| |
Main
Date: 05 Jul 2007 20:04:45
From: Dave
Subject: Anonymous and starlord
|
It's time we do something about this cretin. read below
canopus56 wrote to anonymous in the helping starlord thread:
Your internet stalking of Mr. Bishop, a person that you knew to have
health problems, contributed to his high blood pressure and eventual
stroke. You posts were certainly calculated to inflict emotional
distress on Mr. Bishop. Anonymous, you take your stalking victims as
you find them. Your stalking behavior has risen to the level of a
felony. The authorities should track you down, and if convicted, put
you in jail. Someone here may wish to collect Anonymous's posts and
forward them to the appropriate authorities.- C
If this is true, that his stalking Dennis amounts to a felony, I think we
need to
address this somehow because for sure we've all witnessed it.
does anybody in this group have the ability to track down this guy? I just
don't think ignoring him by filtering his posts is sufficient in this case.
I just don't know what else we can do. who are the proper authorities?
Dave
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 12:45:22
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
I think, if nothing else, this discussion has rid the group of anonymous and
his obnoxious posts and hopefully, for Dennis when he does return, some
sense of just how much some of us felt about his efforts and posts.
Dave
"Dave" <dstaup@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:x9cji.32697$YL5.27967@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> It's time we do something about this cretin. read below
>
> canopus56 wrote to anonymous in the helping starlord thread:
>
> Your internet stalking of Mr. Bishop, a person that you knew to have
> health problems, contributed to his high blood pressure and eventual
> stroke. You posts were certainly calculated to inflict emotional
> distress on Mr. Bishop. Anonymous, you take your stalking victims as
> you find them. Your stalking behavior has risen to the level of a
> felony. The authorities should track you down, and if convicted, put
> you in jail. Someone here may wish to collect Anonymous's posts and
> forward them to the appropriate authorities.- C
>
>
> If this is true, that his stalking Dennis amounts to a felony, I think we
> need to
> address this somehow because for sure we've all witnessed it.
> does anybody in this group have the ability to track down this guy? I just
> don't think ignoring him by filtering his posts is sufficient in this
> case. I just don't know what else we can do. who are the proper
> authorities?
>
> Dave
>
>
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 00:26:24
From: Chris.B
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
On Jul 10, 9:48 am, Per Erik Jorde <pe...@pulsar.imr.no > wrote:
>
> Google has nothing to do with it. This is USENET and although some
> users access USENET through Google, the guy who harress Starloard does
> not. He posts through dizum.com instead.
>
> pej
> --
> Per Erik Jorde
Thanks, but I am aware of this. I had rather hoped that since Google
claims SAA as one of its "Google Groups" it would have some way of
modifying this anonymous poster's online behaviour. A forlorn hope
indeed but at least it proves I am a foolish optimist as well as
quixotic. Nobody is perfect.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 09:21:23
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
On Jul 12, 6:22 am, "George" <geo...@yourservice.com > wrote:
> information that contradicts what has already been posted several times
> already?
No, not about his health (unfortunately). But I know for a fact that
at least some of the regulars here did get involved in a concrete
manner. For example, snail mail should normally still reach him.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 21:32:48
From: Chris.B
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
On Jul 10, 3:04 am, "George" <geo...@yourservice.com > wrote:
> Your ranting aside, we still don't know the facts.
>
> George
How true.
What did you try to do to stop Starlord's bully, George?
a) Nothing: Not your problem.
b) Nothing: There is no problem.
c) Nothing: You always show complete indifference to the plight of
others.
d) Nothing: You think that freedom of speech is far more important
than human suffering.
e) Nothing: You thought the anonymous poster's comments were very
funny.
f) Nothing: You prefer not to think about these things at all.
g) Nothing: The poster was off-topic so you filtered his posts.
h) Nothing: You don't read off topic posts anyway.
i) Nothing: Starlord should get a thicker skin.
j) Nothing: It was a pointless waste of time so not worth your
effort.
k) Nothing: You are only here for the astronomy.
l) Nothing: Dennis is a pain in the butt and deserved to be bullied
mercilessly by a sadistic pervert.
m) Nothing: No particular reason.
(Choose one)
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 00:43:07
From: George
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"Chris.B" <chris.b@mail.dk > wrote in message
news:1184041968.691719.221550@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 3:04 am, "George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
>> Your ranting aside, we still don't know the facts.
>>
>> George
>
> How true.
> What did you try to do to stop Starlord's bully, George?
I know nothing about Starlord's bully. I never kept up with those threads,
and rarely read his. That doesn't mean that I don't care that he's had a
stroke. I do. But let me ask you a question. What have YOU done to find
out what actually happened to him? We know that he had a stroke and
apparently is in a convolescent center. That's all we know.
George
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 16:35:31
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"George" <george@yourservice.com > wrote in
news:p7Eki.9115$ca.7169@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
> YOU done to find out what actually happened to him? We know that he
Hmmmmm. Let me quote you: you do not know the facts.
--
Pierre Vandevenne - DataRescue sa/nv - www.datarescue.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 00:22:19
From: George
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"Pierre Vandevenne" <pierre@datarescue.com > wrote in message
news:Xns996AEFF8670B3datarescue@216.196.109.144...
> "George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote in
> news:p7Eki.9115$ca.7169@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
>
>> YOU done to find out what actually happened to him? We know that he
>
> Hmmmmm. Let me quote you: you do not know the facts.
Well, you got me on that one, Pierre. Others have posted here that they
talked to local authorities who said he had a stroke and is in a
convolescent center. Whether or not that is actually true, I don't know.
I have to assume that the person(s) who posted that information would have
no reason to lie about it, so I assume that it is true. Do you have
information that contradicts what has already been posted several times
already?
George
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 12:29:21
From: Chris.B
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
On Jul 9, 3:28 am, "George" <geo...@yourservice.com > wrote:
> That may be true, but the fact is that we just don't know the facts, what
> actually happened to him.
>
> George
The fact that Starlord lives his life via the internet due to his
physical and financial situation adds to the stress of his being
bullied.
His ego, personality, reputation and comradeship exist through his
virtual world. WYSIWYG with Starlord.
To attack Starlord so viciously online is to go direct for the
jugular.
Those who have a choice as to where and when they enjoy their daily
social life may like to think about that.
Anyone who can't read libel into the attacks on Starlord must have
very thick skins or enjoy very rough company indeed.
I tried to get Google to take notice but they were too busy counting
their dirty billions to take any notice.
It is certain they could trace anybody they chose.
No doubt they are already "assisting" various intolerant governments
in that particular task.
Perhaps reporting Chinese dissidents is more their bag? Absolute
power...Sudan, Africa, Olympics, Google....
I tried posting on the anonymous bully's own forum and got nowhere. As
a group they lack a collective conscience.
I tried tarring them all with the same brush and was answered with the
same extreme homosexual weirdness.
Even if one managed to trace this very sick individual he could get
off with an insanity plea.
I find the idea of intense physical therapy via the armed forces
network strangely compelling in this case.
The pervert certainly leaves a UK-savvy slime trail but how can one be
sure?
A multicultural society with millions of visitors from all over the
world annually.
Anyone sensitive to the culture could pick up on the clues he drops.
This recidivist could be a student who has returned to base after
studying in the UK.
How can the slime trail be followed when guaranteed anonymity has
corrupted a sadistic freak of nature?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 09:48:11
From: Per Erik Jorde
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"Chris.B" <chris.b@mail.dk > writes:
> I tried to get Google to take notice but they were too busy counting
> their dirty billions to take any notice.
Google has nothing to do with it. This is USENET and although some
users access USENET through Google, the guy who harress Starloard does
not. He posts through dizum.com instead. Before you try to complain to
THEM, read their FAQ:
https://ssl.dizum.com/help/usenet.html
In particular issues #14 onwards.
pej
--
Per Erik Jorde
|
| | |
Date: 09 Jul 2007 21:04:45
From: George
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"Chris.B" <chris.b@mail.dk > wrote in message
news:1184009361.166404.183530@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 3:28 am, "George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
>> That may be true, but the fact is that we just don't know the facts,
>> what
>> actually happened to him.
>>
>> George
>
> The fact that Starlord lives his life via the internet due to his
> physical and financial situation adds to the stress of his being
> bullied.
> His ego, personality, reputation and comradeship exist through his
> virtual world. WYSIWYG with Starlord.
> To attack Starlord so viciously online is to go direct for the
> jugular.
> Those who have a choice as to where and when they enjoy their daily
> social life may like to think about that.
> Anyone who can't read libel into the attacks on Starlord must have
> very thick skins or enjoy very rough company indeed.
> I tried to get Google to take notice but they were too busy counting
> their dirty billions to take any notice.
> It is certain they could trace anybody they chose.
> No doubt they are already "assisting" various intolerant governments
> in that particular task.
> Perhaps reporting Chinese dissidents is more their bag? Absolute
> power...Sudan, Africa, Olympics, Google....
> I tried posting on the anonymous bully's own forum and got nowhere. As
> a group they lack a collective conscience.
> I tried tarring them all with the same brush and was answered with the
> same extreme homosexual weirdness.
> Even if one managed to trace this very sick individual he could get
> off with an insanity plea.
> I find the idea of intense physical therapy via the armed forces
> network strangely compelling in this case.
> The pervert certainly leaves a UK-savvy slime trail but how can one be
> sure?
> A multicultural society with millions of visitors from all over the
> world annually.
> Anyone sensitive to the culture could pick up on the clues he drops.
> This recidivist could be a student who has returned to base after
> studying in the UK.
> How can the slime trail be followed when guaranteed anonymity has
> corrupted a sadistic freak of nature?
Your ranting aside, we still don't know the facts.
George
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 22:57:40
From: ko57
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
> Does ANYONE have a clue about the harasser? Time zone? Country?
> Known aliases?
Looks like the IP address is Australia. Look at the record of his
posts-many different names, aliases. Perhaps an email to the FBI
describing what has been going on, as they do have a link that you can
use to report a history-and it looks like there is enough history here-
of stalking and predatory behavior, and also what Starlord means to
the Astro community and his history of service to his community.
There are enough links from the stalker that show hostility toward
Dennis, it might be pretty interesting to the FBI, especially if
Dennis' friends from SAA and his Yahoo group (Dobsonian telescopes)
would either email to the FBI or post a thread here with testimony for
Dennis, then send the link to the FBI. If anything, the stalker needs
to be put in the loony bin.
Anyone who monitors this group-I have for going on 5 years now-knows
Dennis is the Starlord, our Starlord, and in spite of his personal
struggles, it is his calling to share and show others about
astronomy. God knows how many times we've read about people who've
stopped at his telescope setup only to mention that they had been
wanting to get a scope, never looked through one, then get information
for when they'd finally decided which to get.
Then this idiot who seems to have been around a few years now, seems
to have been monitoring Dennis' posting, has become the pest from
hell. I hadn't stopped by here at SAA the past month or so, I check
in yesterday to see what's up-Starlord is in a care facility-which I
did call them (I'm in Louisiana) and spoke to a nurse-and all this
craziness from a nutty stalker?? What the heck is going on here? I
guess stalker can't believe that Starlord has loyal friends?? If
there was any way possible, legal action should be taken to shut that
idiot down from the web.
ko
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 21:48:05
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Jul 6, 10:52 am, "mitch" <m...@nospam.net > wrote:
> DUDE..this is one of the most idiotic rants yet. Do you really think that
> this Starlord wouldn't have killfiled this Borked Asshole a long time ago? Do you really
> think this would lead to a stroke...highly and utterly conjecture. If
> Starlord let himself get all wound up to the point of bursting a blood vessel, then Starlord
> would be part of the problem. <snip>
This is straying from the core sci.astro. amateur topics, but before
properly consigning any further continuation of this thread to an
alt.poltics usenet group, I am going to weigh in one more time.
I recommend that you take some time to self-educate yourself on
cyberstalking and how it works.
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32458
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm
One of the key effects that the cyber stalker tries to invoke is
hypervigilance and anxiety, by fostering the notion that the stalker
could be anyone in their daily life. For example, they could be
standing in the checkout line right next to you and you would not know
it. The resulting hypervigilance is an involuntary "fight or flight"
emotional response.
True enough that Dennis himself says that he killfiled the guy. But
you have to go back to actual postings by Anonymous. Basically, for
four or five times a day he or she would make newsgroup postings about
anal and forced anal sex with the stalking victim. I apologise in
advance for the graphic requote, but so there is no ambiguity about
the predatory nature of Anonymous's postings, examples of one of over
500 of Borked's postings recovered from Google include:
"i want to whip out my chubby telescope and investigate uranus with
shitetard the spammertard of rosatard"
"please shitetard fawking please can i investigate uranus with my big
telescope"
Other of Anonymous-Bork's posts indicate a good working knowledge of
Dennis's daily activities, including his home address.
It's not a question of a person violating the basic ethic of self-
protection and injurying themselves by "getting wrapped up" in a
sociopath's postings. The cyber stalker intends to evoke an
involuntary "fight or flight" stress response that any normal person
would have when receiving violent sexual threats of the type that
Anonymous-Bork sent.
Now if someone was stalking me, I would do what Dennis did and what
you propose - killfile the stalker, ignore them, encourage others to
ignore the sociopath and get on with one's life. But I would also be
counting the number of posts the guy was making and would be looking
over my shoulder while going about my daily business. Reasonably, they
could in fact be living down the street.
That is exactly what your own personal response would be, Mitch.
However much of a macho guy you feel you are, your blood pressure
would go up whether you liked it or not.
So no, I don't think this thread is an "idot rant". Nor do I believe
blaming the victim is an appropriate response or that Dennis got
"wrapped up" in Anonymous-Bork's posts. But that is not how cyber
stalking works to harm its victims.
Best wishes. At this point I consider the thread completed.
- Canopus56
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 19:48:00
From: mitch
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
The asshole *Borked* is a cyber BULLY, COWARD....FUCKTARD.
> One of the key effects that the cyber stalker tries to invoke is
> hypervigilance and anxiety, by fostering the notion that the stalker
> could be anyone in their daily life. For example, they could be
> standing in the checkout line right next to you and you would not know
> it. The resulting hypervigilance is an involuntary "fight or flight"
> emotional response.
>
> True enough that Dennis himself says that he killfiled the guy. But
> you have to go back to actual postings by Anonymous. Basically, for
> four or five times a day he or she would make newsgroup postings about
> anal and forced anal sex with the stalking victim. I apologise in
> advance for the graphic requote, but so there is no ambiguity about
> the predatory nature of Anonymous's postings, examples of one of over
> 500 of Borked's postings recovered from Google include:
>
> "i want to whip out my chubby telescope and investigate uranus with
> shitetard the spammertard of rosatard"
>
> "please shitetard fawking please can i investigate uranus with my big
> telescope"
>
> Other of Anonymous-Bork's posts indicate a good working knowledge of
> Dennis's daily activities, including his home address.
>
> It's not a question of a person violating the basic ethic of self-
> protection and injurying themselves by "getting wrapped up" in a
> sociopath's postings. The cyber stalker intends to evoke an
> involuntary "fight or flight" stress response that any normal person
> would have when receiving violent sexual threats of the type that
> Anonymous-Bork sent.
>
> Now if someone was stalking me, I would do what Dennis did and what
> you propose - killfile the stalker, ignore them, encourage others to
> ignore the sociopath and get on with one's life. But I would also be
> counting the number of posts the guy was making and would be looking
> over my shoulder while going about my daily business. Reasonably, they
> could in fact be living down the street.
>
> That is exactly what your own personal response would be, Mitch.
> However much of a macho guy you feel you are, your blood pressure
> would go up whether you liked it or not.
>
> So no, I don't think this thread is an "idot rant". Nor do I believe
> blaming the victim is an appropriate response or that Dennis got
> "wrapped up" in Anonymous-Bork's posts. But that is not how cyber
> stalking works to harm its victims.
>
> Best wishes. At this point I consider the thread completed.
>
> - Canopus56
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 00:45:36
From: Marty
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
I've been hesitant to enter this thread, because in a way, I feel like
I'm contributing to this asshat's twisted thrills by doing so. However,
this jerk has crossed the line. To say that prolonged, pointless,
personal attacks on a private citizen are somehow protected by the first
amendment is simply silly. Over the years, we've had a lot of trolls in
this group, but NONE have mounted such a long term, vicious, PERSONAL
attack on a single member of the group. The creep who's doing it knows
it's wrong, or he wouldn't be hiding behind an anonymous remailer. If I
were the chosen victim, I'd publicly laugh it off, but knowing that many
of these trolls are truly mentally unbalanced people, I would indeed be
keeping my guard up as I went about my daily life.
I'm a 57 year old midwestern hayseed with a webtv box. I know
little about computers, anonymous remailers, or the legal technicalities
of cyber stalking, but if this guy can somehow be identified, it would
be some measure of justice. Sometimes, just being what you are, and
having other people know it, is punishment enough.
Marty
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 08:51:33
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Jul 5, 2:04 pm, "Dave" <dst...@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
> I just don't know what else we can do. who are the proper authorities? Dave
On a final note and I'm done on this topic. The last thing to point
out to the authorities is the cost to society. I do not know the
California rates for nursing home, but when placing a relative last
year in another state, it ran about $4,500 per month. Hopefully,
Starlord's stroke recovery will occur quickly and he will not be
convelasced for an extended period. But recovery medical bills could
run into $50,000 - $100,000. All that expense - that in my IMHO is
partially traceable to Anonymous - and will be picked up by the
California taxpayer. - C
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 16:52:45
From: mitch
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1183737093.013088.314930@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Jul 5, 2:04 pm, "Dave" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I just don't know what else we can do. who are the proper authorities?
>> Dave
>
> On a final note and I'm done on this topic. The last thing to point
> out to the authorities is the cost to society. I do not know the
> California rates for nursing home, but when placing a relative last
> year in another state, it ran about $4,500 per month. Hopefully,
> Starlord's stroke recovery will occur quickly and he will not be
> convelasced for an extended period. But recovery medical bills could
> run into $50,000 - $100,000. All that expense - that in my IMHO is
> partially traceable to Anonymous - and will be picked up by the
> California taxpayer. - C
>
DUDE..this is one of the most idiotic rants yet. Do you really think that
this Starlord
wouldn't have killfiled this Borked Asshole a long time ago? Do you really
think this would lead to a stroke...highly and utterly conjecture. If
Starlord let himself
get all wound up to the point of bursting a blood vessel, then Starlord
would be part of the problem.
Now if this Borked nutcase actually managed to get his phone number and went
that far then
you could track 'em and have him in the slammer....
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 22:03:55
From: George
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"mitch" <mitch@nospam.net > wrote in message
news:xruji.28508$xk5.6870@edtnps82...
>
> "canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1183737093.013088.314930@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2:04 pm, "Dave" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> I just don't know what else we can do. who are the proper authorities?
>>> Dave
>>
>> On a final note and I'm done on this topic. The last thing to point
>> out to the authorities is the cost to society. I do not know the
>> California rates for nursing home, but when placing a relative last
>> year in another state, it ran about $4,500 per month. Hopefully,
>> Starlord's stroke recovery will occur quickly and he will not be
>> convelasced for an extended period. But recovery medical bills could
>> run into $50,000 - $100,000. All that expense - that in my IMHO is
>> partially traceable to Anonymous - and will be picked up by the
>> California taxpayer. - C
>>
>
>
> DUDE..this is one of the most idiotic rants yet. Do you really think that
> this Starlord
> wouldn't have killfiled this Borked Asshole a long time ago? Do you
> really
> think this would lead to a stroke...highly and utterly conjecture. If
> Starlord let himself
> get all wound up to the point of bursting a blood vessel, then Starlord
> would be part of the problem.
>
> Now if this Borked nutcase actually managed to get his phone number and
> went that far then
> you could track 'em and have him in the slammer....
It is well known that he was very overweight, and not in very good health.
It is also a well-known fact that such conditions in older people, combined
with stress in their environment (he wasn't doing too well financially and
emotionally, from what I understand) can lead to a stroke. Who knows what
the actual trigger was? It could have been anything. Hell, a coyote could
have eaten his radishes, for all we know. I think it is quite premature
for people to go around pointing fingers at others when the fact is that no
one has even been able to contact him in order to find out what happened.
So no one here knows what actually happened, as far as I'm concerned. I'm
not apologizing for anything anyone may or may not have done to the man, I
just think the finger pointing here has gone on long enough and helps no
one, least of all starlord.
George
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 16:49:15
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"George" <george@yourservice.com > wrote in
news:awCji.6961$ca.2080@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
> It is well known that he was very overweight, and not in very good
> health. It is also a well-known fact that such conditions in older
> people, combined with stress in their environment (he wasn't doing too
> well financially and emotionally, from what I understand) can lead to
> a stroke. Who knows what the actual trigger was? It could have been
True, his risk of stroke was much higher than average. But the harassment
could definitely have played a role. Obviously, Internet meant a lot for
Dennis and the ubertrashy guy who is bullying him has really been too far.
It would be a stress for anyone.
--
Pierre Vandevenne, MD - DataRescue sa/nv - www.datarescue.com
The IDA Pro Disassembler & Debugger - world leader in hostile code analysis
PhotoRescue - advanced data recovery for digital photographic media
latest review: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1590497,00.asp
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 21:28:45
From: George
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"Pierre Vandevenne" <pierre@datarescue.com > wrote in message
news:Xns9967F20571382datarescue@216.196.109.144...
> "George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote in
> news:awCji.6961$ca.2080@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
>
>> It is well known that he was very overweight, and not in very good
>> health. It is also a well-known fact that such conditions in older
>> people, combined with stress in their environment (he wasn't doing too
>> well financially and emotionally, from what I understand) can lead to
>> a stroke. Who knows what the actual trigger was? It could have been
>
> True, his risk of stroke was much higher than average. But the harassment
> could definitely have played a role. Obviously, Internet meant a lot for
> Dennis and the ubertrashy guy who is bullying him has really been too
> far.
> It would be a stress for anyone.
That may be true, but the fact is that we just don't know the facts, what
actually happened to him.
George
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 00:43:42
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
On Jul 5, 2:04 pm, "Dave" <dst...@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
<snip >
x-no-archive: yes
> [D]oes anybody in this group have the ability to track down this guy?
No, not me, but should you decide to contact the authorities, there
may be a way. Anonymous, like other alleged sociopaths, likes
trophies of his or her conduct and to display them to others as a
symbol of their power over their stalking victim.
Anonymous likes to use an Netherlands based anonymous remailer to post
through google to the usenet. He or she tags all of their messages
with the keyword phrases "shiteard", "spamtard" and, occassionally,
"stalkertard". In order to show off their "work", he or she
ocassionally posts a www.tinyurl.com link (like the one in this
newsgroup on Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:05:04 +0200 (CEST) - http://tinyurl.com/ypt5fn
). The link, which can be previewed without launching at www.tinyurl.com,
is simply to a google search that returns all usenet posts with the
keyword tags
"shiteard" and "spamtard". The search currently returns 588 obscense
and harassing messages against the stalking victim, almost all of
which are posted to this usenet group. By this means, the alleged
stalker can relive the sense of power that they have over the stalking
victim by reliving their degradation of the victim.
There is a low possibility that when posting the tinyurl.com link, he
or she neglected to use an anonymous remailer. www.tinyurl.com would
have recorded the date of the creation of the tinyurl.com tag and the
isp from which the request was made. It is more likely that Anonymous
uses the www.tinyurl.com link to relive their degradation of the
victim. A criminal subponea to www.tinyurl.com should be able to
return the isp and server from which the original link posting
occurred as well as the top 10 ips that used the www.tinyurl.com
link. Odds are one of those isps will be the true isp of Anonymous.
>From there, a criminal investigator could use the posting times of the
usenet posts to match who was logged into that isp provider during
those same 588 times. Even with a large isp, that should narrow the
search down to one or two individuals.
A first step would be for you to download and store the original
version message for all of the 588 obscene and threatening messages
created by Anonymous - in order to preserve the header information
with posting dates and times stored in the message. Although this
will not reveal good tracking information, should the true isp of
Anonymous aka Borked Pseudo Mail be discovered, the posting dates and
times may provide a way to identify an individual account. The Google
search interface includes a convenient button that will package and
email the search result messages to you.
This is just an investigation idea to include in your email, should
you decide to report the matter to the proper authorities.
- Canopus56
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 01:00:58
From: George B'BBB BB
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
Dave wrote:
> It's time we do something about this cretin. read below
>
> canopus56 wrote to anonymous in the helping starlord thread:
>
> Your internet stalking of Mr. Bishop, a person that you knew to have
> health problems, contributed to his high blood pressure and eventual
> stroke. You posts were certainly calculated to inflict emotional
> distress on Mr. Bishop. Anonymous, you take your stalking victims as
> you find them. Your stalking behavior has risen to the level of a
> felony. The authorities should track you down, and if convicted, put
> you in jail. Someone here may wish to collect Anonymous's posts and
> forward them to the appropriate authorities.- C
>
> If this is true, that his stalking Dennis amounts to a felony, I think we
> need to
> address this somehow because for sure we've all witnessed it.
> does anybody in this group have the ability to track down this guy? I just
> don't think ignoring him by filtering his posts is sufficient in this case.
> I just don't know what else we can do. who are the proper authorities?
>
> Dave
Eskimows open Dairy Queen in Greenland! ???
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 19:08:16
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
On Jul 5, 4:28 pm, "Rick Evans" <h1ELt0nevansNOS...@ver1z0n.net >
wrote:
> A felony? I don't know where you're writing from, but in
> the United States we have Bill of Rights that explicitely
> allows people to express obnoxious opinions.
All goods points, Rick. My understanding of the Bill of Rights is
that it protects an individual's right to make profane statements in
protest to governmental actions and protects an individual against
censorship by government. It does not apply protect private
individuals from each other. As a social convention, the Bill of
Rights makes us Americans more socially tolerant to offensive speech,
e.g. - we expect each other to be more "thick skinned."
> If the anonymous poster made a threat or libeled
> Mr. Bishop that could be a legal matter.
The problem with cyber stalking is that it is a form of threatening
behavior that tries to tread the free speech line. Looking at the
mass of the alleged stalker's output, I do not see how an independent
reasonable person could view it anything but threatening and
libelous.
> Also, Starlord has had an annoying habit responding to
> just about every troll who cross posts to SAA with a
> killfile announcement which might have invited the anonymous
> poster's wrath.
You can view the internet as an electronic newspaper or as an
extension of physical public space. I don't feel the infirm or the
elderly should be harassed as they walk down my city's sidewalk or
down the internet sidewalk - even if they are dragging a red American
Flyer kid's wagon with a telescope in it behind them, are mumbling
something about "the cosmos", and are displaying a sign that says
"views of Saturn for food". -:)
- Canopus56
P.S. - If this is the Rick Evans who recently published an article on
lunar spectroscopy, I hope that we can continue our prior private
correspondence on lunar viewing, despite our differences on this
point.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 11:08:43
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1183687696.634128.178060@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 5, 4:28 pm, "Rick Evans"
> <h1ELt0nevansNOS...@ver1z0n.net>
> wrote:
>
> All goods points, Rick. My understanding of the Bill of
> Rights is
> that it protects an individual's right to make profane
> statements in
> protest to governmental actions and protects an individual
> against
> censorship by government. It does not apply protect private
> individuals from each other.
It becomes a little tricky in a public forum e.g. street,
park,
newsgroup? Try outlawing panhandling for example. Lots of
municipalities have tried because of complaints about
panhandlers.
Panhandlers have repeatedly won on 1st Amendment protection
of
begging as a form of public speech. OTOH buskers, talented
"panhandlers" who perform for voluntary contributions, often
require a license which turns their artistic expression into
commercial speech.
>As a social convention, the Bill of
> Rights makes us Americans more socially tolerant to offensive
> speech,
> e.g. - we expect each other to be more "thick skinned."
I like to think of it as legally tolerant. If someone says
something offensive at my dinner party I'll invite him to
leave,
unfed. ;-) But I get your point.
<snips >
> - Canopus56
>
> P.S. - If this is the Rick Evans who recently published an
> article on
> lunar spectroscopy
No that's not me.
--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 18:46:01
From: Ben
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
>
> The problem is that from the style of Anonymous' English, I'd presume
> he's in the UK. Be difficult to bring him before the bar here.
>
> I think it would be worth a shot, though, just to make the assailant
> (and others like him) squirm just a little.
I don't believe that "Anonymous" or "Borked" are individuals. I think
it's a
vulgar little daisy chain of homosexual sadists that don't care who
they
injure or how badly. One or a number of them are quite clever
inasmuch
as they can *affect* a dialect which is not really characteristic of
typical
British speech. (more like Australian)
Clever, but not very prudent.
The Veteran's Administration (our third largest federal agency) takes
a
very dim view of systematic harassment of a disabled veteran,
especially
when that veteran was in a SIGNAL outfit. (as in SIGINT) The VA does
have
investigative powers. If they need info from CIA or FBI it can be
obtained.
If they need info from MI6 arrangements can be made.
If this is determined to be an "item of National Security" interest
then those
punks are going to find themselves up to their ass in alligators
because the
investigation is not going to happen online, it's going to come off
the street.
And they won't be dealing with policemen - they will be dealing with
soldiers.
The VA is the way to go with this thing. I will see if I can
expedite.
Ben, 90.126 n 35.539
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 18:35:24
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Jul 5, 2:04 pm, "Dave" <dst...@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
<snip > I just don't think ignoring him by filtering his posts is
sufficient
> in this case. I just don't know what else we can do. who are the
> proper authorities? Dave
I am not a lawyer, but the following may be of help in getting the
authorities's attention. Sometimes using the right "buzz" words will
get the authorities's attention:
Kern County District Attorney
1215 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 868-2340 Fax: (661) 868-2700
E-mail: DA@co.kern.ca.us
http://www.co.kern.ca.us/da/management.asp
Kern County Sheriff's Department
1379 Sierra Hwy
Rosamond, CA 93560
Phone: (661) 256-9700
You might also ask national crime center, stalking resource center, if
there are any special California state cyberstalking units. Most of
those units are probably oriented towards male-on-female stalking.
1-800-FYI-CALL, M-F 8:30 AM - 8:30 PM EST gethelp@NCVC.org
California Stalking Laws
http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=3DDB_California176
There are two California statutes described on that web page that may
be of interest - the first is an stalking statute (Penal Code =A7 646.9.
Stalking. 1990. Amended 2002.) that requires someone to "willfully and
maliciously harasses another person" _and_ coupled with a threat of
credible violence. The stalking can occur using any electronic
communication device. That includes an email and a computer. "Harass"
means to "means engages in a knowing and willful course of conduct
directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments,
or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose." The
statute also appears to require a single credible threat of the use of
violence. If there is one credible threat of violence coupled with
many harrassing contacts, a felony conviction is among the penalties
under the statute.
There is also a similar federal cyber stalking statute.
http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=3DDB_Federal_Interstate_Stalking_Ins=
titute163
The federal statute may apply if the stalker resides in a state or
country other than the victim. Another post here suggests that
Anonymous may be in the United Kingdom. Report a federal cyber
stalking statute violation to the U.S. District Attorney for the
Eastern District of California at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cae/contact_us/index.html
In framing your report to the authorities, you can be more persausive
by going back through Anonymous's posts and looking for any post where
Anonymous suggests the use of violence or suggests someone else should
commit a violent act against D.
The second California statute listed on the National Crime Victim's
Center website is Calif. Penal Code =A7 653m. This state statute covers
repeated obscene or annoying communications using an electronic device
like a computer and email. Under this statute, it does not appear to
be necessary to make a threat of bodily injury. The penalty section of
the statute lists misdemeanor punishment.
You can probably help the authorities - and make the point sufficently
forcefully inorder to get their attention - by gathering up the
several hundred obscene, annoying and intimidating posts that
Anonymous made against D in this newsgroup. The volume might drive
home that Anonymous is no ordinary recreational cyber bully.
I suggest sending an email to the DA's office directly.
Although in our society we generally reserve the term "internet
predator" for persons who stalk children over the internet, I believe
this is an appropriate label for Anonymous. He or she apparently
surfs the net looking for elderly disabled persons with health
problems and then cyber stalks and harasses them with the intent of
aggravating their pre-existing illness. Anonymous's conduct of
targeting the elderly and infirm seems like criminal sociopathic
behavior to me and not run-of-mill, borish cyber bullying.
But, my hard-line response to this alleged cyber predator is my
individual opinion. Others here will probably see things in a
different light. I appreciate and respect that view. If the alleged
victim were a younger person in good health, I might have a different
gut level feeling about the matter. But the stalking target here is
not, and it seems to me that he was singled out by the alleged perp as
a cyber stalking victim because of that. If Anonymous's behavior was
somehow tied to a public protest over governmental policy or was
related to some other legitimate purpose or stalking victim was a
public figure, I might feel differently about the alleged prep's free
speech rights.
The above is not intended as legal advice, but is intended to help you
locate the appropriate governmental authority and to file a complaint
concerning cyberstalking in your state or with federal authorities.
You should consult with an attorney, and on this type of an issue, you
can probably find a local attorney to consult with at no charge
through your local state or county bar offices.
- Canopus56
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 22:28:19
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"Dave" <dstaup@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:x9cji.32697$YL5.27967@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> It's time we do something about this cretin. read below
>
> canopus56 wrote to anonymous in the helping starlord thread:
> If this is true, that his stalking Dennis amounts to a felony,
> I think we need to
> address this somehow because for sure we've all witnessed it.
> does anybody in this group have the ability to track down this
> guy?
A felony? I don't know where you're writing from, but in
the United States we have Bill of Rights that explicitely
allows people to express obnoxious opinions. If the
anonymous
poster made a threat or libeled Mr. Bishop that could be a
legal matter.
Also, Starlord has had an annoying habit responding to
just about every troll who cross posts to SAA with a
killfile announcement which might have invited the anonymous
poster's wrath.
--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 19:49:09
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
"Rick Evans" <h1ELt0nevansNOSPAM@ver1z0n.net > wrote in message
news:7geji.6299$wu5.1096@trndny03...
> "Dave" <dstaup@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:x9cji.32697$YL5.27967@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> It's time we do something about this cretin. read below
>>
>> canopus56 wrote to anonymous in the helping starlord thread:
>> If this is true, that his stalking Dennis amounts to a felony, I think we
>> need to
>> address this somehow because for sure we've all witnessed it.
>> does anybody in this group have the ability to track down this guy?
>
> A felony? I don't know where you're writing from, but in
> the United States we have Bill of Rights that explicitely
> allows people to express obnoxious opinions. If the anonymous
> poster made a threat or libeled Mr. Bishop that could be a
> legal matter.
>
> Also, Starlord has had an annoying habit responding to
> just about every troll who cross posts to SAA with a
> killfile announcement which might have invited the anonymous
> poster's wrath.
>
> --
> Rick Evans
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
> Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
>
Good lord, because Dennis has an annoying habbit, he deserved the relentless
hounding he got. is that what your saying?
If you read fully my original post I stated that "if" as canopus56 wrote it
qualified as a felony we should find a way to act. not what you so cleverly
cut and pasted as quoted from me - whats up with that.....
Dave
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:30:30
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
>>
> Good lord, because Dennis has an annoying habbit, he deserved
> the relentless hounding he got. is that what your saying?
Now that's a leap.
>
> If you read fully my original post I stated that "if" as
> canopus56 wrote it qualified as a felony we should find a way
> to act. not what you so cleverly cut and pasted as quoted from
> me - whats up with that.....
If you go back and review my response to your post
you'll see I did include your "if". For that matter, since
this is a short thread readers and posters can start from
the
beginning and read your complete post instead of relying on
me
to overquote it.
--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 00:01:28
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
Dave wrote:
> Good lord, because Dennis has an annoying habbit, he deserved the relentless
> hounding he got. is that what your saying?
I don't think that's what he wrote. Dennis has an annoying habit, which
may have contributed in part to him getting hounded. There's quite a
leap between that and Dennis *deserving* it. Just because someone has a
right to be obnoxious and hounding (not yet stipulating that, by the
way), does not mean that it's ethically right to do so. Rick's post was
by way of explanation, not excuse.
> If you read fully my original post I stated that "if" as canopus56 wrote it
> qualified as a felony we should find a way to act. not what you so cleverly
> cut and pasted as quoted from me - whats up with that.....
I believe Rick was saying that it might not be a felony, for essentially
first amendment reasons.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 10:22:47
From: Jim Dubya
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
I am not sure if the first amendment applies here since the individual has
been stalking Dennis and stalking is definitely against the law. I believe
that it is also against the law to make slanderous statements against a
person's character and the idiot that is stalking Dennis is definitely doing
that.
"Brian Tung" <brian@isi.edu > wrote in message
news:f6kpc8$vk$1@praesepe.isi.edu...
> Dave wrote:
>> Good lord, because Dennis has an annoying habbit, he deserved the
>> relentless
>> hounding he got. is that what your saying?
>
> I don't think that's what he wrote. Dennis has an annoying habit, which
> may have contributed in part to him getting hounded. There's quite a
> leap between that and Dennis *deserving* it. Just because someone has a
> right to be obnoxious and hounding (not yet stipulating that, by the
> way), does not mean that it's ethically right to do so. Rick's post was
> by way of explanation, not excuse.
>
>> If you read fully my original post I stated that "if" as canopus56 wrote
>> it
>> qualified as a felony we should find a way to act. not what you so
>> cleverly
>> cut and pasted as quoted from me - whats up with that.....
>
> I believe Rick was saying that it might not be a felony, for essentially
> first amendment reasons.
>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 17:17:59
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
PLONK!!!
--
Jan Owen
To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21
"Rick Evans" <h1ELt0nevansNOSPAM@ver1z0n.net > wrote in message
news:7geji.6299$wu5.1096@trndny03...
> "Dave" <dstaup@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:x9cji.32697$YL5.27967@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> It's time we do something about this cretin. read below
>>
>> canopus56 wrote to anonymous in the helping starlord thread:
>> If this is true, that his stalking Dennis amounts to a felony, I think we
>> need to
>> address this somehow because for sure we've all witnessed it.
>> does anybody in this group have the ability to track down this guy?
>
> A felony? I don't know where you're writing from, but in
> the United States we have Bill of Rights that explicitely
> allows people to express obnoxious opinions. If the anonymous
> poster made a threat or libeled Mr. Bishop that could be a
> legal matter.
>
> Also, Starlord has had an annoying habit responding to
> just about every troll who cross posts to SAA with a
> killfile announcement which might have invited the anonymous
> poster's wrath.
>
> --
> Rick Evans
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
> Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
>
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 19:53:42
From: starburst
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
Rick Evans wrote:
> "Dave" <dstaup@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:x9cji.32697$YL5.27967@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>> It's time we do something about this cretin. read below
>>
>> canopus56 wrote to anonymous in the helping starlord thread:
>> If this is true, that his stalking Dennis amounts to a felony, I think
>> we need to
>> address this somehow because for sure we've all witnessed it.
>> does anybody in this group have the ability to track down this guy?
>
>
> A felony? I don't know where you're writing from, but in
> the United States we have Bill of Rights that explicitely
> allows people to express obnoxious opinions. If the anonymous
> poster made a threat or libeled Mr. Bishop that could be a
> legal matter.
>
> Also, Starlord has had an annoying habit responding to
> just about every troll who cross posts to SAA with a
> killfile announcement which might have invited the anonymous
> poster's wrath.
>
To tell you the truth, Rick, I think it might be a very interesting
legal question. There are plenty of instances where contact with a
person can constitute stalking and a form of assault, even where the
contact does not necessarily injure the victim physically. There are
limits to protected speech - calling "fire" in a crowded theater with
the intent to cause mayhem, for example. Fighting words, too. The law is
still evolving with regard to stalking, and it is evolving with regard
to the internet. While I tend to side with the first amendment on most
questions, and usually approve of the protection afforded boors like
"anonymous," I wonder if there might be some sort of legal relief for
Starlord.
Even from the standpoint of statute, the right lawyer could make a case
here. This newsgroup (and the others Starlord frequents and where this
fellow has been relentlessly harrassing him) is a form of public space
where he might have the expectation that he not be consistently and
maliciously insulted, down to specific allegations of his mother's drug
habit and promiscuity. Moreover, Anonymous has openly tried to damage
Starlord's business interests, such as they are.
In a civil suit, Starlord might clean up. He's been hounded into a
having a stroke, fer chrissake, by a person who has displayed not a drop
of the milk of human kindness.
The problem is that from the style of Anonymous' English, I'd presume
he's in the UK. Be difficult to bring him before the bar here.
I think it would be worth a shot, though, just to make the assailant
(and others like him) squirm just a little.
- Chris
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 23:27:47
From:
Subject: Re: Anonymous and starlord
|
starburst wrote:
>In a civil suit, Starlord might clean up. He's been hounded into a
>having a stroke, fer chrissake, by a person who has displayed not a drop
>of the milk of human kindness.
>
>The problem is that from the style of Anonymous' English, I'd presume
>he's in the UK. Be difficult to bring him before the bar here.
>
>I think it would be worth a shot, though, just to make the assailant
>(and others like him) squirm just a little.
It would be a lot easier to prevail in court if he was in Canada.
Does ANYONE have a clue about the harasser? Time zone? Country?
Known aliases?
|
|
