Spyware Blaster Database update 20 | Apr | 2011

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

Dustin wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in
> news:irjkcl$se1$1@news.datemas.de:
>
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>> ~BD~ , concerned about cybercrime, explained:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy to listen to *any* explanation of *why* siljaline's
>>>>> details have been removed. http://i56.tinypic.com/smge3s.jpg
>>>>
>>>> It was probably at his own request because he is being stalked.
>>>>
>>>> I know many people who have had to remove their information from
>>>> the internet because they attracted a stalker.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you could ask him? - he won't respond to me.
>>
>> The advice given to stalking victims is that they should under no
>> circumstances respond to their stalkers.
>>
>> The only question I have for him is whether he has already submitted
>> your posts to the appropriate law enforcement agencies or if he is
>> still collecting evidence.
>
> You haven't asked me, and I understand that.

I don't read most of the BD-oriented posts, so I didn't know he was on
after you too. As I was marking some threads read, I saw the blatant
"real-name-in-the-subject-line" post about Silj, and I was appalled
enough to post a reply.

I really should've taken my own advice, however, and ignored the ****wit
entirely. What a stalking douchebag.

> I have been in touch with
> law enforcement over BD.

Good.

>> You are one sick pup.
>
> Yes, for now.. he is. Do you think nobody should ever take things to
> RL still or has your opinion on that changed?

BD *is* taking things to real life. If his victims contact law
enforcement on account of it, more power to them. Self-defense is a
right.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

G. Morgan wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>
>> Do you think nobody should ever take things to RL
>> still or has your opinion on that changed?
>
> That's an interesting question for her.

I think what I have always thought--it's not okay to take usenet to real
life. When someone does it, though, the victim has the right to
self-defense.

Defining what constitutes "real-lifing" is where the problem arises--I
am in complete disagreement with most of the denizens of auk (many of
whom are currently on sabbatical until the litigation ends) about what
constitutes real-lifing, but I will say this: What BD does definitely
fits my definition.

He's a dirtbag.

> <Waves at Rhonda> :-))

<waves back>

[~BD~]

Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
> BD *is* taking things to real life. If his victims contact law
> enforcement on account of it, more power to them. Self-defense is a
> right.

Cybercriminals *are* stealing *real money* in real-life.

I was a *victim* - and I didn't like it.

Of the law I have no fear. My conscience is clear.

[FromTheRafters]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 20:30:15 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>> ~BD~ , concerned about cybercrime, explained:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy to listen to *any* explanation of *why* siljaline's
>>>>> details have been removed. http://i56.tinypic.com/smge3s.jpg
>>>>
>>>> It was probably at his own request because he is being stalked.
>>>>
>>>> I know many people who have had to remove their information from the
>>>> internet because they attracted a stalker.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe you could ask him? - he won't respond to me.
>>
>> The advice given to stalking victims is that they should under no
>> circumstances respond to their stalkers.
>>
>> The only question I have for him is whether he has already submitted
>> your posts to the appropriate law enforcement agencies or if he is
>> still collecting evidence.
>
> I couldn't be more delighted if that were to be the case!
>
> Are you going to ask him, or simply bottle out?
>
>>> He hasn't, actually, removed himself from the Internet.
>>>
>>> Anyone may find him here: http://www.linkedin.com
>>
>> You are one sick pup.
>
> You sound _just_ like Mr Foldes.
>
> Is this a French Canadian expression, I wonder?

You are entering a grey area, like on a ship or an elephant.

Around here we would say "You are one sick puppy!" - miles from Canada.

[G. Morgan]

Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:

>Defining what constitutes "real-lifing" is where the problem arises--I
>am in complete disagreement with most of the denizens of auk (many of
>whom are currently on sabbatical until the litigation ends) about what
>constitutes real-lifing, but I will say this: What BD does definitely
>fits my definition.

For my benefit, would you summarize the AUK'ers opinion?

My theory is, if I posted it... it's fair game and can be used in a
flame-war. Now, if it extends to actual harassment (like interfering
with someone's work, or a fake LEO tip) that's definitely off-limits.

In instances where we (tinw) gave/received trust (email, FB, Twitter) is
also privileged and out-of-bounds.

Public databases are a tough one. It's not hard to lookup 'D' and 3
clicks later post a street-view. I can see why that would piss him off,
certainly; but are all these public databases blameless? My information
is all over, I can't hide if I wanted too. But so is all of our info!
In fact, if you don't have an online presence it's seen as 'odd' by
potential employers now. (got that from a Monster.com article)

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

G. Morgan wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>
>> Defining what constitutes "real-lifing" is where the problem
>> arises--I am in complete disagreement with most of the denizens of
>> auk (many of whom are currently on sabbatical until the litigation
>> ends) about what constitutes real-lifing, but I will say this: What
>> BD does definitely fits my definition.
>
> For my benefit, would you summarize the AUK'ers opinion?

Short version is that there are folks in these parts who do not practice
what they preach (i.e., lip service paid to what you wrote below, but
not carried out in practice--it's only "real-lifing" if it's done to one
of the "in" group). They, of course, would disagree with this
assessment.

> My theory is, if I posted it... it's fair game and can be used in a
> flame-war. Now, if it extends to actual harassment (like interfering
> with someone's work, or a fake LEO tip) that's definitely off-limits.

Agreed.

> In instances where we (tinw) gave/received trust (email, FB, Twitter)
> is also privileged and out-of-bounds.

Agreed, although I have a very funny story about this.

> Public databases are a tough one. It's not hard to lookup 'D' and 3
> clicks later post a street-view. I can see why that would piss him
> off, certainly; but are all these public databases blameless? My
> information is all over, I can't hide if I wanted too. But so is all
> of our info! In fact, if you don't have an online presence it's seen
> as 'odd' by potential employers now. (got that from a Monster.com
> article)

The answer is simple enough: avoid the ultimate in ad hom--address the
post, not the poster.

You can find out anything about anyone by using a public database, but
personal information does not belong here, particularly in the context
of a flame war.

[~BD~]

FromTheRafters wrote:

> You are entering a grey area, like on a ship or an elephant.
>
> Around here we would say "You are one sick puppy!" - miles from Canada.


The expression is not in common use in the UK (as far as I'm aware!).

The only place I've see it used is in newsgroups .... and by those in
North America!

[Anonymous Coward Two]

On 24/04/2011 20:24, Peter Foldes wrote:
>
> "Mac User" <ABetterM@chine.I'm.sure> wrote in message
> news:iornjn$ru6$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 22/04/2011 11:50, Mac User wrote:
>
>
>
> You are Trolling as Mac User and as BD. Please stop this distasteful act
> if you call
> yourself the friend of PC Butts and being an Englishman


Reading through this thread was interesting.

There is no way in the world that Peter Foldes could *possibly* know who
/actually/ posted as 'Mac User' or even as 'BD' - one, or both, could
easily be forgeries.

[Max Wachtel]

Anonymous Coward Two wrote:

> On 24/04/2011 20:24, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>
>> "Mac User" <ABetterM@chine.I'm.sure> wrote in message
>> news:iornjn$ru6$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 22/04/2011 11:50, Mac User wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You are Trolling as Mac User and as BD. Please stop this
distasteful act
>> if you call
>> yourself the friend of PC Butts and being an Englishman
>
>
> Reading through this thread was interesting.
>
> There is no way in the world that Peter Foldes could *possibly* know
who
> /actually/ posted as 'Mac User' or even as 'BD' - one, or both,
could
> easily be forgeries.

From: From: ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com>
Newsgroups: Newsgroups: alt.privacy.spyware,alt.politics.scorched-
earth
Subject: Subject: Re: BD's concerns expounded
Date: Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 08:38:18 +0100
Organization: Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: Lines: 53
Message-Id: Message-Id: <ird2tb$q02$1@dont-email.me>
References: References: <iontdg$l0j$1@dont-email.me> <O_adnQx4da-
ZADLQnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@posted.grandecom> <ioobtk$ia2$1@dont-email.me>
<iormib$e7a$1@dont-email.me> <ip1td1$4k7$1@speranza.aioe.org>
<N4ednQmk2azbeSnQnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@posted.grandecom >
<ip35kh$7tr$1@dont-email.me> <ip3dn0$v8o$1@dont-email.me>
<gaGdnRdNcquMCivQnZ2dnUVZ7tGdnZ2d@bt.com> <ip6676$j10$1@dont-email.me>
<SPadnXqXn-IGLSvQnZ2dnUVZ8jKdnZ2d@bt.com>
MIME-Version: MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252";
format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Injection-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 07:38:19 +0000
(UTC)
Injection-Info: Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="jA8wZ5ZwOxjSMmkYWtnbKg"; logging-data="26626"; mail-
complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-
account="U2FsdGVkX18vp8RO5WaAasYt8YZZZ9VursePkaDZD VU="
User-Agent: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X
10.6; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20110511 Firefox/4.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.1
In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <SPadnXqXn-
IGLSvQnZ2dnUVZ8jKdnZ2d@bt.com>

[G. Morgan]

Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:

>The answer is simple enough: avoid the ultimate in ad hom--address the
>post, not the poster.
>
>You can find out anything about anyone by using a public database, but
>personal information does not belong here, particularly in the context
>of a flame war.


Well said.