El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
Hey Lamie, you can stamp with your feet, you can cry like a baby or you can commit suicide, it will not change the fact that our customers website contains satire and therfore it is perfectly legal under Swiss law (Art.16 Bundesverfassung)
You can also not claim any copyright for those satire pictures, because you are not the artist which created those masterpieces.
That means: If our customer, which has declared to be the artist pays us for hosting his website, we will of course do so.
After reading your "complaint" i have to tell you:
Hey Lamie, the otherworldly spirit of William Safire will visit you today and spend the next year correcting every grammatical error you've ever made.
For public amusement El Tardo's posting is published here, enjoy ...
Received: by mailgate1.webhost4u.ch (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id D0A113BC233; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:24:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from imr-da05.mx.aol.com (205.188.105.147) via SMTP by UCEPROTECT Proxy V4.1 at mailgate1.webhost4u.ch, id smtpdcf3138; Thu Nov 5 21:24:09 2009 Received: from imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (imo-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.136]) by imr-da05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nA5KNK7A016599; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:23:20 -0500 Received: from compla...@usa.com by imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42 5.) id u.c2d.6afd2b18 (37552); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:23:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-db01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-db01.mx.aol.com [205.188.249.152]) by cia-mb03.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMB031-5bc44af334253cf; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:23:16 -0500 Received: from web-mmc-d09 (web-mmc-d09.sim.aol.com [205.188.103.99]) by smtprly-db01.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDB013-5bc44af334253cf; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:23:02 -0500 To: abuse (@) cablecom.ch Subject: Copyright Violations Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:23:00 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 64.231.92.228 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI Received: from 64.231.92.228 by web-mmc-d09.sysops.aol.com (205.188.103.99) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:23:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: compla...@usa.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary= --------MB_8CC2C6CE7B9383B_F28_16CD5_web-mmc-d09.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: Mail.com Webmail 28878-STANDARD CC: mbinder (@) swisscomputerservices.ch, postmaster (@) swisscomputerservices.ch, info ( @ ) ombudscom.ch Message-ID: 8CC2C6CE7AD5156-F28-A60B at web-mmc-d09.sysops.aol.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-AOL-SENDER: complaint at usa.com X-Scanned: 4PSA Clean Server on Nov 05 21:24:26 Return-Path: compla...@usa.com
Jamie Baillie 3-42 Saranac Blvd North York, Ontario Canada, M6A 2G5
Phone #: 641-715-3900 ext 7192564
November 5 2009,
The only purpose for this site is to harass, threaten and alarm me. and I demand that this harassment by this individual immediately cease.
The image(s) of Mr. Baillie was stolen from his computer when it was broken into and the server storing these images are guilty of being in possession of stolen property.
The owner of this website has NO permission to use this image of Mr. Baillie and Mr. Baillie demands that these images be immediately removed.
11/04/09 15:45:36 whois 193.138.29.200 at whois.ripe.net
whois -h whois.ripe.net 193.138.29.200 ... % This is the RIPE Database query service. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf
% Note: This output has been filtered. % To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag.
% Information related to '193.138.29.0 - 193.138.29.255'
traceroute www.0brain.org traceroute to 0brain.org (193.138.29.200), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 64.230.197.51 (64.230.197.51) 7.232 ms 7.348 ms 7.799 ms 2 dis10-london14_Vlan104.net.bell.ca (64.230.222.145) 6.353 ms 5.715 ms 5.774 ms 3 core1-london14_POS8-0-0.net.bell.ca (64.230.158.109) 5.839 ms 6.063 ms 6.904 ms 4 CORE3-TORONTO47_POS3-1-0.net.bell.ca (64.230.149.226) 10.111 ms 8.812 ms 10.761 ms 5 Ncore3-montrealak.net.bell.ca (64.230.147.125) 16.631 ms 15.689 ms 16 177 ms 6 newcore1-newyork83_so2-0-0.net.bell.ca (64.230.187.137) 27.837 ms 27 358 ms 27.553 ms 7 CORE1-NEWYORK83_POS3-0-0_core.net.bell.ca (64.230.187.82) 27.293 ms 27 530 ms 27.783 ms 8 UPc_Chelo_peering.net.bell.ca (64.230.187.14) 28.656 ms 27.424 ms 27 520 ms 9 us-nyc01b-rd1-gi-13-0.aorta.net (213.46.190.177) 27.796 ms 28.527 ms us-nyc01b-rd1-gi-0-0-0.aorta.net (213.46.190.93) 27.921 ms 10 us-was02a-rd1-po-0-0.aorta.net (213.46.190.50) 222.208 ms 192.498 ms 208.912 ms 11 fr-par02a-rd1-pos-2-0.aorta.net (213.46.160.105) 115.246 ms 113.758 ms 114.308 ms 12 84-116-130-90.aorta.net (84.116.130.90) 130.046 ms 128.872 ms 128.597 ms 13 mlrZHZ006-xge-3-4.aorta.net (213.46.171.54) 128.554 ms 128.744 ms 128 975 ms 14 62-2-52-150.static.cablecom.ch (62.2.52.150) 128.552 ms 129.031 ms 128.763 ms 15 193.138.29.200 (193.138.29.200) 129.760 ms 129.433 ms 131.146 ms
This user continues to spam the usenet newsgroups and slander Mr. Baillie's good name which needs to immediately cease and desist.
This garbage is definitely off topic for the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse email Please remove this user from your service.
cablecom.ch if your customer is not willing to remove this content immediately then I expect that you will remove all connectivity to them with in the next 48 hours.
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad net!news.mixmin.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september org!not-for-mail From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" <use-reply-to-mail-me at remove-this.com> Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email Subject: Re: stop-spam.org Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:07:58 +0100 Organization: UCEPROTECT-Network Lines: 24 Message-ID: <hcqgg7$odn$2 at news.eternal-september.org> References: <jYmdnXQUDOoIy23XnZ2dnUVZ_oBi4p2d at supernews.com> Reply-To: c.v.wolfhausen at spamkiller.uceprotect.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org U2FsdGVkX18sIHDYjL8XhNrbo2lzKn9JKDTX6BVu6vwQzcjBSVNEt0hx7Aruu+EwkjCuLjBH/87 JZ HoeH3SoKmpflf0XMBRqFefoZ/XsAZ0/unCe+TnEbcBcL2L8bRSsGUK5XSwXE9dmHbgYf8iix0cK Qw QgC7 X-Complaints-To: abuse at eternal-september.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 00:05:27 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <jYmdnXQUDOoIy23XnZ2dnUVZ_oBi4p2d at supernews.com> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/2owvgT6abH1Lt/GPx9lPMO4wW+D+81m3c/BoJDuzH2g== Cancel-Lock: sha1:/TlhXCSITrRkKco5qnSNQ/F3MWg= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421)
The Elf from S.U.S.A.N. wrote:
> From stop-spam.org:
> Because of spam, the US judicial system and the stupidity of our > legislators, whew.com, stop-spam.org and i-color.info are for sale.
> Please contact the owner at admin at whew.com with your offer.
> Funny how it doesn't mention the unlimited stupidity demonstrated by it's > owner, time after time after time...
Oh it demonstrates that the Fergiot believes there must be lusers out there more stupid as himself, and he even might be right. At least he seems to be above Tardissimo(tm) Jamie B. in that fine evolution graphics:
Looks OK to me. The copyright of the picture of JB's face will reside with whoever took the picture - do they object to the use of their work?
If the photographer raised the issue, that may be a different matter, but as far as JB is concerned - no case to answer. Perhaps a disclaimer about the content not being suitable for under 18's, but other than that - it's fair comment.
-- political correctness: The safety net protecting deaf blind disabled ethnic minority gays & lesbians with odd religious beliefs from reality
>Looks OK to me. The copyright of the picture of JB's face will reside >with whoever took the picture - do they object to the use of their work?
>If the photographer raised the issue, that may be a different matter, but >as far as JB is concerned - no case to answer. Perhaps a disclaimer about >the content not being suitable for under 18's, but other than that - it's >fair comment.
I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and I do obect to it being used. The picture was also stolen from my PC when it was broken into so Claus is also in possession of stolen property!
There is definatley a case to answer and I will see that it is shut down. Claus is a thief and a liar.
> I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and > I do obect to it being used. The picture was also stolen from my PC > when it was broken into so Claus is also in possession of stolen > property!
c.v.wolfhau...@spamkiller.uceprotect.net writes: >After not getting any email from the Lamester(tm) for a very long time, >today was "the day" again.
Who cares? Just ignore him. The newsgroup seems to have finally gotten over trolling the tard, how about it stays that way. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
you really are quite the idiot you are infact violating several sections of the Swiss copyright laws already..
You obviously have no clue about copyright laws. The picture was stolen from my computer when it was broken into therefore any server that has a copy of that picture of me is infact in possession of stolen property.
I was the one that took the picture using a web cam so I am the owner of this picture and NEVER gave anyone permission to use it.
Therefore you are in violation of Swiss copyright laws.
This site is not fine under Swiss copyright law and in fact violates several parts of the Swiss copyright laws.
1. The author shall have an exclusive right in his own work and the right to recognition of his authorship. 2. The author shall have the exclusive right to decide whether, when, how and under what name his own work may be published.
Article 10.- 1. The author shall have the exclusive right to decide whether, when and how his work is to be used.
Article 11.- 1. The author shall have the exclusive right to decide: a. whether, when and how the work may be altered; b. whether, when and how the work may be used to create a derived work or may be included in a collection.
Article 18.
The rights referred to in Article 10.2 and 3 and in Article 11 shall be subject to enforcement if the author has already exercised them and the work has already been published with the consent of the author.
Article 29.
1. A work shall enjoy copyright protection as soon as it is created, whether or not it has been fixed on a physical medium.
You better get a clue really fast because I am not going to allow this site to remain up and continue to slander my name.
Remove this site now Claus
Jamie
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:53:07 +0000 (UTC), use-reply-to-mail...@remove-this.com (Claus v. Wolfhausen) wrote:
>Hey Lamie, you can stamp with your feet, you can cry like a baby or you can >commit suicide, it will not change the fact that our customers website contains >satire and therfore it is perfectly legal under Swiss law (Art.16 >Bundesverfassung)
>You can also not claim any copyright for those satire pictures, because you are >not the artist which created those masterpieces.
>That means: If our customer, which has declared to be the artist pays us for >hosting his website, we will of course do so.
>After reading your "complaint" i have to tell you:
>Hey Lamie, the otherworldly spirit of William Safire will visit you today and >spend the next year correcting every grammatical error you've ever made.
> you really are quite the idiot you are infact violating several > sections of the Swiss copyright laws already..
> You obviously have no clue about copyright laws. The picture was > stolen from my computer when it was broken into therefore any server > that has a copy of that picture of me is infact in possession of > stolen property.
[brutal ASCII murder committed here]
So if your assertion is that Claus is in violation of Swiss copyright law, when will you be filing action against him in a Swiss court ?
You do know that there is nothing you can do from here in Canada, correct ?
Jamie wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:34:28 +0000 (UTC), Spamtastic Spastic > <n...@null.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:30:41 -0500, Jamie ate alphabet spaghetti and shat >> out:
>>> I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and >>> I do obect to it being used. >> And you can prove that?
>> I took that picture from a screen shot of you using a webcam online, so >> the copyright is mine and I object to you bitching about it.
>> -- >> political correctness: The safety net protecting deaf blind disabled >> ethnic minority gays & lesbians with odd religious beliefs from reality
> No you didn't the picture was taken by ME and I own the rights to that > picture.
> I don't hve to prove a damn thing to you either.
If you're going to try to enforce the rights you think you have, you need to prove that you own a copyright. Otherwise you'll look in court as foolish as you look here.
<vwilli...@example.com> wrote: >Jamie wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:34:28 +0000 (UTC), Spamtastic Spastic >> <n...@null.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:30:41 -0500, Jamie ate alphabet spaghetti and shat >>> out:
>>>> I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and >>>> I do obect to it being used. >>> And you can prove that?
>>> I took that picture from a screen shot of you using a webcam online, so >>> the copyright is mine and I object to you bitching about it.
>>> -- >>> political correctness: The safety net protecting deaf blind disabled >>> ethnic minority gays & lesbians with odd religious beliefs from reality
>> No you didn't the picture was taken by ME and I own the rights to that >> picture.
>> I don't hve to prove a damn thing to you either.
>If you're going to try to enforce the rights you think you have, you >need to prove that you own a copyright. Otherwise you'll look in court >as foolish as you look here.
No I won't my word under oath is more than enough. I know I took the picture and I am the owner of the picture.
Jamie wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:55:47 -0500, Victor Williams > <vwilli...@example.com> wrote:
>> Jamie wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:34:28 +0000 (UTC), Spamtastic Spastic >>> <n...@null.org> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:30:41 -0500, Jamie ate alphabet spaghetti and shat >>>> out:
>>>>> I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and >>>>> I do obect to it being used. >>>> And you can prove that?
>>>> I took that picture from a screen shot of you using a webcam online, so >>>> the copyright is mine and I object to you bitching about it.
>>>> -- >>>> political correctness: The safety net protecting deaf blind disabled >>>> ethnic minority gays & lesbians with odd religious beliefs from reality
>>> No you didn't the picture was taken by ME and I own the rights to that >>> picture.
>>> I don't hve to prove a damn thing to you either.
>> If you're going to try to enforce the rights you think you have, you >> need to prove that you own a copyright. Otherwise you'll look in court >> as foolish as you look here.
> No I won't my word under oath is more than enough. I know I took the > picture and I am the owner of the picture.
So file suit. Until you do, you're nothing but wind. You think a judge will accept your word alone as proof? Please let us know your court date, so we can come and laugh along with the judge.
1) This is not one of your customer's websites Claus, It's one both owned and operated by *you* 2) Why can't you and abuse-at-cablecom.ch ignore Jamie, just like every other abuse desk around the world does? 3) Why did you feel the need to post that URL of yours when Jamie was more or less gone? Are you not getting enough attention at home?
Jamie wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Spamtastic Spastic > <n...@null.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:53:07 +0000, Claus v. Wolfhausen ate alphabet >> spaghetti and shat out:
>>> After not getting any email from the Lamester(tm) for a very long time, >>> today was "the day" again.
>>> A new complaint came about one of our customers websites:
>>> http://www.0brain.org >> Looks OK to me. The copyright of the picture of JB's face will reside >> with whoever took the picture - do they object to the use of their work?
>> If the photographer raised the issue, that may be a different matter, but >> as far as JB is concerned - no case to answer. Perhaps a disclaimer about >> the content not being suitable for under 18's, but other than that - it's >> fair comment.
> I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and > I do obect to it being used. The picture was also stolen from my PC > when it was broken into so Claus is also in possession of stolen > property!
> There is definatley a case to answer and I will see that it is shut > down. Claus is a thief and a liar.
> Jamie
You transmitted that picture as part of a live stream while in a chat with fellow members of the club built on spam. There's no copy right to it, you've not registered it.
Victor Williams wrote: > Jamie wrote: >>>> I don't hve to prove a damn thing to you either.
>>> If you're going to try to enforce the rights you think you have, you >>> need to prove that you own a copyright. Otherwise you'll look in court >>> as foolish as you look here.
>> No I won't my word under oath is more than enough. I know I took the >> picture and I am the owner of the picture.
> So file suit. Until you do, you're nothing but wind. > You think a judge will accept your word alone as proof? Please let us > know your court date, so we can come and laugh along with the judge.
>> I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and >> I do obect to it being used. The picture was also stolen from my PC >> when it was broken into so Claus is also in possession of stolen >> property! There is definatley a case to answer and I will see that it is >> shut >> down. Claus is a thief and a liar.
> You transmitted that picture as part of a live stream while in a chat > with fellow members of the club built on spam. There's no copy right to > it, you've not registered it.
>>> I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and >>> I do obect to it being used. The picture was also stolen from my PC >>> when it was broken into so Claus is also in possession of stolen >>> property! There is definatley a case to answer and I will see that it >>> is shut >>> down. Claus is a thief and a liar.
>> You transmitted that picture as part of a live stream while in a >> chat with fellow members of the club built on spam. There's no copy >> right to it, you've not registered it.
> Isn't that the picture he denied was him?
DING!! For the first year or so he did as I remember. Then at some point either he actually LOOKED at it, realized his bluff was NOT working or just lost the train of thought. Which I'm sure most will agree is a very, very short train to have lost track of.
>>I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and >> I do obect to it being used. The picture was also stolen from my PC >>when it was broken into so Claus is also in possession of stolen >>property!
>>There is definatley a case to answer and I will see that it is shut >>down. Claus is a thief and a liar.
>You have TRIED that claim many times, and it's now clear >you're a liar, so no one believes you at all.
>Until you actually FILE A DMCA lawsuit, >anyone is free to host that picture.
No they are not free to host that picture I own the picture and NO one has permission to use that stolen picture of me!
<windsor.fox.use...@gmail.com> wrote: >Jamie wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Spamtastic Spastic >> <n...@null.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:53:07 +0000, Claus v. Wolfhausen ate alphabet >>> spaghetti and shat out:
>>>> After not getting any email from the Lamester(tm) for a very long time, >>>> today was "the day" again.
>>>> A new complaint came about one of our customers websites:
>>>> http://www.0brain.org >>> Looks OK to me. The copyright of the picture of JB's face will reside >>> with whoever took the picture - do they object to the use of their work?
>>> If the photographer raised the issue, that may be a different matter, but >>> as far as JB is concerned - no case to answer. Perhaps a disclaimer about >>> the content not being suitable for under 18's, but other than that - it's >>> fair comment.
>> I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and >> I do obect to it being used. The picture was also stolen from my PC >> when it was broken into so Claus is also in possession of stolen >> property!
>> There is definatley a case to answer and I will see that it is shut >> down. Claus is a thief and a liar.
>> Jamie
> You transmitted that picture as part of a live stream while in a chat >with fellow members of the club built on spam. There's no copy right to >it, you've not registered it.
No I didn't trasmit that picture as part of a live stream the picture was stolen from my PC when it was broken into. I OWN the picture I took the picture so fuck off and die you asshole.
>>>> I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and >>>> I do obect to it being used. The picture was also stolen from my PC >>>> when it was broken into so Claus is also in possession of stolen >>>> property! There is definatley a case to answer and I will see that it >>>> is shut >>>> down. Claus is a thief and a liar.
>>> You transmitted that picture as part of a live stream while in a chat >>> with fellow members of the club built on spam. There's no copy right to >>> it, you've not registered it.
>> Isn't that the picture he denied was him?
> DING!! For the first year or so he did as I remember. Then at some > point either he actually LOOKED at it, realized his bluff was NOT working > or just lost the train of thought. Which I'm sure most will agree is a > very, very short train to have lost track of.
ISTR that he suddenly realised that his denial of spamming for the club built on spam was not working. Hence Hacker X came into being.
Jamie wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:17:47 -0600, "WindsorFox<[SS]>" > <windsor.fox.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jamie wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Spamtastic Spastic >>> <n...@null.org> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:53:07 +0000, Claus v. Wolfhausen ate alphabet >>>> spaghetti and shat out:
>>>>> After not getting any email from the Lamester(tm) for a very long time, >>>>> today was "the day" again.
>>>>> A new complaint came about one of our customers websites:
>>>>> http://www.0brain.org >>>> Looks OK to me. The copyright of the picture of JB's face will reside >>>> with whoever took the picture - do they object to the use of their work?
>>>> If the photographer raised the issue, that may be a different matter, but >>>> as far as JB is concerned - no case to answer. Perhaps a disclaimer about >>>> the content not being suitable for under 18's, but other than that - it's >>>> fair comment.
>>> I took the picture using a webcam so I am the owner of the picture and >>> I do obect to it being used. The picture was also stolen from my PC >>> when it was broken into so Claus is also in possession of stolen >>> property!
>>> There is definatley a case to answer and I will see that it is shut >>> down. Claus is a thief and a liar.
>>> Jamie
>> You transmitted that picture as part of a live stream while in a chat >> with fellow members of the club built on spam. There's no copy right to >> it, you've not registered it.
> No I didn't trasmit that picture as part of a live stream the picture > was stolen from my PC when it was broken into. I OWN the picture > I took the picture so fuck off and die you asshole.
> Jamie
Jamie, I have to ask. What triggered your return to posting.
Your off topic potty mouth attacks of the people who have dived in just to bait you again is something we have not seen since, what many thought, was your enforced demise.
Have you laid any further complaints with Audrey Watts at Orcon. I have her bosses email address if you want it or I can even give you the email address of the CEO of Orcon's parent company Kordia. Do you know what Kordia does. I will tell you. Kordia is a state owned enterprise set up to maintain all the broadcast TV transmitters in NZ. Do you understand the relation with NZ amateur radio. We share many hill top sites with Kordia however there is a bit of an imbalance due to space limitations in repeater huts so we pay them about 10K a years.
I have been busy while you have been away. One can't just hope that you stay subdued for ever so I have a couple of other email addresses but I don't think you would dare email my Member of Parliament or the Minister of Technology but hey you have shit for brains just give me a yell if you want to court disaster and stalk and harass an MP.
I think it is time to have another go with Orcon and see if they tell you the truth this time. Are you sure she was not lying to you. Do you understand New Zealand privacy legislation and how the New Zealand privacy commissioners office works and the power they have to ensure New Zealand ISP's neither confirm or deny data held on clients is released to unauthorized people. You do realized that Audrey Watts is not allowed to tell you that I am a customer. The penalties for breaching privacy data are bad enough when data is released to someone in New Zealand however when privacy data is released offshore well thats a whole different kettle of fish and the penalties are much stiffer. But wait there is more Jamie. What do you think the penalties are for telling little white lies to an Internet stalker living in Canada who lays false, malicious complaints against someone who has laid formal complaints against that very same stalker.
Read the New Zealand privacy act Spamtard. I bet you find that Audrey committed no offense by telling you I had been tossed and you have no way of telling if she tells you, a dip shit Canadian citizen, yet another little white lye to protect a valued customer from a known net kook.
Certainly Geoff is not going to tell you anything and he lives in Canada and hates your guts you fat little slim ball. I bet he laughs his head off when he reads this post and I can't wait to read your complaints if your little pea brain has a brain explosion. Remember Geoff. Surely you remember harassing him and his customers.
Now you are faced with a much different situation and there is absolutely nothing stopping me baiting you, swearing at you or some of the other things I have lined up for you shit head.
If you didn't like your forced hiatus you are most certainly not going to like what I have in store for your fat arse next.
I am sure I told you I never play fair but ever the fool you are carrying on regardless on your spiral downward.
The next two months are going to be a hell of a lot of fun. If I time my run right Bubba will be giving you a real Christmas stuffing.
Gee wizz two early Christmas presents... We just squeezed $150K out of my pet spammer Shane Herbal King Atkinson and now my favorite stuffed dummy has returned for an early Christmas bash.
God I fucking feel like going to church to thank the lord. Spamtard has returned. Deck the halls with balls of folly.
-- Anony Mouse Court trollmeister. Order of merit of the great ICANN wars. Slayer of the great Dragon Atkinus. Conquest of 2003. Lord Van Essen of Pillpenus. Sayer to the senate inquisitions. Netsol. Decorated Legion of honor of the great spam wars. Chief tormentor of registrarus horribalus. Keeper of the faith. Brethran of the Lart. Holder of the key of the mighty Debian Linux gateway. Follower of the great Sassenach Warrior Stiff Linefeed. Operation Long Distance Whack A Spamtard 2009. ACME Automatic Super Duper Spamtard Whacker MKII. Expert translator of foul mouthed troll tongue. House of Nanae. Land of the long white cloud.
|
