 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / October 2006Renfors, Cornhole and couple of others - take note
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/1160 246303293.html -- > http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/1160 > 246303293.html Learn to post links properly  SignatureJesco > http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/116024630329 3.html Paul Hogan was right, we are becoming the planet of the poofs. SignatureDeevo Geraldton Western Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm >> http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/116024630329 3.html > > Paul Hogan was right, we are becoming the planet of the poofs. A planet of mean, small-minded, petty, effeminate & selfish pieces of sh.t, to be precise. SignatureJesco "And I took the butcher knife and put it up to her neck. I said if you want to live to see tomorrow, you better start fryin' them eggs a little bit better then what you a fryin' em - I'm tired of eatin' sloppy, slimy eggs" > http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/11 > 60246303293.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A planet of mean, small-minded, petty, effeminate & selfish pieces of > sh.t, to be precise. Describes people who think that it is OK to abuse, defame and other wise annoy their peers, and to be immune from sanction for doing so at the same time, to a "T" doesn't it. -- >> http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/11 >> 60246303293.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wise annoy their peers, and to be immune from sanction for doing so at > the same time, to a "T" doesn't it. Possibly, but not necessarily. Depends on a lot of factors. looks like somebody needs de-sensitising by looks of things. And grow some balls. Nothing stopping anyone from fighting back, but of course that never occurred to you did it? If someones a c.nt, I'll call them a c.nt. If you don't like that... can you guess the rest? >>>http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/11 >>>60246303293.html [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that never occurred to you did it? If someones a c.nt, I'll call them a > c.nt. If you don't like that... can you guess the rest? Why should the person who starts an interaction by defaming or abusing another get the right to determine what form the fighting back should take? In the cited case, the defamed woman has elected to pursue the litigation path, and a jury has agreed with her that she was defamed in a legally proscribed way. People who use the Internet to abuse and defame in this way need to realise that the retaliation may take an unexpected form; one that has serious ramifications for the abuser. Sylvia. >>>>http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/11 >>>>60246303293.html [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Sylvia. Ahh, but you missed the important point. That defamation so-called law (in which truth is NOT a defence in most states) is there for the protection of privilege. It's just an unfortunate accident that someone just possibly normal was able to use the game against an assailant. A name caller, was it? Natch, the idea is that the Internet Must Be Brought To Heel. Step one is the application of certain laws. But only certain laws - the ones that suit the agenda. What agenda? Nobble the net. So it appears that in reality by supporting the expansion of grubby little laws into the electronic medium 'Internet', you've lost the plot. Big time. > > Sylvia. > > Ahh, but you missed the important point. This should be interesting. > That defamation so-called law (in which truth is NOT a defence in > most states) is there for the protection of privilege. Wrong at the outset, obviously missed the introduction of uniform defamation laws that amongst other things do actually make truth alone a defence.....One could also ask however what, or perhaps "whose" privilege was being "protected" by requiring public interest in addiiton to truth (old law). I for one actually think that defamation law has been watered down in the change. > It's just an unfortunate accident that someone just possibly normal > was able to use the game against an assailant. A name caller, was it? Losing me.....You will have to explain both the facts you are citing and the logic used to draw this conclusion. > Natch, the idea is that the Internet Must Be Brought To Heel. Now that seems to be a good idea on the face of it. But then you will have to explain which laws currently exist that did not exist in the past, and of course pinpoint the point in time when it was decided that they should apply to the net where previosuly they did not. > Step one is the application of certain laws. But only certain laws - > the ones that suit the agenda. OK, which laws would that be? And what agenda? > What agenda? Whoops, you are going to answer your own question, I can just feel it coming..... > Nobble the net. The big meanies! But hang on a sec. Just how is the introduction of these "new" laws that you have not actually explained, "nobbling" the net? > So it appears that in reality by supporting the expansion of grubby > little laws into the electronic medium 'Internet', you've lost the > plot. Big time. "Expansion?" Poor dear Mr. Ponsomby, there is no, and never has been, a suspension of law in cyberspace. The very same laws that regulate and outlaw thuggery and bastardry in what some people foolishly and inaccurately differentiate as "real life" continue to have full force on the net, and always have. Perhaps it is you (and perhaps others) who have not kept up with reality by somehow holding a defective belief that somehow the internet is some kind of "special" place where the normal rules that govern society do not apply? Why should you be able to say or do things on the internet that you would not say or do in (for instance), your workplace, the city mall, the pub etc. And somehow believe that the law that governs what you say in those places does not apply in what amounts to the ultimate public forum? Far from Sylvia "losing the plot" methinks it is you who has yet to gain a "plot". -- >> > Sylvia. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > addiiton to truth (old law). I for one actually think that defamation > law has been watered down in the change. Good on ya. And your watered down sections of the act? Aww, just the damages thing, I guess. Probably you agree that the law was changed to appease the press at large, too. And of course to prevent Ruddock and co from playing bully the states games >> It's just an unfortunate accident that someone just possibly normal >> was able to use the game against an assailant. A name caller, was it? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was decided that they should apply to the net where previosuly they did > not. Nope, I don't. That's because the medium is not the medium the laws were enacted to control. Your claptrap only applies if the net is viewed as a publishing medium. It isn't, never was and won't ever be. Just one example, since you like that game. Wiki articles once published can be changed, as can most if not all content on the net. But GovCo can't reasonably go out and get a book or newspaper out of the possession of the purchaser so it can be changed. And that is what makes the net entirely different. So it appears that the net publishing that happens gets down to 'opinion'. Why? Because opinions are subject to change, and so to are the articles subject to change. Interestingly enough, material on the net is difficult to trace in terms of origin. Doesn't appear to be too much about that in the harmonised act(s). We know why. But the crunch now comes when a defence is mounted on the basis that what is presented is an opinion. And then there's public interest. Consider the carry-on about access to broadband for 'everybody'. While that may have a lot to do with real-time betting by those that can't be lured out to betting venues under their current preferences, it also has implications as to just who the 'public' is that have access to material published on the net. I mean the fact that Australian broadband makes a mockery of the term has nothing to do with the fact that GovCo will be able to claim that any material published on the net anywhere will be able to be reached by all members of the public. Note that this is NOT the same as the public that may have bought the material in printed form, accessed it from a library, seen it on subscription TY (WITH ADS!!!) or even seen it on FTA TV. >> Step one is the application of certain laws. But only certain laws - >> the ones that suit the agenda. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > these "new" laws that you have not actually explained, "nobbling" the > net? Whoops. I didn't mention new laws. You did. I mentioned step one. I alluded to some developments that may reasonable expected later. >> So it appears that in reality by supporting the expansion of grubby >> little laws into the electronic medium 'Internet', you've lost the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > inaccurately differentiate as "real life" continue to have full force > on the net, and always have. Ahhm those would be just like the laws that regulate and outlaw landmines, imprisonment without trial, murdering hundreds of thousands of people etc. That's the real life law. Utterly useless. Therein lies the problem. Cyberspace is just that. Laws relating to older mediums have absolutely no business being applied to the net. If GovCo want to control the net in anything like the same manner as it controls ordinary publishing, GovCo needs to put up the stuff for debate and enact laws that specifically apply to the internet. I mean, they've had a go the 'porn' issue - which isn't an issue but still a good place to start because it cultivated the right kind of public perception. But of course GovCo needs the courage to take on a medium that can disseminate 'opinion' at an extremely rapid rate. Of course it won't take on the medium, but it will shipe away at the edges, on and on and on, as always, until it's managed it's agenda. Which is say involves concept knobble, at the very least. As an aus.cars reader, I can clearly see that the traffic acts are a complete cluster-f.ck because they were never enacted to suit the 'medium'. You don't really want to see chapter and verse on that in this discussion, but even a cursory examination of traffic law will show the way to a problem beginning to happen with old law being applied to the Internet. > Perhaps it is you (and perhaps others) who have not kept up with reality > by somehow holding a defective belief that somehow the internet is some > kind of "special" place where the normal rules that govern society do > not apply? Not speshul. Just different. > Why should you be able to say or do things on the internet that you > would not say or do in (for instance), your workplace, the city mall, > the pub etc. And somehow believe that the law that governs what you say > in those places does not apply in what amounts to the ultimate public > forum? See above. It's not a public forum despite the best efforts of the legislatures to define it as such. But it's interesting nonetheless that you regard the pub, or the mall, or the workplace as 'all the same'. They aren't, and attempts to use argument based on that are simply laughable. I'd have to add that am judge addressing a jury in those terms would be nothing short of derelict, and a jury believing is would be nothing short of a pack of imbeciles. > Far from Sylvia "losing the plot" methinks it is you who has yet to gain > a "plot". True. I haven't managed to figured the full characteristics of the end-game. Yet. But I'll bet that it involves less freedom of speech than we have now - which is a joke if you haven't noticed, because aus.freedom.of.speech is only so between consenting adults. In private - if that actually exists as anything more than a concept any more. >>> > Sylvia. >>> [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > In private - if that actually exists as anything more than a concept any > more. Fair enough but if some deranged dickhead (seem to be plenty on the net, but at least it keeps them off the streets) decided to repeatedly post that the person behind your net ID was a child molester, how would you feel having no legal recourse? Now you could I spose just killfile him and then you don't feel defamed or change identity & sigs, but then if he tracked you down & kept going? If a guy kept painting bad things on your fence you have options, legal and otherwise, but on the net, it's free for all. > Fair enough but if some deranged dickhead (seem to be plenty on the net, but > at least it keeps them off the streets) decided to repeatedly post that the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If a guy kept painting bad things on your fence you have options, legal and > otherwise, but on the net, it's free for all. Welcome to the debate, Mr Worst Case. The laws exist re graffitti, and are quite specific in their attentions. But you can't apply the prezact same law to the internet case of CM and other bizzare accusations. Which is, i believe, your point. You need a law that refers to the medium, both the cause and effect, quite specifically. Traffic act relevance? Horses and cars. And speeds. :-) Didn't work for long translating reckless riding to reckless driving. Stupid arbitrary speed limits were introduced. You like those. And that's an example of how laws can be pulled out of GovCo's arse anytime it feels the need. They don't work, of course, but they're there just so examples can be made of selected individuals. Laws relating to the Internet will and should be no different. It's just that in pulling equivalent laws out of their arse, GovCo needs to be mindful of the comms capacity of the internet. And it's (to keep the references more or less uniform) sh.t- scared of playing there seriously it. So far. >> Fair enough but if some deranged dickhead (seem to be plenty on the net, >> but [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Welcome to the debate, Mr Worst Case. Anytime Mister "bad things never happen in my fairyland" :P :) > The laws exist re graffitti, and are quite specific in their attentions. > But you can't apply the prezact same law to the internet case of CM > and other bizzare accusations. Which is, i believe, your point. > You need a law that refers to the medium, both the cause and effect, quite > specifically. When someone is a pain in the arse on the net thaey can continue to be and merely laugh at any threats levelled at them, in real life they would never do this. > Traffic act relevance? None, oops offtopic > Horses and cars. And speeds. > :-) lol > Didn't work for long translating reckless riding to reckless driving. > Stupid arbitrary speed limits were introduced. Well it's better than speed unlimited proposals. > You like those. > And that's an example of how laws can be pulled out of GovCo's arse > anytime it feels the need. They don't work, of course, but they're there > just so examples can be made of selected individuals. Yep and knowing one who did cop a hoon law treatment, I can say he deserved everything he got, wasn't registered in his name either, so his old man has sold it, he'll have to earn his next car. > Laws relating to the Internet will and should be no different. It's just > that in pulling equivalent laws out of their arse, GovCo needs to be > mindful of the comms capacity of the internet. So you would tolerate internet defamation by a stalker as the price of posting freedom. > So you would tolerate internet defamation by a stalker as the price of > posting freedom. Unsure. That's because few if any take my presence on the net seriously, and likewise I don't take anyone elses' presence on the net all that seriously. With provisos, I course - I certainly take certain presences on the net *far* more seriously that I take GovCo and mass medias presence on the net and elsewhere, for that matter. However, I reckon 'reading' freedom is more the issue at the moment. It has to be taken out first. Censorship generally attacks the audiences access to material first - because the creator of the material usually has the balls to defend their work, GovCo likes to operate at a level that ensures they can't be belted when it's thoroughly deserved. This is especially so when they're going to be seen to be using taxation revenue to defend their stupidities. > And your watered down sections of the act? It used to be the case, in some states, that substantial truth alone was not a defence. It was necessary that the allegedly defamatory statement be made in the public interest. Now substantial truth is a defence. Which means that if you discover that your neighbour is having an affair with the milkman, and are in a positition to prove that to the appropriate level, then you can publish the information far and wide, even though it is really none of your business, and there was no public interest involved. So life is now easier for the gutter press, and more difficult for people whose only crime is to be less than perfect according to someone else's standards. Sylvia. > So life is now easier for the gutter press, and more difficult for > people whose only crime is to be less than perfect according to someone > else's standards. Beat me to it.. I was busy reading the latest act and had it basically figured. i wasn't going to bother, but I checked the press councils opinion on it first (as you do) and that alerted me to the Scam. That word 'substantial' appears to be a key word. As for public interest. There's public interest. And then there's public interest. See recent high court judgement:-) >>So life is now easier for the gutter press, and more difficult for >>people whose only crime is to be less than perfect according to someone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That word 'substantial' appears to be a key word. I think all that means is that the defence is not defeated merely by technical falsehoods in the impuation. For example, if I say that you're having an affair with a shop assistant, and it turns out that you're actually having an affair with a shop manager, the statement is still subtantially true because the central defamatory point is the having of the affair, not the detail of the employment status of the person you're having it with. > As for public interest. There's public interest. And then there's public > interest. > See recent high court judgement:-) Yes, though the law has overtaken that judgement anyway. It would still have relevance to defences like that of honest opinion, where there is still a public interest element. Sylvia. > Yes, though the law has overtaken that judgement anyway. It would still > have relevance to defences like that of honest opinion, where there is > still a public interest element. > > Sylvia. This one. <http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/2006/45.html?query={ 2006]%20HCA%2045> or <http://tinyurl.com/ylawq6> (Prophetic selection there:-) Some commentary: <http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1734782.htm> All the bullshit in the judgement doesn't alter the fact that the appellant was requesting information well worth the extraction and most certainly in the public interest, because it was/is *all_about* public money. >>Yes, though the law has overtaken that judgement anyway. It would still >>have relevance to defences like that of honest opinion, where there is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > certainly in the public interest, because it was/is *all_about* public > money. The court wasn't examining the question of whether it was in the public interest. They were examining the question of whether the tribunal erred in law. Sylvia. > > Wrong at the outset, obviously missed the introduction of uniform > > defamation laws that amongst other things do actually make truth [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Good on ya. > And your watered down sections of the act? I see from you later posts that you have worked this one out for yourself now. Feel free to wipe the egg of your face now. > Aww, just the damages thing, I guess. No. > Probably you agree that the law was changed to appease the press at > large, too. It cuts both ways, the old public interest test placed a high burden on a defendant to prove that the material containing the defamatory imputation was both substantially true and that its publication was in the public interest. However, truth alone is too low a threshold in my opinion as it allows people to publish material that is irrelevant to them and the public, for the sole purpose of injuring the person published about, and to do so with impunity. However, as to how to strike the balence, I don't know how you would do that, which is why I preferred the old system. > And of course to prevent Ruddock and co from playing bully the states > games Errrrrrr? Please explain how pressure was bought to bear to pass uniform defamation legislation. I'm not denying that it wasn't, but I don't recall that uniform defamation law was one of the things that were used to beat up on the States. Sometimes they do do things voluntarily you know, like uniform succession laws as an example (albeit that at least at the moment a couple of States have F'd that up). > >> It's just an unfortunate accident that someone just possibly normal > >> was able to use the game against an assailant. A name caller, was > it? >> > > > > Losing me.....You will have to explain both the facts you are citing > > and the logic used to draw this conclusion. No explanation I see. > >> Natch, the idea is that the Internet Must Be Brought To Heel. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That's because the medium is not the medium the laws were enacted to > control. I see, so in your learned opinion Laws don't apply unless they specifically state the medium in which they are to apply...... Too stupid a proposition to bother commenting on, and so demonstrably false that I'm sure you regret typing it now. > Your claptrap only applies if the net is viewed as a publishing > medium. It isn't, never was and won't ever be. BALDERDASH! For your idiot idea to be the case then the numerous defamation cases that have been successfully prosecuted in relation to Usenet posts and other activites were all wrongly decided. Better get a practice certificate real quick because there is a raftload of people out there who will be hiring you to appeal the decisions that went against them. Or not, if in fact it is the case, as I suspect, that you really do not have a clue about what you are talking about. > Just one example, > since you like that game. Wiki articles once published can be > changed, as can most if not all content on the net. But the identity of the person who made the changes can be traced, so the issue of anonymity (which is what I think you are trying to raise in a half-witted way) doesn't arise. And in any event, the mere fact that the perpetrator cannot be readily identified does not mean that a wrong has not been done. By your logic if I let a few paint cans go over my neighbour's car, the mere fact that I was careful and cunning enough to not get caugt means I did no wrong and broke no law? Get a clue please........ > But GovCo can't reasonably go out and get a book > or newspaper out of the possession of the purchaser so it can be > changed. Do yourself a favour and type "books pulped by publisher" into google. You are right in one sense that some forms of publication cannot be recalled. TV, Radio, Newspapers and plain old general conversatiosn all being examples. That's why there are penalties for things like defamation, if we could just recall and suck back in the material complained of as if it had never happened, there would be no need would there? > And that is what makes the net entirely different. So it > appears that the net publishing that happens gets down to 'opinion'. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But the crunch now comes when a defence is mounted on the basis that > what is presented is an opinion. I am of the opinion that you are a clueless fucktard. Nothing in your absurd paragraph above even goes close to being a viable argument, or even a line of reasoning that aproaches rationality or fact. But do please feel free to insert 10c and have another go. > And then there's public interest. As it is no longer an element that has to be proved by either party, why are we considering it? > Consider the carry-on about access to broadband for 'everybody'. > While that may have a lot to do with real-time betting by those that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from a library, seen it on subscription TY (WITH ADS!!!) or even seen > it on FTA TV. Ah! I see, it was a lead in to another of your irrational, clueless and fact devoid rants. Insert another 10c and have another go. > > >> Step one is the application of certain laws. But only certain [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Whoops. > I didn't mention new laws. You did. Too stupid to live is what you are, I'd stop distracting your few neurons form the breathe-in, breathe-out routine if I were you.... As regards your silly assertions, I did no such thing, you raised the evil spectre of these "new" laws crowding in to restrict your right to abuse, defame and blackguard on the net, not me. I merely asked you what they were and when they came into force. You came up empty headed as usual (I can't say empty-handed cause you clearly have your hand on something, and most of us can guess what) > Ahhm those would be just like the laws that regulate and outlaw > landmines, imprisonment without trial, murdering hundreds of > thousands of people etc. That's the real life law. Utterly useless. Quick Dano, shut down all those war crime and genocide trials around the world. "Justice" Ponsenby has declared that the laws they are enforcing are "useless" and that's and end to it I'm afraid..... > Therein lies the problem. Cyberspace is just that. Laws relating to > older mediums have absolutely no business being applied to the net. BALDERDASH! > If GovCo want to control the net in anything like the same manner as > it controls ordinary publishing, GovCo needs to put up the stuff for > debate and enact laws that specifically apply to the internet. There are already a nice set of laws that create obligations and remedies for actions done in life. And much as you might hate it, that includes cybersapce, it is an entirely moot question as to whether or not more are needed.... > I mean, they've had a go the 'porn' issue - which isn't an issue but > still a good place to start because it cultivated the right kind of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > edges, on and on and on, as always, until it's managed it's agenda. > Which is say involves concept knobble, at the very least. f.ck me drunk you are stupid! As you walk down the street tomorrow on the way to Centrelink, you spy a car left parked with the windows down and the keys in the ignition. It's a nice late model car, quite nondescript, in fact the kind that you can probably drive around till the tyres wear out without ever being caught if in fact you decide to nick it. Now according to your logic, the fact that some "force" does not prevent you from stealing the car [or viewing illegal porn] then it's OK you can take the car [or view the porn] and have done nothing wrong... The reality, my dear Ponsemby, [I've alwys wanted to say that to someone you know] is that doing a crime and getting away with it, does not in fact actualy expunge the fact that the crime was committed. Use this week's dole to put towards a nice basic text on logic, you may find it useful. > As an aus.cars reader, I can clearly see that the traffic acts are a > complete cluster-f.ck because they were never enacted to suit the > 'medium'. And you can do that from "reading". You don't drive then? > You don't really want to see chapter and verse on that in this > discussion, but even a cursory examination of traffic law will show > the way to a problem beginning to happen with old law being applied > to the Internet. Hmm! I tried Nascar II (or perhaps it was III) but driving on the internet didn't appeal to me, too much lag and too many cheats. And this comment has as much to do with the applicability of laws as yours does, except mine has the wit and humour yours lacks. > > Perhaps it is you (and perhaps others) who have not kept up with > > reality by somehow holding a defective belief that somehow the > > internet is some kind of "special" place where the normal rules > > that govern society do not apply? > > Not speshul. Just different. BALDERDASH! > > Why should you be able to say or do things on the internet that you > > would not say or do in (for instance), your workplace, the city [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > See above. It's not a public forum despite the best efforts of the > legislatures to define it as such. DRIVEL, The internet is in fact the ultimate "public forum". Where once loons like you could only annoy a few million simultaneously, you can now potentially reach hundreds of millions. > But it's interesting nonetheless that you regard the pub, or the > mall, or the workplace as 'all the same'. > They aren't, and attempts to use > argument based on that are simply laughable. BALDERASH! Show me an example of an act, lets say someone calling you a sheep worrier, that would be treated differently in law on the basis that an unrelated [in the legal sense] person said it to you in alternatively, the pub, the mall, your workplace, or indeed the internet. > I'd have to add that am judge addressing a jury in those terms would > be nothing short of derelict, and a jury believing is would be > nothing short of a pack of imbeciles. In your terms and using what pases for fact and logic between your ears - I'd agree wholeheartedly. > > Far from Sylvia "losing the plot" methinks it is you who has yet to > > gain a "plot". > > True. I haven't managed to figured the full characteristics of the > end-game. Yet. There is a bloke who posts under the nym of "coffeecup," you two should hit it right off, but if you don't Dolf Boek is always on the scout for new friends. Your amusingly interesting combination of complete lack of knowledge, combined with the skills of non-logic, and mixed with your fervent need to have a say irregardless of the preceeding two factors place you firmly in their league. Oh! And by the way. HTH -- > But do please feel free to insert 10c and have another go. I'll get round to it - you need a break to cool off with the abuse - so go ahead and do that and let me know when there's some room for more 10c pieces up your arse. > > But do please feel free to insert 10c and have another go. > > I'll get round to it - you need a break to cool off with the abuse - > so go ahead and do that and let me know when there's some room for > more 10c pieces up your arse. Abuse my dear Ponsemby? What abuse, I've stated facts and opinion only. More to the point, according to you I've doen nothing wrong, and no law applies to stop or sanction me even if I had. My arse would cost you a lot more than 10c, best not to equate your own values to others my lad. But do come back, once your voice has broken, you have had your first naughty and you have had time to read a few books, attend a few lectures, practices presenting a factual argument in a logical and ordered way and just generally got a few clues. -- On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 04:15:58 +0000, Blue Squeeler continued to blather on: >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:26:43 +1000, Blue Squeeler blathered on: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > More to the point, according to you I've doen nothing wrong, and no law > applies to stop or sanction me even if I had. 'course you doen nothing wrong. Didn't even suggest you did - just alluding to the loss of control you couldn't help but exhibit. Short fuse, Dear BlueSqueeler? > My arse would cost you a lot more than 10c, best not to equate your own > values to others my lad. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lectures, practices presenting a factual argument in a logical and > ordered way and just generally got a few clues. Like I said, 'fucktard', I'll get round to it - I need time to ponder whether describing you in that manner is fact or opinion. Or both. By all means, do let me know when there's room up there for some more 10cent pieces. Apoloigies for reposting this. I may wish to refer to this in google. Path: emma.aioe.org!aioe.org!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!news.germany.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Blue Heeler" <wook@bark.net> Newsgroups: aus.cars,aus.legal,aus.sport.motor Subject: Re: Renfors, Cornhole and couple of others - take note Date: 15 Oct 2006 04:15:58 GMT Lines: 27 Message-ID: <xn0esi2nu16tgku000@news.individual.net> References: <xn0esffvf2y42ya000@news.individual.net> <452f72cc@quokka.wn.com.au> <pan.2006.10.14.01.22.36.72906@jesco> <xn0esgkr07d21x000@news.individual.net> <pan.2006.10.14.04.21.04.99405@jesco> <453067d2$0$5107$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <pan.2006.10.14.14.28.01.198676@privacy.net> <xn0eshkdvm9cvx001@news.individual.net> <pan.2006.10.15.01.34.42.92997@privacy.net> <xn0esi1cl198cuv003@news.individual.net> <pan.2006.10.15.04.02.21.435570@privacy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Trace: individual.net fAyi+gXZRsYQX3ooeoAgbw3//jqm0DRF54ic+8FvvzJR7HxdFA User-Agent: XanaNews/1.18.1.3 X-no-archive: yes X-Ref: news.individual.net ~XNS:00000601 Xref: emma.aioe.org aus.cars:50677 aus.legal:21182 aus.sport.motor:1511 Toby Ponsenby wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:26:43 +1000, Blue Heeler blathered on: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so go ahead and do that and let me know when there's some room for > more 10c pieces up your arse. Abuse my dear Ponsemby? What abuse, I've stated facts and opinion only. More to the point, according to you I've doen nothing wrong, and no law applies to stop or sanction me even if I had. My arse would cost you a lot more than 10c, best not to equate your own values to others my lad. But do come back, once your voice has broken, you have had your first naughty and you have had time to read a few books, attend a few lectures, practices presenting a factual argument in a logical and ordered way and just generally got a few clues. -- > Apoloigies for reposting this. I may wish to refer to this in google. You're sorry for doing it, and then do it anyway... riiiiight. Maybe you could have just printed it out? Or even saved it as a text file? Rather than post something that someone else has already posted..? It's probably time you lot "man up" a bit, and drop it. SignatureScrap the 00 to post direct. "We all should present legal cars. I'm embarrassed we've presented a car that's ineligible." Mark Skaife, Chief Sook, HRT.12/11/04 (It must hurt to say illegal!) "Speed limit near schools lowered to 40 grams per student" - CNNNN >>But do please feel free to insert 10c and have another go. > > I'll get round to it - you need a break to cool off with the abuse - so > go ahead and do that and let me know when there's some room for more > 10c pieces up your arse. Abuse? It's been coming from you, mainly. "you've lost the plot" was from you addressed at me. You referred to Blue Heelers comments as "claptrap". Is this another of those irregular verbs? I express myself eloquently. You use abuse. He is guilty of crimes against humanity. Sylvia. Apologies for this reposting. I may wish to refer to this on google at a later point in time. Path: emma.aioe.org!aioe.org!news.mb-net.net!news.buerger.net!open-news-network.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Blue Heeler" <woof@bark.net> Newsgroups: aus.cars,aus.legal,aus.sport.motor Subject: Re: Renfors, Cornhole and couple of others - take note Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:26:43 +1000 Lines: 347 Message-ID: <xn0esi1cl198cuv003@news.individual.net> References: <xn0esffvf2y42ya000@news.individual.net> <452f72cc@quokka.wn.com.au> <pan.2006.10.14.01.22.36.72906@jesco> <xn0esgkr07d21x000@news.individual.net> <pan.2006.10.14.04.21.04.99405@jesco> <453067d2$0$5107$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <pan.2006.10.14.14.28.01.198676@privacy.net> <xn0eshkdvm9cvx001@news.individual.net> <pan.2006.10.15.01.34.42.92997@privacy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Trace: individual.net cGDQSneeSlTmkk75j7pgmwSnWEjIpw7UJxnwH/eNSIzCtbU3Pu User-Agent: XanaNews/1.18.1.3 X-no-archive: yes X-Ref: news.individual.net ~XNS:00000094 Xref: emma.aioe.org aus.cars:50660 aus.legal:21176 aus.sport.motor:1507 Toby Ponsenby wrote: > > Wrong at the outset, obviously missed the introduction of uniform > > defamation laws that amongst other things do actually make truth [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Good on ya. > And your watered down sections of the act? I see from you later posts that you have worked this one out for yourself now. Feel free to wipe the egg of your face now. > Aww, just the damages thing, I guess. No. > Probably you agree that the law was changed to appease the press at > large, too. It cuts both ways, the old public interest test placed a high burden on a defendant to prove that the material containing the defamatory imputation was both substantially true and that its publication was in the public interest. However, truth alone is too low a threshold in my opinion as it allows people to publish material that is irrelevant to them and the public, for the sole purpose of injuring the person published about, and to do so with impunity. However, as to how to strike the balence, I don't know how you would do that, which is why I preferred the old system. > And of course to prevent Ruddock and co from playing bully the states > games Errrrrrr? Please explain how pressure was bought to bear to pass uniform defamation legislation. I'm not denying that it wasn't, but I don't recall that uniform defamation law was one of the things that were used to beat up on the States. Sometimes they do do things voluntarily you know, like uniform succession laws as an example (albeit that at least at the moment a couple of States have F'd that up). > >> It's just an unfortunate accident that someone just possibly normal > >> was able to use the game against an assailant. A name caller, was > it? >> > > > > Losing me.....You will have to explain both the facts you are citing > > and the logic used to draw this conclusion. No explanation I see. > >> Natch, the idea is that the Internet Must Be Brought To Heel. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That's because the medium is not the medium the laws were enacted to > control. I see, so in your learned opinion Laws don't apply unless they specifically state the medium in which they are to apply...... Too stupid a proposition to bother commenting on, and so demonstrably false that I'm sure you regret typing it now. > Your claptrap only applies if the net is viewed as a publishing > medium. It isn't, never was and won't ever be. BALDERDASH! For your idiot idea to be the case then the numerous defamation cases that have been successfully prosecuted in relation to Usenet posts and other activites were all wrongly decided. Better get a practice certificate real quick because there is a raftload of people out there who will be hiring you to appeal the decisions that went against them. Or not, if in fact it is the case, as I suspect, that you really do not have a clue about what you are talking about. > Just one example, > since you like that game. Wiki articles once published can be > changed, as can most if not all content on the net. But the identity of the person who made the changes can be traced, so the issue of anonymity (which is what I think you are trying to raise in a half-witted way) doesn't arise. And in any event, the mere fact that the perpetrator cannot be readily identified does not mean that a wrong has not been done. By your logic if I let a few paint cans go over my neighbour's car, the mere fact that I was careful and cunning enough to not get caugt means I did no wrong and broke no law? Get a clue please........ > But GovCo can't reasonably go out and get a book > or newspaper out of the possession of the purchaser so it can be > changed. Do yourself a favour and type "books pulped by publisher" into google. You are right in one sense that some forms of publication cannot be recalled. TV, Radio, Newspapers and plain old general conversatiosn all being examples. That's why there are penalties for things like defamation, if we could just recall and suck back in the material complained of as if it had never happened, there would be no need would there? > And that is what makes the net entirely different. So it > appears that the net publishing that happens gets down to 'opinion'. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But the crunch now comes when a defence is mounted on the basis that > what is presented is an opinion. I am of the opinion that you are a clueless fucktard. Nothing in your absurd paragraph above even goes close to being a viable argument, or even a line of reasoning that aproaches rationality or fact. But do please feel free to insert 10c and have another go. > And then there's public interest. As it is no longer an element that has to be proved by either party, why are we considering it? > Consider the carry-on about access to broadband for 'everybody'. > While that may have a lot to do with real-time betting by those that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from a library, seen it on subscription TY (WITH ADS!!!) or even seen > it on FTA TV. Ah! I see, it was a lead in to another of your irrational, clueless and fact devoid rants. Insert another 10c and have another go. > >> Step one is the application of certain laws. But only certain > laws - >> the ones that suit the agenda. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Whoops. > I didn't mention new laws. You did. Too stupid to live is what you are, I'd stop distracting your few neurons form the breathe-in, breathe-out routine if I were you.... As regards your silly assertions, I did no such thing, you raised the evil spectre of these "new" laws crowding in to restrict your right to abuse, defame and blackguard on the net, not me. I merely asked you what they were and when they came into force. You came up empty headed as usual (I can't say empty-handed cause you clearly have your hand on something, and most of us can guess what) > Ahhm those would be just like the laws that regulate and outlaw > landmines, imprisonment without trial, murdering hundreds of > thousands of people etc. That's the real life law. Utterly useless. Quick Dano, shut down all those war crime and genocide trials around the world. "Justice" Ponsenby has declared that the laws they are enforcing are "useless" and that's and end to it I'm afraid..... > Therein lies the problem. Cyberspace is just that. Laws relating to > older mediums have absolutely no business being applied to the net. BALDERDASH! > If GovCo want to control the net in anything like the same manner as > it controls ordinary publishing, GovCo needs to put up the stuff for > debate and enact laws that specifically apply to the internet. There are already a nice set of laws that create obligations and remedies for actions done in life. And much as you might hate it, that includes cybersapce, it is an entirely moot question as to whether or not more are needed.... > I mean, they've had a go the 'porn' issue - which isn't an issue but > still a good place to start because it cultivated the right kind of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > edges, on and on and on, as always, until it's managed it's agenda. > Which is say involves concept knobble, at the very least. f.ck me drunk you are stupid! As you walk down the street tomorrow on the way to Centrelink, you spy a car left parked with the windows down and the keys in the ignition. It's a nice late model car, quite nondescript, in fact the kind that you can probably drive around till the tyres wear out without ever being caught if in fact you decide to nick it. Now according to your logic, the fact that some "force" does not prevent you from stealing the car [or viewing illegal porn] then it's OK you can take the car [or view the porn] and have done nothing wrong... The reality, my dear Ponsemby, [I've alwys wanted to say that to someone you know] is that doing a crime and getting away with it, does not in fact actualy expunge the fact that the crime was committed. Use this week's dole to put towards a nice basic text on logic, you may find it useful. > As an aus.cars reader, I can clearly see that the traffic acts are a > complete cluster-f.ck because they were never enacted to suit the > 'medium'. And you can do that from "reading". You don't drive then? > You don't really want to see chapter and verse on that in this > discussion, but even a cursory examination of traffic law will show > the way to a problem beginning to happen with old law being applied > to the Internet. Hmm! I tried Nascar II (or perhaps it was III) but driving on the internet didn't appeal to me, too much lag and too many cheats. And this comment has as much to do with the applicability of laws as yours does, except mine has the wit and humour yours lacks. > > Perhaps it is you (and perhaps others) who have not kept up with > > reality by somehow holding a defective belief that somehow the > > internet is some kind of "special" place where the normal rules > > that govern society do not apply? > > Not speshul. Just different. BALDERDASH! > > Why should you be able to say or do things on the internet that you > > would not say or do in (for instance), your workplace, the city [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > See above. It's not a public forum despite the best efforts of the > legislatures to define it as such. DRIVEL, The internet is in fact the ultimate "public forum". Where once loons like you could only annoy a few million simultaneously, you can now potentially reach hundreds of millions. > But it's interesting nonetheless that you regard the pub, or the > mall, or the workplace as 'all the same'. > They aren't, and attempts to use > argument based on that are simply laughable. BALDERASH! Show me an example of an act, lets say someone calling you a sheep worrier, that would be treated differently in law on the basis that an unrelated [in the legal sense] person said it to you in alternatively, the pub, the mall, your workplace, or indeed the internet. > I'd have to add that am judge addressing a jury in those terms would > be nothing short of derelict, and a jury believing is would be > nothing short of a pack of imbeciles. In your terms and using what pases for fact and logic between your ears - I'd agree wholeheartedly. > > Far from Sylvia "losing the plot" methinks it is you who has yet to > > gain a "plot". > > True. I haven't managed to figured the full characteristics of the > end-game. Yet. There is a bloke who posts under the nym of "coffeecup," you two should hit it right off, but if you don't Dolf Boek is always on the scout for new friends. Your amusingly interesting combination of complete lack of knowledge, combined with the skills of non-logic, and mixed with your fervent need to have a say irregardless of the preceeding two factors place you firmly in their league. Oh! And by the way. HTH -- >>>>>http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/11 >>>>>60246303293.html [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > So it appears that in reality by supporting the expansion of grubby little > laws into the electronic medium 'Internet', you've lost the plot. Big time. Ah, someone who sees the big picture. These people who are always crying out for more control... big brother comes to the rescue and neuters the medium... always in the name of justice of course (lol). It's just a coincidence that in this process they get to reduce our privacy and freedoms, and they in turn get tighter control and more power over the ordinary man...of course. Do these people have short memories, or perhaps they just don't care as they perceive it as not affecting them (safety in numbers)? Can they not leave at least one facet of daily life the f.ck alone? SignatureJesco >>>>http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/11 >>>>60246303293.html [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Why should the person who starts an interaction by defaming or abusing > another get the right to determine what form the fighting back should take? How long is a piece of string Sylvia? That kind of thinking cuts both ways too of course. If the above reasoning is one we should cling to and uphold, can you not see the problem it would present down the road? It won't help or solve anything in the end. You can't (and shouldn't) expect the nanny state to do everything for you. This kind of thinking has been gaining ground for the past few years, and just look where its gotten us... bloody nowhere (or frequently worse than before). And it just provides another tool for the powerful/influential to abuse - they always do, always in the name of 'security' or to stop 'evil doers' or any of a hundred other things. Of course, they don't give a rats arse about that in reality. Sometimes you just have to stand up for yourself, and defend or fight back - why always expect others to do it for you? > In the cited case, the defamed woman has elected to pursue the > litigation path, and a jury has agreed with her that she was defamed in > a legally proscribed way. We've moved on from the cited case, and I was responding to other posts. > People who use the Internet to abuse and defame in this way need to > realise that the retaliation may take an unexpected form; one that has > serious ramifications for the abuser. Not sure what your point is there. 99% of the time there are no ramifications, and if 'abusers' don't take steps to protect themselves, well that's their own fault. Some people are just not happy until something that is relatively free of censorship and tight control has the humanity squeezed out of it. Fear not Sylvia, you'll get your way in the end... the Internet as we know it will not be allowed to continue indefinitely, and we'll have 'Internet 2' or similar where new protocols will facilitate tight control and tracking of all users. Then you'll have jack-sh.t opportunity to say what you really think at all. Enjoy. In meantime, the rest of us will continue to enjoy what we have left, whilst we can. SignatureJesco > > http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/11 > > 60246303293.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wise annoy their peers, and to be immune from sanction for doing so at > the same time, to a "T" doesn't it. It does indeed and the "T" stands for Tony in Tony Smith, alias "Blue Heeler" the Net Cop, alias "Observer", alias "Logan" etc etc...! The mad stalker who's been at it now for bloody YEARS - the subject line is further evidence of that stalking! SignatureSIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/law-reins-in-wild-webbers/2006/10/13/1160 > 246303293.html What the f.ck is this about, Tony? What has this to do with ME, you petty criminal w.nker?? Are you implying I have been involved in that blog somehow? Tony Smith, the dobber of people to get them sacked, the stalker of people even when they don't post anything on the net! You are DERANGED Tony - go see a SHRINK...... fucken stalker! SignatureSIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Given the number of times you have got people's identy wrong recently Sepsis, are you really, really sure > Tony Smith, the dobber of people to get them sacked, the stalker of > people even when they don't post anything on the net! You are DERANGED > Tony - go see a SHRINK...... fucken stalker! Ah yes, Septic Renfors, now lets see what a quick search finds about you shall we? This looks like a good start, from someone else who decided to research your form guide Renfors. and what a really terrific form you have too. "Seppo [The Clown TM] Renfors, aka the "demented demon of Strathblyn", aka "the fanatical, fraudulent, fixated, falsifier, forger, faker and fool", aka "the tawdry little sook". Seppo brings his own unique style of non-logic, nazi-loving abuse - given the wonderfully accurate term "Sepponic Dementia" in another group." Lovely stuff isn't it..... And then of course there is Google that reveals that you have "dobbed" on people over 160 times, and attempted to incite others to join you. Looky here for all to see. http://tinyurl.com/yjb8g9 And all any of those people had apparently done was point out that you are stupid and a fool with it, and more to the point that you do not realise you are stupid and therefore keep annoying people who do after all get tired of laughing at you eventually. And I see there is a reference to one Philip Deiteker, apparently you complained to his employers for the heinous crime of pointing out your fundamental lack of knowledge in any area you care to bray at the top of your donkey voice, and for also pointing out your total inability top understand, much less use logic. Yes Renfors, you are indeed a mind totally untramelled b the ravages of intelligence aren't you. "Tawdry little sook" sums you up to a Tee". and you will just have to keep guessing as to who I really am won't you. On the other hand it is all too easy to unmask yuor pathetic attempts to hide behind new nyms. The stench that follows your rancid posts follows them as surely and unmistakably as night follows day. To sum up you tawdry little sook, this would appear to be a case of a very, very black pot calling the kettle black. That should give you a pretty good idea, you stupid, stalking, slime swilling, bottom feeding, rancid piece of sh.t! And by the way, should I kick high or low on your lard arse to avoid the welts already there from Smith's boots? hth Signature-- Apologies for this but I want this defamatory post to be found on google. Path: emma.aioe.org!aioe.org!news.mb-net.net!news.buerger.net!open-news-network.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Blue Heeler" <woof@bark.net> Newsgroups: aus.cars,aus.legal,aus.sport.motor Subject: Re: Renfors, Cornhole and couple of others - take note Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:08:15 +1000 Lines: 77 Message-ID: <xn0esigp31u086t005@news.individual.net> References: <xn0esffvf2y42ya000@news.individual.net> <4531EDF6.6E350170@not.ollis.net> X-Trace: individual.net t1pjvqkFmpXEQFhEJgQRaQdDMqQQ8AExzHdI/fQq/Ur9cuTQ8g User-Agent: XanaNews/1.18.1.3 X-no-archive: yes X-Ref: news.individual.net ~XNS:00000095 Xref: emma.aioe.org aus.cars:50834 aus.legal:21211 aus.sport.motor:1521 Seppo Renfors wrote: > Blue Heeler wrote: Given the number of times you have got people's identy wrong recently Sepsis, are you really, really sure > Tony Smith, the dobber of people to get them sacked, the stalker of > people even when they don't post anything on the net! You are DERANGED > Tony - go see a SHRINK...... fucken stalker! Ah yes, Septic Renfors, now lets see what a quick search finds about you shall we? This looks like a good start, from someone else who decided to research your form guide Renfors. and what a really terrific form you have too. "Seppo [The Clown TM] Renfors, aka the "demented demon of Strathblyn", aka "the fanatical, fraudulent, fixated, falsifier, forger, faker and fool", aka "the tawdry little sook". Seppo brings his own unique style of non-logic, nazi-loving abuse - given the wonderfully accurate term "Sepponic Dementia" in another group." Lovely stuff isn't it..... And then of course there is Google that reveals that you have "dobbed" on people over 160 times, and attempted to incite others to join you. Looky here for all to see. http://tinyurl.com/yjb8g9 And all any of those people had apparently done was point out that you are stupid and a fool with it, and more to the point that you do not realise you are stupid and therefore keep annoying people who do after all get tired of laughing at you eventually. And I see there is a reference to one Philip Deiteker, apparently you complained to his employers for the heinous crime of pointing out your fundamental lack of knowledge in any area you care to bray at the top of your donkey voice, and for also pointing out your total inability top understand, much less use logic. Yes Renfors, you are indeed a mind totally untramelled b the ravages of intelligence aren't you. "Tawdry little sook" sums you up to a Tee". and you will just have to keep guessing as to who I really am won't you. On the other hand it is all too easy to unmask yuor pathetic attempts to hide behind new nyms. The stench that follows your rancid posts follows them as surely and unmistakably as night follows day. To sum up you tawdry little sook, this would appear to be a case of a very, very black pot calling the kettle black. That should give you a pretty good idea, you stupid, stalking, slime swilling, bottom feeding, rancid piece of sh.t! And by the way, should I kick high or low on your lard arse to avoid the welts already there from Smith's boots? hth Signature-- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.