jameson Member since 5-8-02 11-10-06, 02:42 PM (EST) "RW/Radar thread" BORG suggested this is how the case will go... Step 1) File the lawsuit. Step 2) Subpoena Tricia and Topix to hopefully discover the DNS numbers of the person who posted the messages on Topix and Websleuths. Step 3) Using the DNS numbers determine the ISP of the poster, be it AOL, Earthlink, Netzero, local library...whatever. Step 4) Subpoena the ISP and hope they kept logs going back to when the posts appeared so the name of the person using the internet account can be discovered. If they don't still have the DNS/account logs, the whole thing is a dead-end and ends here. Deposing Tricia, Topix, AOL/whomever ain't gonna help. Well, it isn't really that way. The privately held forums are owned by people who make sure they know who is joining their forums. They don't automatically set up posters with a screen name and password - - because they want to make damn sure they aren't letting in someone like ME! They may not demand name, address and phone, but they usually do insist on a REAL email address - - not hotmail or yahoo. And there are emails passed back and forth so the know who they are letting in - - who referred them and so on. Then they activate the account. In fact, this is a direct quote from the page where people register to post at weBsleuths: PLEASE NOTE: Websleuths does not allow registration using free email addresses. If you attempt to use a free email address, you will get a message that the email address is banned. Until further notice, AOL and Juno email addresses are also banned. So it isn't going to be that difficult to track the poster - - and i do advise Tricia to cooperate. Otherwise, I think we might see an amended complaint."
jameson Member since 5-8-02 11-10-06, 02:10 PM (EST) 64. "RE: Threat of Personal Harm....." In response to message #58 >Based on what I read on this thread, there are subtle and >not so subtle threats again RW....including references that >the poster has knowledge of personal information. They need >to find out who this guy is. > >I don't think Tricia is off the hook....there were too many >posts she could have put a stop to, including banning the >poster. However, she may be secondary.....might depend on >how cooperative she is. Lin is in this because RW saw what was posted, feared for his personal safety and - - he has a right to protect his personal privacy. RW decided to fight back. Both RW and Lin have the time and resources to do it. Many of us don't - - they do. They have to know that this is just the tip of the iceberg. During discovery, if they look carefully, I think they will find plenty of evidence that will show a pattern. In the same place they find RW's personal information, I believe they will find other similar documents. Public documents, perhaps... but only part of a group of papers that will, IMO, prove stalking, harassing. Illegal activities. I know I have gotten emails several times telling me they had documents on ME - that they were passing them around in email. I am sure that emails will become part of this case as well, if Lin wants it to go there. The emails that show group efforts and plans.... I think a lot of stuff could be revealed - - if RW is willing to stick to it and doesn't settle quickly. Mame Member since 8-20-06 11-10-06, 02:20 PM (EST) 66. "RE: Threat of Personal Harm....." In response to message #64 I have reason to believe this is a well-planned treasure hunt prefacing the things to come over the next months. That's my opinion... Tricia and her crew are very cocky..I would think she would provide them with sound legal advice. They are her forum buddies, right? But, then she didn't even tell them about the Wood lawsuit. jameson Member since 5-8-02 11-10-06, 02:30 PM (EST) 67. "RE: Threat of Personal Harm....." In response to message #66 >I have reason to believe this is a well-planned treasure >hunt prefacing the things to come over the next months. >That's my opinion... I agree - - RW has nothing to hide and is in a great position to open up a lot of doors that have been closed. I mean, Lin should have a right look at the possibility of ... conspiracy theory comes to mind. Right? > >Tricia and her crew are very cocky..I would think she would >provide them with sound legal advice. They are her forum >buddies, right? But, then she didn't even tell them about >the Wood lawsuit. She isn't a lawyer - and neither is her husband - - how can she offer them ANY advice they can't find online for themselves? Are you sure she didn't tell them about the lawsuit? A lot of stuff in BORG forums is in private areas we have never seen. I was told years ago that weBsleuths had a whole private area set up just to discuss me. And how about email campaigns? jameson Member since 5-8-02 11-10-06, 02:19 PM (EST) 65. "RE: The Truth..." In response to message #54 > >I think it will be interesting to find out who this mystery >poster is? Who hated Westmoreland enough to do this? Some >have suggested the Whites are said to have hated the >Westmorelands...their money...their maid, etc. back in >Atlanta at the funeral. > >Or, is this a disgruntled employee? Scorned lover? > >There's a well known rule good attorneys go by, "You never >ask a question you don't know the answer to." > >I suspect Wood always follows that rule... Yes, I think the person has made it clear they have a personal problem with RW - - But ... isn't there always a but? It has been posted that RW's address was easily found by looking at his political contributions - - and tax records are public and so are realestate listings - - the poster could have found out about the pool by doing a lot of online investigations.... I have never attempted to make files on posters, though I know I have been the subject of several "investigations" by them. Others here have been as well. It has been a nasty business - -and i am not sorry the bees may find themselves getting stung.
jameson's WebbSleuths Subject: "Cyber stalking" Previous Topic | Next Topic Printer-friendly copy Conferences Ramsey discussion 2 Topic #2438 Reading Topic #2438 jameson Member since 5-8-02 11-10-06, 02:24 PM (EST) "Cyber stalking" A Chicago criminal defense attorney follows these guidelines from the Illinois Criminal Code: (a) A person commits cyber stalking when he or she, knowingly and without lawful justification, on at least 2 separate occasions, harasses another person through the use of electronic communication and: (1) at any time transmits a threat of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint and the threat is directed towards that person or a family member of that person, or (2) places that person or a family member of that person in reasonable apprehension of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint. (b) As used in this Section: "Harass" means to engage in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that alarms, torments, or terrorizes that person. "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writings, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectric, or photo-optical system. "Electronic communication" includes transmissions by a computer through the Internet to another computer. Chicago defense attorneys know that tiny cameras, cell phones, Internet Web sites, and satellite tracking—today’s stalkers have more technology at their disposal than could have been envisioned just a decade ago when most states adopted a version of the 1993 Model Anti-Stalking Code. In response, the Justice Department’s National Stalking Resource Center is spearheading a project to update the code to address cyber stalking, with recommendations due this year. The fact that a person has the ability to interact with others anonymously, is one of the strongest motivations for individuals who are offline domestic offenders, because many are under the false impression that they cannot be caught. This may have been true in the year 1989 before cyber stalking came to the attention of the country's authorities, but in 2005, the cases of cyber stalking rose to 443 from 196 in 2004. In many cases, the person who is being victimized may never have had personal contact with the offender. Cyber stalking may include the use of Email to harass the victim directly, posting the victim’s name, phone number, or Email address in a newsgroup or chat room in order to solicit third person harassment of the victim, preparing of websites designed to harass the victim by displaying personal or pornographic material involving the victim, or the use of the computer to access the victim’s personal or financial information, in addition to computer tampering which is also included as a cyber stalking crime. Currently, there are 45 cyber stalking (and related) laws on the books. The management of the various online communities are also aware of these statistics, however, coming to terms with what they can do to prevent cyber stalking is proving just as difficult. Most agree that they have an obligation to their users to provide sufficient guidelines that clearly define what types of behavior is unacceptable, the consequences of such behavior and the steps that are in place to enforce the policy. Many of these Internet companies are now retaining lawyers to determine how they can protect their interests, as well as protect their members from cyber stalkers. In addition site usage policies, there are many sites are acknowledging the real danger of online domestic violence, are posting information to educate their users about cyber stalking, along with recommendations such as: 1. Do not offer your real name to strangers 2. Create a gender-neutral username for your e-mail address or chat nickname. 3. Use illogical patterns for your password 4. Never give your password to anyone, especially if someone requests it in an email or instant message. 5. Change your password frequently 6. Instruct children to never give out their real name, address, or phone number online without your permission. 7. Don't give out credit card numbers in a non-secure environment. If you are being stalked 1. Send a message to the offender. Make it a clear warning that contact is unwanted. Cease all communications and keep a copy of all messages. 2. File a compliant with the offenders’ ISP provider 3. Filter messages 4. Get help from WHO@ or NCVC or CyberAngels 5. Establish a paper trail. Document. Document. Document. 6. File an harassment report at the police department 7. Save all messages written and recorded 8. Keep all copies out of the house (Stalkers are known to break in and steal things.) 9. If you receive email with a very specific threat, contact your local law enforcement department. A cyber stalker could step out into the physical world and lure you for a first meeting; vandalize your home, workplace or vehicle; send threatening or obscene mail; and make abusive and excessive phone calls. The growing amount of evidence of the damage of using the Internet as an instrument to harass, threaten and abuse, is the reason why courts have decided to include cyber stalking in the new definition of domestic violence. Cyber stalkers may claim the First Amendment as a criminal defense to any state law, but the First Amendment does not protect true threats. And the United States Supreme Court realized that true threats might be criminalized without violating the First Amendment. Chicago criminal defense attorneys have reported seeing cases involving cyber aspects in the following areas: violations of orders of protection, harassment, stalking, or threatening and intimidating behavior. In addition to Chicago criminal defense cases, this year a Washington Park man who pleaded guilty in his criminal defense trial of stalking the St. Louis television news anchor and reporter Randi Naughton, not by approaching or threatening her in person but by harassing her through e-mails and on Web sites. With the guilty plea in circuit court and a sentence of 30 months of probation, Rickey E. Lamming, 50, became the first person in St. Clair County to be convicted under Illinois' cyber stalking law. Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top Mame Member since 8-20-06 11-10-06, 02:42 PM (EST) 1. "RE: Cyber stalking" In response to message #0 LAST EDITED ON 11-10-06 AT 02:58 PM (EST) Uhhhh, that's what I've been sayin'.... Corrected to offer definitions.. What is defamation? Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation. Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top Mame Member since 8-20-06 11-10-06, 02:44 PM (EST) 2. "RE: Cyber stalking" In response to message #1 Fortunately my little coach house uhhhhh Dumpster is gated and has a fully wired security system...with cameras no less. Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top Evening2 Member since 7-7-03 11-10-06, 02:48 PM (EST) 3. "RE: Cyber stalking" In response to message #1 >Uhhhh, that's what I've been sayin'.... > >Plus defamation law is far different than libel law... Mame, the two forms of defamation are libel and slander. Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top Mame Member since 8-20-06 11-10-06, 02:59 PM (EST) 4. "RE: Cyber stalking" In response to message #3 The Bloggers' FAQ on Online Defamation Law provides an overview of defamation (libel) law, including a discussion of the constitutional and statutory privileges that may protect you. What is defamation? Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation. What are the elements of a defamation claim? The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are: 1. a publication to one other than the person defamed; 2. a false statement of fact; 3. that is understood as a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff. 4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice. Is truth a defense to defamation claims? Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove. Can my opinion be defamatory? No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database"). What is a statement of verifiable fact? A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses": A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb ," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ." When applied to a whole human being, the term "" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim. This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff." Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures? Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement. A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet. Who is a public figure? A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures — a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate — someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure — for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence. Examples of public figures: * A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel * A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy * A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant * Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events Corporations are not always public figures. They are judged by the same standards as individuals. What are the rules about reporting on a public proceeding? In some states, there are legal privileges protecting fair comments about public proceedings. For example, in California you have a right to make "a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course thereof, or (E) of a verified charge or complaint made by any person to a public official, upon which complaint a warrant has been issued." This provision has been applied to posting on an online message board, Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc., and would likely also be applied to blogs. The California privilege also extends to fair and true reports of public meetings, if the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit. What is a "fair and true report"? A report is "fair and true" if it captures the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader. What if I want to report on a public controversy? Many jurisdictions recognize a "neutral reportage" privilege, which protects "accurate and disinterested reporting" about potentially libelous accusations arising in public controversies. As one court put it, "The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them." If I write something defamatory, will a retraction help? Some jurisdictions have retraction statutes that provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement. For example, in California, a plaintiff who fails to demand a retraction of a statement made in a newspaper or radio or television broadcast, or who demands and receives a retraction, is limited to getting "special damages" — the specific monetary losses caused by the libelous speech. While few courts have addressed retraction statutes with regard to online publications, a Georgia court denied punitive damages based on the plaintiff's failure to request a retraction for something posted on an Internet bulletin board. (See Mathis v. Cannon) If you get a reasonable retraction request, it may help you to comply. The retraction must be "substantially as conspicuous" as the original alleged defamation. What if I change the person's name? To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name — the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president. Do blogs have the same constitutional protections as mainstream media? Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities." What if I republish another person's statement? (i.e. someone comments on your posts) Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker — if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation. Recognizing the difficulty this would pose in the online world, Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides a strong protection against liability for Internet "intermediaries" who provide or republish speech by others. See the Section 230 FAQ for more. But Section 230 is not a panacea. While the vast weight of authority has held that Section 230 precludes liability for an intermediary's distribution of defamation, one California court has held that the federal law does not apply to an online distributor's liability in a defamation case. The case, Barrett v. Rosenthal, is under appeal to the California Supreme Court (EFF filed an amicus brief in this case). Can I get insurance to cover defamation claims? Yes. Many insurance companies are now offering media liability insurance policies designed to cover online libel claims. However, the costs could be steep for small blogs — The minimum annual premium is generally $2,500 for a $1 million limit, with a minimum deductible of $5,000. In addition, the insurer will conduct a review of the publisher, and may insist upon certain standards and qualifications (i.e. procedures to screen inflammatory/offensive content, procedures to "take down" content after complaint). The Online Journalism Review has an extensive guide to libel insurance for online publishers. Will my homeowner's or renter's insurance policy cover libel lawsuits? Maybe. Eugene Volokh's the Volokh Conspiracy notes that homeowner's insurance policies, and possibly also some renter's or umbrella insurance policies, generally cover libel lawsuits, though they usually exclude punitive damages and liability related to "business pursuits." (This would generally exclude blogs with any advertising). You should read your insurance policy carefully to see what coverage it may provide. What's the statute of limitation on libel? Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. In certain circumstances, such as when the defendant cannot be identified, a plaintiff can have more time to file a claim. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published. What are some examples of libelous and non-libelous statements? The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false): * Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959) * Calling an attorney a "crook" * Describing a woman as a call girl * Accusing a minister of unethical conduct * Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son Not-libelous: * Calling a political foe a "thief" and "liar" in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context) * Calling a TV show participant a "local loser," "chicken butt" and "big skank" * Calling someone a "" or a "son of a " * Changing product code name from "Carl Sagan" to "Butt Head Astronomer" Since libel is considered in context, do not take these examples to be a hard and fast rule about particular phrases. Generally, the non-libelous examples are hyperbole or opinion, while the libelous statements are stating a defamatory fact. How do courts look at the context of a statement? For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog's audience. Context is critical. For example, it was not libel for ESPN to caption a photo "Evel Knievel proves you're never too old to be a pimp," since it was (in context) "not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment." However, it would be defamatory to falsely assert "our dad's a pimp" or to accuse your dad of "dabbling in the pimptorial arts." (Real case, but the defendant sons succeeded in a truth defense). What is "Libel Per Se"? When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se: A statement that falsely: * Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; * Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease; * Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits; * Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity. Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant slut," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact. What is a "false light" claim? Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above. What is trade libel? Trade libel is defamation against the goods or services of a company or business. For example, saying that you found a severed finger in you're a particular company's chili (if it isn't true). Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top jameson Member since 5-8-02 11-10-06, 03:05 PM (EST) 5. "RE: Cyber stalking" In response to message #4 Having someone tell lies about you on the Internet is NOT the same as being stalked, harrassed or threatened. That should be on a thread of its own. Cyber stalking has, on occasion, led to serious situations. People have not only been so frightened that they have dropped out of forums, changed phone numbers.... other have been emotionally disturbed to limits no one here has ever discussed. I once visited a forum where it is said a poster actually killed herself because she couldn't deal with what was happening on the Internet. I don't know if it was true - but the discussion was there. On OUR forum - - one girl faked her own suicide to get attention - - posed as a sister to announce the death - - it was pretty sick - - but clearly, what happened inthe forums sent the girl over the edge - - and we are the KINDER forum! But the concern many have is that a loon might take cyber to the real world and pose a real threat."
Tricia should be skeered... I'm telling you, we probably will all be sued, some more than others, but it will happen and then we will have to pay to post on Jameson's forum and then we will all agree the Rams are innocent and we can live happily ever after, and all that stuff.. RiverMouse, don't be so cocky, ok?
one_eyed_Jack Member since 2-22-04 11-10-06, 12:40 PM (EST) 56. "RE: The Truth..." In response to message #55 I think this is an important suit. I've never believed it was right to say "I know" my favorite suspect is a rapist or murderer. Unless there is a specific agreement that the poster owns their own words, and he/she clearly understands s(he) could be subject to suits, I think forum owners should be liable for what they allow to be posted. Some forum owners encourage this type of hurtful rhetoric. FFJ has planned retaliatory type acts against a number of private citizens. They conspire and carry out malicious acts of harassment. It is meant solely to harass. Then they laugh and giggle about it. That type of anonymous and malicious environment can attract dangerous persons. It's disgusting and completely irresponsible." :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: Can someone refresh my memory regarding the definition of Retaliatory???
So that is how this plays out now......okay, let me see how this feels.....The Ramseys are......not......involved..... Sparky, I really don't think that I can do it. Go on ahead without me. :duped:
no, no.... That is the way they have it figured.... I wish someone would sue me but I don't think I'm worthy lke you and several other posters here are..ya know? Give me a clue as to what I could say to join you guys in getting raked over the coals by them and LE and probably the fbi... I don't wanna be left out.
What makes you think you are left out, Sparkster? They keep screaming FFJ and last I looked, there you were....I just want to be there when you explain this fine mess to your hubby.....in the meantime, I will be converting all of my assets into Travelers Checks and fleeing the Country in case anyone asks.
naw Ron likes me to get involved in stuff, so this could be it. Really though, I don't think I've said anything worthy, 'cept maybe PATSY DID IT....I am truly a borg but just being here says that. I think Jameson is a weasel as is mame. They have stupid on their side. Lin Wood is also socially stupid. When I see them still discussing Bill Reynolds I could puke, same with Fleet White.
Tell the truth Jameson. You've registered on ALL the forums under fake names for years. You just always get banned when you start posting your lies and calling them facts. It's never too hard to find the pathological liar in a discussion forum. :6:
Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is no joke. The Illinois laws are strong, and every state should have these laws. The recommendations from CyberAngels and other such groups are valuable information. I can see why Rod Westmoreland is upset. He and his family were threatened with physical harm. As a matter of fact, I hope he wins his suit against the stalker. That said, I have never seen any serious threats to anyone here on FFJ. There were some veiled threats made to me when I was covering the Illes case, but I shrugged them off as so much B.S. Maybe nowadays I would take it more seriously, as this has become a more dangerous world, both online and off.
A forum which attracts malicious and dangerous posters? Now where oh where have I seen posters who call innocent people killers, child sex ring members, using mentally ill persons, random numbers, and letters scrambled and twisted to support their nonsense? Hundreds of posts attacking...oh...any number of people...including the Whites, the McReynolds. A forum whose owner brags that she lies when it's convenient for her, collects people's personal information and uses it against them by calling their homes, their businesses, to harass them? I swear, I just don't understand how people can be such hypocrites with a straight face. Once, I came to the forums to find out who murdered JonBenet Ramsey. Then, I came to the forums to figure out why this child killer was getting away with that murder. Then, I came to the forums to fight the lies and disinformation being spread about the case and innocent people. Now...I'm wondering why I'm wasting my time still reading about the stupid people who think this is ABOUT THEM. I don't think I want to give them my energy anymore. Life is too short, and they're too pathetic.
jameson Member since 5-8-02 11-10-06, 07:27 PM (EST) 5. "Responding to an email" In response to message #4 I want to respond to an email in a PUBLIC forum so my message can't be edited and passed around as being MINE. Yes, I am aware that the BORG carry my posts and HUGE chunks of our discussion over to FFJ. And I know well that I could demand they remove my posts - copyright and all that... I have before. But why do that? People reading there inevitably come here to see what they are ranting about. As for Candy and Mame, I don't know what their plans are - and I don't care to. This never was the dictatorship the BORG described to you." :hiya: jameson - you stated in the past that you did not have a problem with your postings being copied to other forums which is why I do not hesitate to do so when you are discussing us. Just as you do with our posts in all of your "Responding to BORG BS" threads. Nothing has been editied. Candy has her own place at CS and it looks like mame and some others have set up their own camp too. Those two have come and goe from your forum for years now - why all the fuss now?
I'm impressed Spade! I didn't know it was YOU who invented with the BDI theory. I mean, none of us would have EVER come up with that theory on our own, right? Does gsquared also give you credit for the Big Bang theory? And what the hell is a "homophobic video distribution company"??? Is that a typo on your part, or do you supposedly make anti-gay videos? Come to think of it, wouldn't a "homophobic video" be a heterosexual video? :floor:
YoooHooo JammyPoo... I think you forgot to mention that you copied TWO of MY posts from here at FFJ this week and posted them in your Skankville home. Did you think about "copyright" when you did that, or were you too busy constructing another of your pathological lies? :skank:
The difference between jameson's forum and other forums is that when other forums quote from HER forum, they attribute the poster and more often than not, they post a link. When they take posts from elsewhere, the only attribution is "BORG said..." - no link. Yes, people read here and elsewhere and inevitably they go to her forum - because the links enable them to. jameson does NOT want any readers going elsewhere, so she makes it as hard as she can for the reader to find the source of the quotes.
There are many lovely, trustworthy people on the forums and there are some real vipers. Thankfully, I've not had too much contact with the latter. However, the Internet is a minefield and you just don't know who you are dealing with most of the time. It's always disappointing when someone you thought was a decent sort turns out to be a snake in the grass.
Blue, Jameson has copied posts from all over, and I personally believe she acknowledges it is a 50/50 deal all over. Let's face it, it is! When a few of my posts were copied over there years ago, I did go to her web site and acknowledge those posts were mine, so there would be no mistake as to who the author was. I was actually told I was welcome to go back there any time. So much is freely copied on the net. I doubt that copyright on the net can be controlled 100%, bar the legal papers I have seen posted now and again. When I am researching, I have seen the same material relating to the JonBenét case all over the net with different authors. Hard to control.
