Re: Ping Bunt - Serious Question


Morlock wrote:

Remember that my assumptions about your reasons for persuing the course of
action you have taken are based on what I have read on Usenet.

ah yes, complicates matters somewhat dunnit

At first I,
perhaps wrongly, believed that you were on a crusade to effectively stamp
out anonymity on the Internet, something which I am a firm believer in.

One the one hand I have beliefs about "big" ideas like the net and
freedom, on the other hand I don't do crusades, I learnt really early
on you can't fight for other people, or justice for them, or anything
else, you always stand alone and the only message you even get across
is that you personally are not to be fucked with.

if you've got an idle hour or two do a search of posts and note that
no-one who met me in real life asked why I was doing this, because they
already knew, and nobody else asked either, because (like sharky) they
really aren't interested.

I'll leave the discussion on anonymity for another thread, if you feel
like starting one, because it really is a separate issue and it only
overlaps this case in so far as there is a difference between knowing
in your own mind who someone is, and being able to demonstrate to a
court you have the correct given name and address to put on the forms.


However, I have realised that your motivation is perhaps indeed rooted at a
more personal level based on some of your recent contributions.

oh it always has been, "you invited yourself into my life" was one of
my first comments when this started over a year ago to tilley

My opinions
on the case have changed and I do not believe anymore that your primary
motivation is anything but to seek what you believe is justice.

I don't even seek that really.

One of the things I try to teach people (which you will relate to) is
the need to stand on your own two feet and fight for what is right,
believe in yourself, etc etc, and the Law is a truly wondrous system
because it is impartial, two opponents can go to law and be judged
without fear or favour, and whatever the result is is free from
personal opinion or attitude or taint.

you learn whether you were right or wrong.

so if anything my primary motivation is to teach people that all
actions have consequences, and it does not matter who you are or how
life has treated you, you are entitled to the same rights and
protections under the law as anyone else.



As I stated previously, no, I did not believe that your course of action was
motivated by anything but to change basic principles of law regarding the
Internet.

I think they should change, at the moment the laws are too blunt

eg people who use motor vehicles in death race 2000 cannot be punished
unless the victim manages to track them down, because the only tool in
the legal toolbox was whether to make the vehicle manufacturers
responsible or not.

just as some drivers will play death race 2000, some manufacturers will
build and market the killing machine 666, so what do you do, make
everyone suffer for the actions of a few who will not act morally and
ethically, or just declare it all legal because your instrument is too
blunt.

I do not believe I have posted anything which could be considered
defamatory, nor have I reposted anything that could be considered so, as I
am well aware of the law in this regard. I have on occasion made a few
sarcastic comments, and also addressed points of law, but nothing which
could be regarded as anything but opinion.

fair comment


I have been told to 'keep out of it' but when the whole case has been aired
on a public forum, which I read regularly, it is hard not to become involved
to some extent.

yeah, it is real tough to not become involved, it is also all to easy
to fall into the trap and find yourself trolling mercilessly.

I don't have issues with that, just those who really don't give a ***.


I never saw the post regarding your statement of claim, but would be
interested in reading it.

the case is ongoing, perhaps in a few weeks when it is over if you're
still interested ask again.

you'll find through and through there is the ethical argument instead
of the purely legal argument, which is why my opponents so enjoyed
taking the piss.



This is a remarkably familiar story, one which I can relate to in more ways
than you could possibly imagine,

credit me with more imagination, when you start bumping into "***" in
life at first you wonder if you are some sort of magnet attracting it,
maybe you are doing something wrong, maybe you're meeting the wrong
sort of person.

eventually it dawns on you, it is just out there, and you will bump in
to it with clockwork regularity, just because it is there.

course, much of society is based upon denial of this, and keeping eyes
averted, cos otherwise you'd have to take a moral stance eh.

yeah, preaching to the choir.

so in a lot of ways I can sympathise with
her, but to be overly sympathetic will not do her any favours.

I'm not sympathetic, I may empathise, but what I do is I will help
anyone who is willing to fight, they don't have to know how to fight,
just be willing to learn.



I have seriously considered your offer, and if it wasn't for the fact that I
have three children, two of whom are teenagers going through a particularly
angst ridden stage of their lives, as teenagers do, and a youngster who
needs constant supervision, coupled with the fact that I have to work for a
living, I really do not have the time to take you up. Besides, I have never
met anyone I have communicated with on Usenet, have only communicated with
two people outside of this medium where I met them, and for now would rather
keep it this way.


fairy nuff


Apart from that, I do not really see what it would achieve, except for
convincing me what you are saying is true, which I do not doubt any way.

mm, truth has that certain taste, it also tends to polarise people,
everyone claims it is the thing they want, but in reality what they
usually prefer is an acceptable lie.

.

Loading