Re: Libel Case(s) - important notice to all


Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:

>
> I posted a few months back, with a few specific questions to you about
> censorship and the internet in particular. I remember posting to you a few
> of your own quotes on freedom of speech and expression.

I recall

>
> The above post of yours and your continued conduct is confirming my fears.


mmm, we've been expecting this

> I
> think, Mr Bunt, that your flame war with a few trolls has now become an
> obsession.


"flame war" huh

yeah right

> An obsession and a crusade as some kind of moral guardian of the
> internet, and usenet in particular. The vast majority of internet users are
> against any form of interference in this medium.

so take your own advise, *** out and don't interfere

yahbut, that's not what you meant is it.

you have an agenda, that agenda is that usenet should be somehow
outside the law, outside normal society and outside the scope of any
mores.

usenet has never been this way, much though many of you would wish it
were otherwise.

> Why didn't you just
> killfile, ignore etc in the first instance?

why should I

do you also go around advising rape victims to just forget it, and
burglary victims to stop making such a fuss?

>
> *Everybody* on usenet has been in a flame from time to time

no *** sherlock

and *everybody*
> gets called a paedo or a nazi etc etc etc when this happens. It is *part* of
> usenet.

NO IT IS NOT

if you knew ANYTHING about usenet or had been online for more than ten
minutes you'd realise that this is a relatively recent phenomenon, and
it is spreading.



> Moderated groups and killfiles provide the get out for those that
> cannot cope.

who can't cope?
not me
I'm coping REALLY well, I'm taking it to Law


>
> You have regularly used the phrase 'continued libels noted' when in fact no
> libel has been committed, simply name calling for example 'twat', 'prick'
> etc. These are not libels.

so now you're not only a usenet expert, but a legal expert too.


>
> You have set up a self-censored group above with you as the sole,
> self-styled god of control.

no, I've put a website on server space and under a domain name that is
my bloody property that I pay for entirely unsibsidised by other.

you also have a problem with me using MY driveway to park MY vehicles
do you.

> Controlling who signs up,

it's MY property, I can do as I like

> what is posted and
> even threatening legal action if anyone uses 'abuse' as only *you* define
> it.

it's MY property, I can do as I like

your argument speaks volunes by the points you must studiously avoid,
becaause they reveal you have no argument, just an agenda you will not
admit to.

that is that there were NO restrictions on who could sign up, UNTIL
microcephalic morons decided they could sign up with usernames composed
largely of four letter swear words from disposable hotmail accounts and
wreak the same sort of havok on my property as they have been doing on
usenet.

>
> I have followed the 'discussion' with interest for months now, but given
> your posting above I cannot help but feel you will lose supporters rather
> than gain them.


which "supporters" would they be then?

the ones who just stand there and watch unacceptable behaviour and do
nothing, because "none of my business guv"

> I for one, who had been entirely neutral up to this point,

you pride yourself on being neutral, yet I scorn you for your
neutrality

how can you be neutral when you see mindless and pointless evil
comitted, damage done out of all proportion to gains, by a very few bad
apples, and do and say nothing.

where were you when they came for the jews


> now have to say I hope you lose your cases.


yeah, I bet you do, because winning will cramp YOUR style too, won't
it...

the law finally comes (back) to dodge city


> If only to confirm that one,
> possibly unhinged, individual cannot suppress the right for everyone else to
> be 'voiceferous' in this particular medium,


you are the very worst kind of liar, you lack even the basic courage in
your arguments to call a spade a spade

"vociferous" my ass, we are talking about ILLEGAL ACTS

> without the threat of legal
> actions,

there is no possibility of those who do not break the law being
threatened with legal action

if you don't like this, and you obviously don't, then you and your
chums had better go set up your own internet somewhere.

you won't like that though, because all of a sudden you won't have an
endless supply of victime to prey upon will you.

> some of which are *bound* to be simply vexatious and used as a
> means to shut anyone you fancy up,

well, if they are that person will, EVENTUALLY, after losing many cases
against the same people time after time, be classed as a vexatious
litigant.

> and a waste of a stretched justice
> system's time.

like you care

> You have regularly threatened (legally) other contributors to
> this group who have done nothing more than simply name-call. Where does it
> stop?

when people accept that usenet doesn't exist in wonderland, but here on
planet earth

when people accept that if they do wrong they are liable to pay the
consequences of their own actions

when people start obeying the law

in extremis, for the hard core, when as a result of their actions,
affording a net connection much less a computer is a distant memory

> when everyone conforms to *your* view of what is acceptable to post?

you suggest that I am the sole author of the Defamation Act, the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, the Protection from Harassment
Act, the Telecommunications Act, etc?

you really think these acts are all my own work that I rammed through
the legislature without so much as a by your leave from our citizenry
or our elected representatives?


>
> Don't get me wrong, I do not support the arses who wound you up to this
> point, but think you've gone too far yourself.

me, I've barely started.

I warned you ALL, especially these defendants, way back when this
started, that as far as they were concerned no good would come of this
and it could change they very face of usenet forever.

I was laughed at

who is laughing now?

> It could be that if you were
> to win,

let's just take it as read for the sake of argument that seeing as I am
not a known paedophile / sex offender / nonce / kiddie fiddler / conman
/ etc / etc / etc I shall indeed win

> you'd go down, not as some kind of hero who saved usenet, but as the
> architect of its demise.

1/ who said I was trying to save usenet?
2/ if there are architects of the demise of usenet their names are
tilley / hancox / stevens, with a supporting cast of thousands.

> After all, *if* the ISP's concerned have to pay
> out,

you're seeing the beginning of a sea change, when joe public sees how
easy it is to take it to law, with a website that shows exactly how it
is done and exactly how much it costs, and of course the winner never
pays.....

nah, the providers will change their policy on usenet long before this
escalates to where there is a flurry of private litigation cases lodged
up and down the country every week, they have to, out of a legal duty
to their shareholders.

> I think on the next managing directors meeting agenda, there would be a
> real prospect of them cancelling the carrying of any and all newsfeeds at
> all.

I can tell you for a FACT that that is on the table right now with many
of them. They've been looking for an excuse for 5 years, only that fact
that it might not be a level playing field for marketing dept if some
other ISP's didn't drop usenet entirely has stopped them.
usenet is a huge financial loss making enterprise for isp's who give it
away free as part of a bundle.


> How would that make you feel?

it would probably be a good thing, certainly being given usenet access
for free has not taught people to treat it with any respect.

those of us paying literally hundreds of pounds every month for access
15 years ago certainly won't find it any hardship.

hell, it would probably open up the market for a few more business
opportunities.


>
> Also, have you considered for one minute what your name is going to be *if*
> you lose?

you mean if the defendants prove that I am a known paedophile?

not likely is it

> You will not have a single *iota* of credibility in any way shape or form,

what the *** do you think I am taking these idiots to court for in the
first fucking place???


> on usenet or possibly the whole internet. I only came to read this group out
> of interest a few months back when I read about you, so be assured, the
> whole usenet community knows what is going on.

be assured, 80% of the population is going to be reading about this
sooner or later.

>
> Win or lose in your cases, I think *you* lose both ways Mr Bunt.


you ain't me pal.


>
> [/tuppence worth]
>
> My advice - Use your killfile, get on with *life*, and have a good one.

I prefer my solution, it's more effective

.

Loading