set them off.

I seem to recall a Law and Order episode where an unstable person was
used by another as a loaded weapon, in some sort of love triangle
situation, and the "user" involved eventually wound up getting 25 to
life in a steel-barred cell, while the unstable one got a free all-
expenses-paid trip to the comparatively comfortable insane asylum of
her choice.

You might want to track that one down some time, torrent it, watch it,
and take heed. All of you.

As I have said a couple of times - I think you should talk with
somebody about those feelings.

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

You don't. You can take that crown off, King Nothing.

You forget - everybody is kings here. We all comment on
whatever we want about you.

Well, tough, because he should be your biggest fear right now, if you
plan on continuing this harassment campaign that is.

Empty barrels ...

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

My name is not Paul,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec....a9b313eb96a/a6e0dc3eac6df6b3#a6e0dc3eac6df6b3

and the "feedback logic" is quite simple: you act
hostile, and I will not allow you to alter my behavior because it is
likely to be a trap of some sort, but I will rebut any and all
incorrect negative claims about me that anyone makes in public
regardless.

So you have not observed that your claim of you determining
your terms for participation here are not working ?

My IQ is probably five times yours.
It's physically impossible for you to outsmart me, as surely as it is
for you to life a three-ton weight with one arm and no assistance from
machinery or other people.

Considering the lack of knowledge and ability for logic you have
demonstrated so often that seems hard to believe.

Arne

 

[Lew]

An action to which we're all entitled as a basic human right. You're
certainly free to share your opinion that we're all a bunch of... how
did you put it? "Assholes"? Statements of opinion are protected from
slander and libel laws as long as they are either demonstrably true or
not framed as statements of fact.

And they have to be about an identifiable person, don't they? If twisted is
not known by his real name, then any statement made about twisted harms no
one's reputation, since we do not know that he is Paul Derbyshire. Can a
phantasm sue for libel, assuming he can prove he isn't whatever people say?

 

[Mike Schilling]

My name is not Paul,

You seem unclear on the concept. If you're trying to protect your real
identity, the best thing you can do is confess to a false one. Then all of
the awful things that people say about you online will never be connected to
the real you, and you can give up your endless, thankless job of correcting
them.

Hard luck on Paul Derbyshire, I suppose, but who gives a rat's ass about
him?

 

[nebulous99]

[snip insults]

You will stop insulting me and you will stop pestering me. You will
shut up now. Leave me alone! I am not a permissible topic of
conversation here. Get back to discussing Java or leave.

 

[nebulous99]

Actually, in a very meaningful sense he does.

I DO NOT SUBMIT TO ANY CLAIM OF AUTHORITY BY YOU OR BY HIM.

AND THAT IS FINAL.

You will stop insulting me. You will stop accusing me of shit. You
will stop making demands and pretending to have the right to dictate
terms. YOU ARE IN THE WRONG HERE. YOU ARE THE ONES HARASSING AN
INNOCENT MAN. I am merely trying to mind my own business, and now
since you refuse to mind YOUR own business, trying to defend myself as
well. My behavior is quite legitimate. Yours is not -- it bears no
relationship to the nominal topic here, Java, nor is it necessitated
as self-defense.

Go away and leave me alone. Stop publicly badmouthing me.

[snip remainder of bullshit]

Go **** yourself, you miserable piece of shit. Your low opinion of me
is unjustified but nonetheless you're welcome to it, or you would be
if you'd just keep it the **** to yourself. Your insistence on trying
to convert others to your "religion" is the problem here. I cannot
permit it to continue and I may eventually decide to use any means
necessary to make you stop. Capisce? Now go away and leave me alone.
If you stop posting attack posts against me and revert to just
discussing Java you stand to lose NOTHING by doing so, whereas you're
not leaving me with such an option, and I don't find that very fucking
fair!

 

[nebulous99]

It's not exactly my say-so here. I'm only telling you to

do something, despite the fact that you are not in any position to be
rudely making demands. Who the **** do you think you are, the Sultan
of Usenet or something? Go **** yourself, asshole!

Claiming that it's my job to back up your statements is asinine at
best, and makes you look like you *can't* do it yourself.

I didn't do that. I claimed that it's your job to do any research that
you want done. You requested certain research be done -- nay, DEMANDED
it be done for you instead of getting off your can and doing it
yourself.

use of publicly-visible information that you're providing for us, like
your IP address and your writing style in an internet flamefest.

My IP address does not identify me uniquely, or even come close. Nor
does my writing style -- not that anything so vaguely defined,
inherently subjectively appreciated, and by-nature unquantitative can
possibly be considered by any rational mind to be a proof of anything
anyway.

It's fun

That is not justification for abrogating another person's right to
privacy or to not be the subject of defamatory smear campaigns,
fucktard.

Sorry, please try again.

[a lot of insulting and belittling bullshit snipped]

**** YOU. Will you PLEASE just GO AWAY? I grow tired of being
constantly attacked and insulted, and no, I will NOT yield to your
childish demand to have the last fucking word! Never!

Uh, actually... Both Canada and the US have a presumption of
innocence in criminal cases and a preponderance of evidence
requirement in civil cases. You actually do need to demonstrate that
we've broken the law in the former case

No, I do not. I would merely need to identify you and press charges.
It would be up to the authorities to gather evidence and make their
case at trial.

or that we've caused you a variety of harm the law allows restitution for in the latter case.

That won't be difficult, given the known consequences of spreading
nasty rumors and conducting smear campaigns against people, and your
own obviously gleeful malice. Your attitude sure won't buy you much
sympathy from any jury, you asshole.

[snip more insults that the author probably thought were clever and
sly]

**** you, you liar.

I'm only asking you to show us now,
without costing you anything but the time to outline specific examples
and the laws or policies being violated. That's certainly less
demanding for everyone involved than what you'd have to do to actually
follow through on your "warnings" about legal action.

Oh, really? Since when do you "ask" anything, as opposed to "demand",
asshole? Regardless, I have a far better idea. How about you shut up
and get back to discussing Java, because none of this is remotely on
topic around here. Allow me a final round of rebuttals of whatever
bullshit you've posted, and then I will also stop posting off-topic,
and we all live happily ever after. Sounds like a good plan, right?

Irrelevant example.

No, the only thing irrelevant here is you and every fucking post you
write to usenet. Get on topic (Java) or **** off.

nothing anyone here has done is equivalent in the eyes of the law to
attempted murder or assault.

No, so far it's limited to libel and attempts at violating privacy and
the right to anonymous free speech. So far. The attempts to identify
my location in the real world obviously presage something worse, such
as assault or vandalism, though I can't yet say with certainty what
*exactly* you nasty little twerps are planning to do if you ever do
get the information you want to misuse to harass me.

[snip further irrelevant blather]

**** off.

Irrelevant and distracting example number two.

**** you. There's nothing at all irrelevant here.

We're not looking in your windows; anyone who wants to can easily look at public
information contained in your posts, which is all anyone *has* done.

Just as anyone can look at "public" information showing through my
windows if my blinds aren't drawn (perhaps because they don't work
rather than because I choose to leave them open). They can, if they
wish, take extraordinary efforts to pry and poke around (e.g. use
binoculars), but they're crossing a line when they do that. Frankly,
what goes on in that window is none of their fucking beeswax, and any
other identities I may or may not have besides twisted0n3/nebulous/
etc. is none of YOUR fucking beeswax.

Argument by analogy is often a ruse to disguise poor or unsupportable
arguments.

Perhaps so, but not when I use it, and I don't appreciate your
continued barrage of nasty implied insults. Go **** yourself, you
miserable little twerp!

[snip a whole lot of insults, together with the asshole admitting he
lacks an imagination, as if we hadn't noticed from how fucking
REPETITIVE the prick is!]

An action to which we're all entitled as a basic human right. You're
certainly free to share your opinion that we're all a bunch of... how
did you put it? "Assholes"? Statements of opinion are protected from
slander and libel laws as long as they are either demonstrably true or
not framed as statements of fact.

You on the other hand frequently make nasty claims about me and frame
them as "statements of fact", despite the fact that not one of them is
remotely true.

You also forget that your activities are severely off-charter for this
newsgroup, and that it is my human right to proclaim my rebuttal just
as loudly as you proclaim your stupid and pointless insults, despite
which you keep claiming I'm doing something wrong by doing so.

**** you, you miserable little ****.

 

[Owen Jacobson]

I DO NOT SUBMIT TO ANY CLAIM OF AUTHORITY BY YOU OR BY HIM.

You don't have to.

I told you exactly what my objective was: to make you post, or to make
you acknowledge that you have a choice by not posting.

That you believe you posted of your own accord is of no interest to
me. I did something knowing what it would cause you to do, and you
did it. Therefore I have demonstrated that, at least some of the
time, I have control over you.

That control exists by virtue of your simpleminded "I must defend
myself from insults" policy that you feel forces you to reply. You're
going to reply to this, too, and that's exactly what I want you to do.

By doing so, you will again be acknowledging that I control your
actions.

You're trapped by your own rules.

 

[nebulous99]

Did you, upon becoming an adult citizen, explicitly sign I form that you
agree not to kill or maim anybody and that you expect to follow anyone
of the myriad of laws? No. Therefore, we can take at as granted that we
are bound by certain contracts without explicit agreement.

That isn't at all comparable. There's a law against murder. There
isn't a law that says that "Twisted0n3's purpose is to be treated as a
punching-bag" or anything of the sort. And if there is, I refuse to
acknowledge its legitimacy, as unlike the law against murder it has no
possible justification for being.

It is a norm of usenetters going back ten years or more. It may not be
formally documented in an RFC but that does not matter.

So we are expected to abide by a `norm of usenetters [sic]' even though
I never explicitly agreed to? My IronyMeter 2000 just broke because of
this...

You are expected to abide by a norm against misleading people and
advertising. Likewise you are expected to abide by a norm against
harassing people and posting tons of off-topic bullshit just to stoke
your own fucking egos. I am certainly not expected to abide by a
"norm" of being your personal punching bag, because there is no such
norm, dickhead.

[a variety of insults deleted]

Lying asshole. **** off.

Anyways, cite for me--complete with message-id--an example of a post
where somebody is drumming up hostility.

THE ONE I'M REPLYING TO FOR STARTERS, MORON. (The message-id can be
found in the References: header of my followup, if you insist on my
providing a message-id.) Anyway, a google search for just about
anything by Arne Vajhoj or Mike Schilling or Owen Jacobson for the
past couple of days should turn up plenty of additional examples, you
worthless piece of shit.

[snip more insults liberally mixed into an assortment of non
sequiturs]

Liar. **** off.

How about cursing at me several dozen times in one message?
Are maybe several threats to contact the ISP?

How about you shut the hell up and leave me alone? What's your fucking
problem, anyway? Not enough Java-related stuff on your plate, but you
feel you have some sort of minimum postings quota to meet? I suggest
you post the rest to /dev/null then -- or at least find some empty alt
group and post long verbose descriptions of the lint balls and other
objects you find by picking your navel. That would be far more
constructive use of your network connection than your current
activities, jerkwad.

If you truly want to seem angelic, do what Mahatma Gandhi did: simply
ignore the vicious insults.

No can do. I have a life to live, you know, and I am not going to just
stand idly by while you assholes do your darndest to ensure that
anyone who ever decides to google me will decide on the spot to hate
me. And don't you dare trot out the old claim that your insults are
totally harmless and will never have any such effect. Nevermind that
my past observations disprove such a claim; so do my present
observations. A few days ago only Arne and Mike were causing much
trouble; today I see three exceedingly vicious attack posts by Owen,
which means Arne and Mike have managed to convince someone new to hate
me *despite my best efforts*. Now imagine how much worse it would be
if I'd done nothing to try to neutralize Arne and Mike's efforts --
likely there'd be two or three Owens joining in today instead of one.

Besides, meek and acquiescent behavior will certainly do nothing but
encourage more and worse attacks from nasty little creatures that will
sense any sign of weakness and pounce. Or worse, provoke smug
satisfaction from same. If you want me meek and subservient and
accepting some sort of overlordship, that alone is sufficient reason
for me to take action to resist and to denounce you on every single
day as long as you continue to misbehave.

Anyone can pick up mud and sling it. It takes real moral character to
sit there and take it (or serious experience).

Your saying something doesn't make it so. I don't see anything
especially moral or "character-building" either in suffering
misfortune or in ascetic and masochistic behavior. Perhaps you mistook
me for a religious nut of some sort? Maybe one of those would be more
easily tricked into handing you an uncontested victory. Perhaps you
should find one and pester him instead, and leave me the **** alone.

Regardless, I do not choose to be a flagellant or similar such
masochistic nut. Your continued sadistic attacks are occurring without
my consent. You are the ones that are morally in the wrong; indeed
your viciousness is morally very repugnant. So no, I will not submit.
I do not accept any claim of authority you may make. I do not accept
any claim to being somehow right that you may make. You are clearly
the one in the wrong here. I wish only to go about my business in
peace, and with my good name left be. You wish to tarnish another
person's name for no apparently logical and certainly no justifiable
reason; apparently just because you took a personal disliking to that
person. I have no sympathy for you. You should fail in your ambitions
to ruin me, and I should succeed in my wish to be left in peace. That
is the only possible moral determination here. In simpler language,
since you are the bad guys, you should lose and the good guy should
win. Especially as the good guy is magnanimous enough to be satisfied
with a return to the previous peace-time status quo rather than any
kind of concessions or awards. For now. If this continues, the good
guy is likely to get fed up and start wanting more, such as for the
bad guys never to have internet access ever again, or monetary damages
or something.

Many religions--including, I am sure, yours--preach that one should merely be
accepting of abuse.

I don't have a religion. If you're looking for people that worship the
Great Floormat in the Sky you will have to keep on searching; I'm not
what you're looking for.

I have also found through experience that it kills
the abuse quicker than any other method.

Yeah. Instead of blocking umpteen knife attacks, there's only one
knife attack, because having killed you the stabber has no reason to
continue attacking.

That does indeed stop the abuse quicker than any other method, but it
doesn't do the guy that got stabbed much good, all the same.

Your attempts to trick me into handing you an immediate victory can
never succeed. Give up, now. And shut up, now.

If I commit a crime in Canada, then I am subject to Canada's laws [*],
even if I am an American. These laws include sentencing: the fact that I
may come from a place that has the death penalty is irrelevant. Canada
does not have the death penalty, therefore I can not be put on death row
for committing a sufficiently heinous crime.

The crime seems to be committed in multiple jurisdictions, however.
First degree murder includes all of the planning and preparation. That
therefore includes your unwelcome and unlawful attempts to ascertain
my real-world location precisely enough to attack me. In your case,
those activities seem to have been taking place in the US.
(Specifically, in the Washington, D.C. area somewhere.)

Mustering a lynch mob is conspiracy murder even if you don't actually
participate in the lynching after riling up the ones who do. If you do
the mustering in the US, presumably you're subject to US laws and US
sentencing. If you do the mustering in a DP state ...

By your logic, you can now be charged with `conspiracy to violate
copyright.'

There's conspiracy to commit murder but no such crime as conspiracy to
infringe copyright. Sorry to burst your bubble, dickweed.

Also, a mere offhand statement isn't sufficient to establish intent or
a conspiracy. Actions in furtherance of a nefarious aim are another
matter. For example, if you talked trash about how terrible a person I
am, you may be committing a few torts but nothing too serious. If you
simultaneously attempt to determine where I physically am and say
"Hey, that terrible person I was telling you guys about is right there
at xyz address!" and some of them go vandalize my place, attack me, or
whatever ...

Hmm... chances are that you are going to ignore the entire contents of
my posts because of my tendency to try to write humorously when I get
really agitated at something. Ah well, I should have practiced my French...

If you are really agitated that I will not just meekly lie down and
die at your command, then you have some serious problems that I am not
qualified to help you with. Seek psychiatric help, before it's too
late.

 

[nebulous99]

That does not prevent it from applying.

The fact that you have no authority over me whatsoever prevents it
from applying. You can insist and demand all you want, but nothing you
say is binding on me as any kind of rule, law, resolution, order, or
obligation of any other kind, asswad.

This is a public forum, so it is impossible to invade privacy here.

Sophistry. You think you're smart, don't you? You stupid, stupid
little jerk. It's perfectly possible to invade someone's privacy while
in a public space. It's just like being up a tree on city land peering
with binoculars through some girl's second-floor window trying to
catch a glimpse of her in her underwear. The fact that you didn't
actually trespass onto her land, and even the fact that she didn't
have the curtains drawn, doesn't mean you're not a peeping Tom, you
filthy bastard.

Nope. People comment on what they want to comment.

You do not get to decide the rules, asshole. Had you forgotten again
already?

I think you are grossly overestimating your importance.

I'm important enough to me to expend considerable effort defending me.
I'm apparently important enough to you for you to expend considerable
effort a) attacking me and b) attempting to actually stalk me. I will
use the evidence from your actions to decide, not believe whatever
reassuring noises you make in order to try to prevent your prey from
becoming alarmed and successfully evading or defending himself from
you.

As I have said a couple of times - I think you should talk with
somebody about those feelings.

You're the one in need of professional help. Obviously you have
serious issues if you feel the need to spend your spare time violently
raging at and trying unsuccessfully to destroy an innocent man that
you have never even met! Likely you're engaging in transference, and
abusing me as a more accessible and perhaps less dangerous proxy for
something else that is stressing you out but that you can't just punch
in the nose, either because it will retaliate by ripping your head off
or because it's elusive or simply out of your reach. But I'm not
really qualified to make such a diagnosis with any certainty; you're
well advised to seek professional help.

 

[nebulous99]

We all comment on whatever we want about you.

I've noticed. You all seem to think the newsgroup charter doesn't
apply to you, and that cljp is your private playground rather than a
forum for mature adults to discuss a particular technical subject. You
are, of course, all horribly wrong and sooner or later you will pay
for your misdeeds and abuse of a) the newsgroup and b) me.

[snip non-sequitur]

You've been playing too much Donkey Kong. Take a Zelda or Mario break
before you go completely batty. Oops -- too late. Ah well.