Discussion in 'news' started by Mars, 10 Jun 2011.
Worth repeating huh. I agree this thread needs to be kept at the matter at hand not a snark thread.
I think there is room for both
moto droid froyo using tapatalk
I was merely injecting an alternate hypothesis into the debate. The assumption it was Don is as valid as the assumption it may be you or Clancy. Lain made a defamatory statement regarding all three of you. Unless Nina posts the name from the letter it will remain open to conjecture who initiated the action.
Your powers of attributing affect are sorely lacking. I am not angry or jealous, and am never petty.
I'm glad Nina runs this forum.
What I'm saying is this was created in ADMIN.
And it shouldn't have been.
I hope you mean that it should not have been created at all?
When you need to get lawyers involved in your silly internet debates, it's time to step the fuck away from the computer.
Of more direct interest to Nina may be the Evony v. Bruce Everiss lawsuit, which took place in Australia for no apparent reason other than to try to bankrupt Everiss (Everiss was based in the UK, Evony is based in Hong Kong and the US).
Short version: Everiss got pissed off and contested it anyway, hiring representation in Australia, and Benjamin Gifford, the Evony representative, made a complete fool of himself on the stand and the case was dismissed.
I don't have much to say about this. The email's were not fabricated. I saw them with my own two eyes. He (Bulldick!) was counting on the fact that Lain is Bams had already been previously accused of falsifying emails. I saw them in her email box. I'm sure for some (or most) that doesn't count for much, but there it is. This is fucking shameful (and completely moronic).
ETA: Not sure why some folks are so focused on the email fabrication crap, that's not what his case is even about.
Legal death ride.
Seriously , I can't even imagine anyone taking THAT this far espically after having *nothing* to hide. I'm really upset about this entire thing and I feel bad for nina.
Don is a derranged persona who is attempting to obtain my real life information for the purpose of continuing to further the efforts to stalk and harass me in real life. It's clear by the fact that his 'complaint' ignores the rape threats he made to me in email and instead focuses on some random comment I made on the forum.
What I find humorous is that Don can dish it out but he can't take it. For the record, Bunnie and I were 'missing' for a few days because I tore down and rebuilt my entire network, changing all of my scrubbers. Any information obtained from Nina about my identity will result in a dead end, as the individuals connected to my IP address operate a scrubber/proxy on my behalf and will not reveal any information, and are under no legal obligation to do so. In fact, they are legally bound not to reveal any of my information, under the contract we signed when I obtained services for my various machines.
If you happen to make it back through the six scrubbers and proxies I filter through to get here and post, I will be leveling a lawsuit against you for the real life stalking and harassment you have directed at me, including the rape threats you have made, I'm sure at this point they will serve as evidence of your ongoing attempts to get at me in real life.
You're a pathetic excuse for a human being Don, and I hope you get what's coming to you.
This bullshit didn't fly with the hacking accusations, it doesn't fly with his bullshit either. He's the one making threats of rape in my emails, and now he's pissed off because he's been outed as a dickface. It's clear by watching him post he has an issue with women and harasses them on the regular. I'm sure his old girlfriends and other Internet friends will enjoy him dragging their lives into court should it ever get to that point.
Well, the legal definition of defamation is that it has to be false. You can't defamate someone with facts. So if he's challenging the statement that Bams has seen "sexually harrassing things" from him as false, the existence of emails from him that are such becomes relevant.
I note that some people (including myself) expressed some reservations about nina posting this letter. After some thought, I beleive nina really had no choice but to put the letter out in the open. If someone has this amount of butthurt that they're willing to spend wads of money to generate a legal letterhead, then they're going to make damn sure the drama sees the light of day. By releasing the letter, nina controls the impact of the letter, rather than the shitstorm other people would make it.
Not that it hasn't resulted in some cheap shots from people I thought were a bit better than that. It's a catch-22.
The letter doesn't discuss the emails Don sent. They discuss something else I said entirely. This issue isn't about the letters, which it's obvious he sent and now wants some sort of retribution for his outing.
I'm not sure I'm understanding all of this.
I don't have a bone in this...
Are you saying that you *pay* a service to *not* reveal your true ip address?
I'm confused. The reason that I'm confused is this: Hackers/crackers (by no means am I calling you either one), often would use something similar to not be identified?
But the law usually *does* trace it back to them, eventually.
Now, in those cases, it's been something really serious like breaking into websites obtaining usernames/pws and the like, dos attacks, or mass viruses, with the federal govt behind the search.
I guess what I am asking is this: No matter how many scrubbers/proxies one uses, couldn't one still eventually be found, if a court order were obtained, and eventually traced back to a service provider?