| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"DGVREIMAN" |
| Date: |
13 Mar 2005 03:17:35 PM |
| Object: |
NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING
Recently, an individual using various different names, such as
TonyC/Salmaneous/GoofyRubin/etc . . . Has attempted to steal
identities of real American Veterans and other real people
(including mine) and then use those stolen identities to
cyberstalk individuals on this newsgroup. This Cyberstalker is
also using various real names he has stolen from various other
sources for other nefarious purposes. This Cyberstalker is also
regularly using defamation, libel, libel per se and malicious
libel, and threats that in context should be perceived as bodily
injury or death threats.
"CYBERSTALKING is the use of the net, email, open
forums etc . . . to try and harass, libel or discredit a person,
or single
that person out to be harassed via vitriolic and hate posts."
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm
Cyberstalking, in general, is a crime.
Identity theft, and all of its variations, such as using a poster's
real name to send or request solicitations or spam is a crime.
Any unauthorized use of another person's identity for any
nefarious or illegal purpose is also a crime.
Forging an email identity to fraudulently subscribe to various
web sites or information is also considered a form of identity
theft in most States.
Even *attempted, identity theft* is also a crime. Such as sending
out fake requests for personal information, sending fraudulent
solicitations for graft, theft, or to otherwise in any manner
attempt to secure personal information for the purpose of
perpetrating any kind of fraud, libel, libel per se, or
defamation. Such as trying to fraudulently discredit a person for
financial gain, directly or indirectly.
Knowingly sending a computer virus to other computers is also a
crime.
Libel and especially "Malicious libel" is a crime in many States.
Why Cyberstalkers Do It?
I do not propose to claim that I understand the criminal mind.
However, in the case of the Cyberstalker TonyC alias, he was
caught in outright lie after outright lie, and further was caught
red handed stealing and using other people's identities. Yet, he
ignored his lack of credibility due to his obvious flagrant lying
and libel, and he simply continued with his cyberstalking and
identity theft regardless of his exposure as a con man and
Cyberstalker. . Does he want to be caught? Does he want criminal
charges to be filed against him? Does he just want attention like
a pathetic neglected child? I cannot answer those questions, and
I will leave that to the police psychiatrists - who no doubt will
want to talk to this criminal once they arrest him.
This is my final warning to all Cyberstakers. If the
Cyberstalking continues from this day forward, I will prosecute
any such person to the full extent of the law. The last time a
gaggle of Cyberstalkers surfaced and was used against me, I was
forced to hire a lawyer and track each Cyberstalker down and
force him to publicly apologize. However, that was before the
criminal laws against Cyberstalking and identity theft were well
in place, and I have been since advised to start filing criminal
complaints against Cyberstalkers and identity thieves, and allow
the criminal courts to first deal with such persons. Then, if I
want to file a civil suit as well later, I can then do so after
the Cyberstalker has been prosecuted.
Newsgroups are supposed to be for the exchange of opinions and
ideas. Not for Cyberstalking individuals for whatever reason. The
days of the old "flame wars" are over. If you single out someone
for vitriol or libel, you can be prosecuted by that person if
your attacks are perceived to represent a pattern of
Cyberstalking.
As an example; TonyC never posts any type of substantive
information. He exists only to Cyberstalking people he targets.
His pattern of posting is obvious. He is not participating on
this newsgroup to exchange ideas, voice an opinion, nor counter
opinions with his own. He is here for a single and very obvious
purpose, and that is to Cyberstalk individuals. TonyC's posts
represent the classic pattern of a Cyberstalker, and no doubt
TonyC will change his alias dozens of times, and steal dozens of
identities to try and remain anonymous. Yet just like the last
time he attempted to Cyberstalk me years ago, he will be outed.
Only this time the consequences for his actions will not just be
a potential civil suit that will cost him money, he will be
facing criminal charges as well.
Federal laws potentially involved include but are not limited to:
47 U.S.C. §223 (anonymous obscene, indecent, lewd, lascivious,
filthy, or harassing communications through a telecommunications
device);
18 U.S.C. § 875©) (interstate telephone calls via modem and email
threatening injury);
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) (infected computers with a computer
virus);
18 U.S.C. § 1363 (mail fraud);
CYBERSTALKING:
.. "The definition of the term "telecommunications device" in that
section excludes "interactive computer services." The intent of
the exclusion is to insulate the service provider from liability,
but not to insulate an individual user from liability for his or
her criminal behavior. Accordingly, the Department of Justice has
taken the position and successfully argued that a modem was a
telecommunications device within the meaning of the statute.
Therefore, an individual who
used a modem to connect to the Internet and harass an individual
is likely to fall within the terms of the statute. See American
Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824, 829 n.5 (E.D.
Penn.1996), aff'd, 521 U.S. 844 (1997); Apollomedia Corporation
v. Reno, 19 F.Supp.2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, --- U.S. ---,
119 S.Ct.
1450 (U.S. Apr. 19, 1999)."
End Excerpts:
Doug Says: The above statutes and rulings should shed some light
on what I and several others associated with me have experienced.
As an example, child porno was sent by a Cyberstalker to Paul
Yannessa's computer that is regularly used by his four small
children. Mr. Yannessa also received a detailed death threat,
replete with specific dismemberment threats simply because Mr.
Yannessa supported me. (The true identity of this Cyberstalker is
still to be determined but will be determined if criminal charges
are filed).
In the recent past month I have received not less than 12
computer viruses and associates of mine, have received about the
same amount of attacks.
My identity has been fraudulently used to solicit subscriptions
and send email, and for other nefarious and criminal purposes.
Fake Veteran and other identities have been used to attempt to
defame and libel me.
Enforcing the Cyberstalking law
"Law enforcement agencies now know that cyberstalking is a very
real issue that needs to be dealt with, from local police
departments to state police, the FBI, and the U.S. Postal
Inspection Service, among others. Many are asking their officers
to learn how to use the Net and work with online victim groups
such as WHOA (Women Halting Online Abuse), SafetyEd, and
CyberAngels. Others are attending seminars on cyberstalking being
held throughout the country by companies such as Advanced
Professional Seminars. And many law enforcement agencies are
turning to companies such as Internet Crimes, Inc. for one-day
workshops in which officers can learn how to track down
cyberstalkers and how to handle victims.
"I've found there is a need and a desire on the part of law
enforcement to gain skills in the areas of combating online
crime," comments Henry Quinlan, founder of Advanced Professional
Seminars. "The future presents some interesting problems for law
enforcement, especially in the area of recruiting people with
computer skills."
Larson finds law enforcement is willing to learn, to grow, and to
do what they swore to do-protect and serve-whether offline or
online.
"Law enforcement has come a long way in the past several years in
recognizing the computer as an implement in criminal activity,"
he claims. "I'm seeing a sharp increase in the calls I receive
requesting training and assistance, especially in cyberstalking
cases. As a result, our 'Cybercrime: Stalking, Harassment, and
Violence on the Internet' workshop is currently our most popular
program, for both law enforcement agencies and campus police."
With almost 20 states with cyberstalking or related laws, a
federal cyberstalking law waiting for Senate approval, and
several other states with laws pending, cyberstalking is finally
getting noticed, not only by law enforcement, but by the media,
too. Maybe not the attention victims want, but the word is
finally getting out there. And the police are listening. "
End Excerpts:
Doug Says: If you consistently attack people on the internet,
post nothing substantive, but clearly post only to harass or
defame, you could be arrested for Cyberstalking. Many also
believe it is impossible to track down Cyberstalkers, but even if
the Cyberstalker is using a re-mailer, *criminal* charges will
force that re-mailer to reveal the source of payment from each
account or face criminal charges himself.
A couple of years ago I warned a gaggle of casino related
Cyberstalkers that I would track them down and force them to face
legal action for their libel. They laughed at my repeated
warnings and dared me to do it. I did it, and boy were they
surprised when my lawyer contacted them and offered them a choice
to prove their libel in a court of law or apologize publicly -
they ALL chose a public apology save one, and that one was sued
and forced to settle. My point is I *will* do as I say in respect
to Cyberstalkers, and I recommend everyone else to do the same.
In fact, if you feel you are being singled out for internet
harassment and Cyberstalking then contact me via Email. Many
Cyberstalkers have turned out to be the same sick individuals and
collective criminal complaints can have a greater efficiency in
respect to bringing these criminals to justice.
The days of trying to censor or discredit people that are simply
posting their opinions or the truth with the use of
Cyberstalking, libel, defamation and threats are over. The
Internet and Newsgroups have grown up, and the days of using
anonymous libel, defamation and threats have long gone. If you
post on any newsgroup today what you post can be used against you
in a criminal action. That does not mean you cannot disagree,
call someone names, or otherwise refute what someone says if you
disagree. That is called "debate" and even personal name calling
is not considered libel provided such does not represent a
pattern designed to harass and/or defame, so my lawyers tell me.
So argue, howl, and post your side of the argument, by all means,
but do not single anyone out for defamation, libel, threats or
identity theft or other forms of stalking. If you do, then expect
someone to eventually file criminal charges against you.
I should also mention my lawyers assure me that I can defend
myself against Cyberstalkers by openly pointing out the fact they
are using libel, defamation, Cyberstalking and lies against me.
Such defenses do not represent Cyberstalking in reverse. It is a
simple and truthful defense provided I *respond* to these
Cyberstalkers and I have not *initiated* a pattern of posts
obviously designed to exclusively libel or defame them. (If you
have any questions regarding your legal rights to defend against
Cyberstalkers, then contact your lawyer, or email me and you can
receive information my lawyers have already provided me in this
regard).
Like I said, times have changed on the Internet. I hope the
Cyberstalkers all get the message, but I bet, just like the last
time, they won't, and this time their legal problems will be much
more "expensive" than they can ever imagine. I am sad to say that
I expect only after these Cyberstalkers and Identity thieves are
prosecuted will they then "get the message" that Cyberstalking is
a crime.
We shall see.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
14 Mar 2005 09:21:32 AM |
|
|
While following the rigid Zionist line in favor of more bloodshed
by unsuspecting US troops in the Mid East you have tried to brand those
who disagree as fools, traitors, goons, and idiots. Now you try to
intimidate anyone who disagrees by threatening legal action. Sorry
Douggie. It won't work. Your reputation for lies, threats, boasts
and bluster has been well established. Your delusions of grandeur, your
silly copy rights, your pretentious claims to special knowledge and
your phony war stories have revealed you as a total fraud. Put up or
shut up with your threats. Sue AWAY ! My brother and my nephew (who
are both lawyers) invite you to do so at any time.
Have a nice day.
BMc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
14 Mar 2005 02:47:03 PM |
|
|
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110813692.182558.140480@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
While following the rigid Zionist line in favor of more
bloodshed
by unsuspecting US troops in the Mid East you have tried to
brand those
who disagree as fools, traitors, goons, and idiots. Now you
try to
intimidate anyone who disagrees by threatening legal action.
Sorry
Douggie. It won't work. Your reputation for lies, threats,
boasts
and bluster has been well established. Your delusions of
grandeur, your
silly copy rights, your pretentious claims to special knowledge
and
your phony war stories have revealed you as a total fraud. Put
up or
shut up with your threats. Sue AWAY ! My brother and my nephew
(who
are both lawyers) invite you to do so at any time.
Have a nice day.
BMc.
Doug Says: I have never lied, threatened, nor boasted. I have
never pretentiously claimed to have any special knowledge. You
are a liar. Post some examples if you disagree. Moreover, I
have never told a phony story in my life, war or otherwise.
Moreover, I will be more than glad to take you up on your
challenge to sue you for malicious libel. What is the name of
your lawyer, brother, nephew, whatever and how can my lawyers
contact them? You may email if you wish.
If you believe the Cyberstalking laws are fake, then you are in
for a very unpleasant surprise. So far, your posts do not
represent a pattern of Cyberstalking, but this post is nothing
more than pure libel and defamation, and for that I will be glad
to deal with you in a legal arena.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
15 Mar 2005 09:58:37 PM |
|
|
Lets see if I understand this correctly, Von Reiman. When you post
under
three or four false names, refer to others as fools, traitors, terrorist
posters, cowards, liars and worse, you think you have a good legal case
against those who reply in kind ? Fire away, Douggie. Maybe its time for you
to find out what a counter suit is all about. I'm told on good authority
they can last for years. . And what is this nonsense about me
telling you who my lawyers are ? You don't need to know that to file
a suit. The ball's in your court. Fire away.
Have a nice day.
Bill McCarty (without a need for a phony trade mark or copy
right)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
16 Mar 2005 04:00:09 PM |
|
|
"Bill McCarty" <bmcc@pa.net> wrote in message
news:N9OZd.206$Kf4.48488@newshog.newsread.com...
Lets see if I understand this correctly, Von Reiman. When
you post
under
three or four false names, refer to others as fools, traitors,
terrorist
posters, cowards, liars and worse, you think you have a good
legal case
against those who reply in kind ? Fire away, Douggie. Maybe its
time for you
to find out what a counter suit is all about. I'm told on good
authority
they can last for years. . And what is this nonsense about me
telling you who my lawyers are ? You don't need to know that
to file
a suit. The ball's in your court. Fire away.
Have a nice day.
Bill McCarty (without a need for a phony trade
mark or copy
right)
Doug Says: First, McCarty, you know I use a TM name "Doug
Grant," but I reveal my real name in every post. I do not
post under any false names. That "Statement of fact" is not
true, and represents libel. Second, calling someone names,
such as fools, traitors, terrorists, is a matter of opinion,
not a "Statement of Fact." That opinion is not libel. Libel
is when you claim I did something that I did not do, or didn't
do something that I did do. "I think Martha is a Moron and is
pro-terrorist" is not libel. " Martha supports terrorists" is
libel if it is not true in any sense. See the difference? You
claimed my Vietnam stories were false, that is a lie, they are
not false. You also claimed that I lied about my Vietnam
service, that "Statement of Fact" is also false and represents
libel. Third, you claimed your Brother and Nephew were both
lawyers, so I asked for their names so I could contact them
with the assumption they are going to represent you. Fourth, I
cannot serve you unless I know your real name and address, so
since you have invited me to sue you, please email me with
those details.
In truth McCarty, I do not believe you are a Cyberstalker. You
post your goofy opinions and anti-Jew diatribe often, yet you
have not dedicated your posts to simply attack or defame me like
some of the others have. So I was surprised when you answered my
Cyberstalking post with outright libel. You can call me all the
names you want, you can argue, howl, whatever, but as long as you
refrain from making a false "Statement of Fact" about me you do
not need to worry about any libel suits coming your way. (I will
ignore what you have said so far as just something that was
posted by someone dumb enough not to know the difference between
libel and name calling).
So if you want me to sue you, email me with the details I asked
for, and continue libeling me, but if you do not, then don't
libel me. I have never libeled you that I can remember, and if I
have and not remembered it, remind me with a quotation from my
post and I will apologize.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "vonroach" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
14 Mar 2005 06:36:26 PM |
|
|
On 14 Mar 2005 07:21:32 -0800, "Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com>
wrote:
While following the rigid Zionist line in favor of more bloodshed
by unsuspecting US troops in the Mid East you have tried to brand those
who disagree as fools, traitors, goons, and idiots. Now you try to
intimidate anyone who disagrees by threatening legal action. Sorry
Douggie. It won't work. Your reputation for lies, threats, boasts
and bluster has been well established. Your delusions of grandeur, your
silly copy rights, your pretentious claims to special knowledge and
your phony war stories have revealed you as a total fraud. Put up or
shut up with your threats. Sue AWAY ! My brother and my nephew (who
are both lawyers) invite you to do so at any time.
Have a nice day.
BMc.
McCarthy is his usual bucket of slop. He is a good example of decline
in news group participants.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sharky" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
13 Mar 2005 06:58:09 PM |
|
|
In <rPCdnYaPN-ZxMKnfRVn-3g@comcast.com>, DGVREIMAN wrote:
Recently<snip>
Seek help, you fucking loon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
14 Mar 2005 01:50:37 PM |
|
|
NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING
Recently, an individual using various different names, such as
TonyC/Salmaneous/GoofyRubin/etc . . . Has attempted to steal
identities of real American Veterans and other real people
(including mine) and then use those stolen identities to
cyberstalk individuals on this newsgroup. This Cyberstalker is
also using various real names he has stolen from various other
sources for other nefarious purposes. This Cyberstalker is also
regularly using defamation, libel, libel per se and malicious
libel, and threats that in context should be perceived as bodily
injury or death threats.
"CYBERSTALKING is the use of the net, email, open
forums etc . . . to try and harass, libel or discredit a person,
or single
that person out to be harassed via vitriolic and hate posts."
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm
Cyberstalking, in general, is a crime.
Identity theft, and all of its variations, such as using a poster's
real name to send or request solicitations or spam is a crime.
Any unauthorized use of another person's identity for any
nefarious or illegal purpose is also a crime.
Forging an email identity to fraudulently subscribe to various
web sites or information is also considered a form of identity
theft in most States.
Even *attempted, identity theft* is also a crime. Such as sending
out fake requests for personal information, sending fraudulent
solicitations for graft, theft, or to otherwise in any manner
attempt to secure personal information for the purpose of
perpetrating any kind of fraud, libel, libel per se, or
defamation. Such as trying to fraudulently discredit a person for
financial gain, directly or indirectly.
Knowingly sending a computer virus to other computers is also a
crime.
Libel and especially "Malicious libel" is a crime in many States.
Why Cyberstalkers Do It?
I do not propose to claim that I understand the criminal mind.
However, in the case of the Cyberstalker TonyC alias, he was
caught in outright lie after outright lie, and further was caught
red handed stealing and using other people's identities. Yet, he
ignored his lack of credibility due to his obvious flagrant lying
and libel, and he simply continued with his cyberstalking and
identity theft regardless of his exposure as a con man and
Cyberstalker. . Does he want to be caught? Does he want criminal
charges to be filed against him? Does he just want attention like
a pathetic neglected child? I cannot answer those questions, and
I will leave that to the police psychiatrists - who no doubt will
want to talk to this criminal once they arrest him.
This is my final warning to all Cyberstakers. If the
Cyberstalking continues from this day forward, I will prosecute
any such person to the full extent of the law. The last time a
gaggle of Cyberstalkers surfaced and was used against me, I was
forced to hire a lawyer and track each Cyberstalker down and
force him to publicly apologize. However, that was before the
criminal laws against Cyberstalking and identity theft were well
in place, and I have been since advised to start filing criminal
complaints against Cyberstalkers and identity thieves, and allow
the criminal courts to first deal with such persons. Then, if I
want to file a civil suit as well later, I can then do so after
the Cyberstalker has been prosecuted.
Newsgroups are supposed to be for the exchange of opinions and
ideas. Not for Cyberstalking individuals for whatever reason. The
days of the old "flame wars" are over. If you single out someone
for vitriol or libel, you can be prosecuted by that person if
your attacks are perceived to represent a pattern of
Cyberstalking.
As an example; TonyC never posts any type of substantive
information. He exists only to Cyberstalking people he targets.
His pattern of posting is obvious. He is not participating on
this newsgroup to exchange ideas, voice an opinion, nor counter
opinions with his own. He is here for a single and very obvious
purpose, and that is to Cyberstalk individuals. TonyC's posts
represent the classic pattern of a Cyberstalker, and no doubt
TonyC will change his alias dozens of times, and steal dozens of
identities to try and remain anonymous. Yet just like the last
time he attempted to Cyberstalk me years ago, he will be outed.
Only this time the consequences for his actions will not just be
a potential civil suit that will cost him money, he will be
facing criminal charges as well.
Federal laws potentially involved include but are not limited to:
47 U.S.C. §223 (anonymous obscene, indecent, lewd, lascivious,
filthy, or harassing communications through a telecommunications
device);
18 U.S.C. § 875©) (interstate telephone calls via modem and email
threatening injury);
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) (infected computers with a computer
virus);
18 U.S.C. § 1363 (mail fraud);
CYBERSTALKING:
.. "The definition of the term "telecommunications device" in that
section excludes "interactive computer services." The intent of
the exclusion is to insulate the service provider from liability,
but not to insulate an individual user from liability for his or
her criminal behavior. Accordingly, the Department of Justice has
taken the position and successfully argued that a modem was a
telecommunications device within the meaning of the statute.
Therefore, an individual who
used a modem to connect to the Internet and harass an individual
is likely to fall within the terms of the statute. See American
Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824, 829 n.5 (E.D.
Penn.1996), aff'd, 521 U.S. 844 (1997); Apollomedia Corporation
v. Reno, 19 F.Supp.2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, --- U.S. ---,
119 S.Ct.
1450 (U.S. Apr. 19, 1999)."
End Excerpts:
Doug Says: The above statutes and rulings should shed some light
on what I and several others associated with me have experienced.
As an example, child porno was sent by a Cyberstalker to Paul
Yannessa's computer that is regularly used by his four small
children. Mr. Yannessa also received a detailed death threat,
replete with specific dismemberment threats simply because Mr.
Yannessa supported me. (The true identity of this Cyberstalker is
still to be determined but will be determined if criminal charges
are filed).
In the recent past month I have received not less than 12
computer viruses and associates of mine, have received about the
same amount of attacks.
My identity has been fraudulently used to solicit subscriptions
and send email, and for other nefarious and criminal purposes.
Fake Veteran and other identities have been used to attempt to
defame and libel me.
Enforcing the Cyberstalking law
"Law enforcement agencies now know that cyberstalking is a very
real issue that needs to be dealt with, from local police
departments to state police, the FBI, and the U.S. Postal
Inspection Service, among others. Many are asking their officers
to learn how to use the Net and work with online victim groups
such as WHOA (Women Halting Online Abuse), SafetyEd, and
CyberAngels. Others are attending seminars on cyberstalking being
held throughout the country by companies such as Advanced
Professional Seminars. And many law enforcement agencies are
turning to companies such as Internet Crimes, Inc. for one-day
workshops in which officers can learn how to track down
cyberstalkers and how to handle victims.
"I've found there is a need and a desire on the part of law
enforcement to gain skills in the areas of combating online
crime," comments Henry Quinlan, founder of Advanced Professional
Seminars. "The future presents some interesting problems for law
enforcement, especially in the area of recruiting people with
computer skills."
Larson finds law enforcement is willing to learn, to grow, and to
do what they swore to do-protect and serve-whether offline or
online.
"Law enforcement has come a long way in the past several years in
recognizing the computer as an implement in criminal activity,"
he claims. "I'm seeing a sharp increase in the calls I receive
requesting training and assistance, especially in cyberstalking
cases. As a result, our 'Cybercrime: Stalking, Harassment, and
Violence on the Internet' workshop is currently our most popular
program, for both law enforcement agencies and campus police."
With almost 20 states with cyberstalking or related laws, a
federal cyberstalking law waiting for Senate approval, and
several other states with laws pending, cyberstalking is finally
getting noticed, not only by law enforcement, but by the media,
too. Maybe not the attention victims want, but the word is
finally getting out there. And the police are listening. "
End Excerpts:
Doug Says: If you consistently attack people on the internet,
post nothing substantive, but clearly post only to harass or
defame, you could be arrested for Cyberstalking. Many also
believe it is impossible to track down Cyberstalkers, but even if
the Cyberstalker is using a re-mailer, *criminal* charges will
force that re-mailer to reveal the source of payment from each
account or face criminal charges himself.
A couple of years ago I warned a gaggle of casino related
Cyberstalkers that I would track them down and force them to face
legal action for their libel. They laughed at my repeated
warnings and dared me to do it. I did it, and boy were they
surprised when my lawyer contacted them and offered them a choice
to prove their libel in a court of law or apologize publicly -
they ALL chose a public apology save one, and that one was sued
and forced to settle. My point is I *will* do as I say in respect
to Cyberstalkers, and I recommend everyone else to do the same.
In fact, if you feel you are being singled out for internet
harassment and Cyberstalking then contact me via Email. Many
Cyberstalkers have turned out to be the same sick individuals and
collective criminal complaints can have a greater efficiency in
respect to bringing these criminals to justice.
The days of trying to censor or discredit people that are simply
posting their opinions or the truth with the use of
Cyberstalking, libel, defamation and threats are over. The
Internet and Newsgroups have grown up, and the days of using
anonymous libel, defamation and threats have long gone. If you
post on any newsgroup today what you post can be used against you
in a criminal action. That does not mean you cannot disagree,
call someone names, or otherwise refute what someone says if you
disagree. That is called "debate" and even personal name calling
is not considered libel provided such does not represent a
pattern designed to harass and/or defame, so my lawyers tell me.
So argue, howl, and post your side of the argument, by all means,
but do not single anyone out for defamation, libel, threats or
identity theft or other forms of stalking. If you do, then expect
someone to eventually file criminal charges against you.
I should also mention my lawyers assure me that I can defend
myself against Cyberstalkers by openly pointing out the fact they
are using libel, defamation, Cyberstalking and lies against me.
Such defenses do not represent Cyberstalking in reverse. It is a
simple and truthful defense provided I *respond* to these
Cyberstalkers and I have not *initiated* a pattern of posts
obviously designed to exclusively libel or defame them. (If you
have any questions regarding your legal rights to defend against
Cyberstalkers, then contact your lawyer, or email me and you can
receive information my lawyers have already provided me in this
regard).
Like I said, times have changed on the Internet. I hope the
Cyberstalkers all get the message, but I bet, just like the last
time, they won't, and this time their legal problems will be much
more "expensive" than they can ever imagine. I am sad to say that
I expect only after these Cyberstalkers and Identity thieves are
prosecuted will they then "get the message" that Cyberstalking is
a crime.
We shall see.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Sharky" <shark@hellsgates.org> wrote in message
news:9co931lam4i7om9s8vnv7u2eupls2dmcrd@4ax.com...
In <rPCdnYaPN-ZxMKnfRVn-3g@comcast.com>, DGVREIMAN wrote:
Recently<snip>
Seek help, you fucking loon.
Doug Says: Obviously, I am not the one that needs help around
here. Read the above post and learn to live with facts for once.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SteveL" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
13 Mar 2005 04:14:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:17:35 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING
Recently, an individual using various different names, such as
TonyC/Salmaneous/GoofyRubin/etc . . . Has attempted to steal
identities of real American Veterans and other real people
(including mine) and then use those stolen identities to
cyberstalk individuals on this newsgroup.
Gee, and I missed it? Damn. I haven't seen one forged post of yours.
Please provide a sample post or a reference to a post where Tony C
"stole the identity" of any vet. What he DID do, since you claimed you
didn't read Alt.War.Vietnam, was to take posts by veterans who chose
to *only* respond to your posts AWV and miss off the rest of the
groups in your list, and repost them to groups which you do read and
say: Here's what a Vet in AWV says.
He did that several times.
This Cyberstalker is
also using various real names he has stolen from various other
sources for other nefarious purposes. This Cyberstalker is also
regularly using defamation, libel, libel per se and malicious
libel, and threats that in context should be perceived as bodily
injury or death threats.
Doug, answering your posts in a public forum is not "cyberstalking".
Around the time someone else was questioning your service, a fellow
named Chip C, you also claimed everyone posting in the threads was
cyberstalking you.
You'd even start new threads called "Paul Lies Again", or SteveL lies
for Chip!" and call us cyberstalkers when we responded to your posts
about us!!
Message-ID: <09hs8vo8mlt67f0pobnlggeloa0vchf1pf@4ax.com> and thread.
You do know how to search for message IDs don't you?
And now again your service is questioned and again come the
"Cyberstalkers"
"CYBERSTALKING is the use of the net, email, open
forums etc . . . to try and harass, libel or discredit a person,
or single
that person out to be harassed via vitriolic and hate posts."
That appears to be a quote. How about a cite for that? It isn't
mentioned in the URL you quote below.
I seriously doubt that arguing in a newsgroup - even extremely
persistent and insulting arguing - counts a "cyberstalking" if it
stays in the group (flames and flamewars are not Cyberstalking). If it
mutates into emails or personal contact, yes.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm
Cyberstalking, in general, is a crime.
Identity theft, and all of its variations, such as using a poster's
real name to send or request solicitations or spam is a crime.
Any unauthorized use of another person's identity for any
nefarious or illegal purpose is also a crime.
Forging an email identity to fraudulently subscribe to various
web sites or information is also considered a form of identity
theft in most States.
Even *attempted, identity theft* is also a crime. Such as sending
out fake requests for personal information, sending fraudulent
solicitations for graft, theft, or to otherwise in any manner
attempt to secure personal information for the purpose of
perpetrating any kind of fraud, libel, libel per se, or
defamation. Such as trying to fraudulently discredit a person for
financial gain, directly or indirectly.
Knowingly sending a computer virus to other computers is also a
crime.
Libel and especially "Malicious libel" is a crime in many States.
Why Cyberstalkers Do It?
I do not propose to claim that I understand the criminal mind.
However, in the case of the Cyberstalker TonyC alias, he was
caught in outright lie after outright lie, and further was caught
red handed stealing and using other people's identities.
All I ever saw was a set of accusations. I didn't see proof ever. You
didn't post any, at any rate. What's your evidence for claims that he
is pretending to be multiple people? Surely you took message headers?
No? Then Start,
Yet, he
ignored his lack of credibility due to his obvious flagrant lying
and libel, and he simply continued with his cyberstalking and
identity theft regardless of his exposure as a con man and
Cyberstalker. .
Accusations are not "exposure".
Does he want to be caught? Does he want criminal
charges to be filed against him? Does he just want attention like
a pathetic neglected child? I cannot answer those questions, and
I will leave that to the police psychiatrists - who no doubt will
want to talk to this criminal once they arrest him.
Has he contacted you at home?
This is my final warning to all Cyberstakers. If the
Cyberstalking continues from this day forward, I will prosecute
any such person to the full extent of the law. The last time a
gaggle of Cyberstalkers surfaced and was used against me, I was
forced to hire a lawyer and track each Cyberstalker down and
force him to publicly apologize.
Strange I never heard a thing from a lawyer, and you once accused me
and a "gaggle" of others of cyberstalking you, simply because I was
doing this: Answering your absurdly dishonest posts.
<snip>
I should also mention my lawyers assure me that I can defend
myself against Cyberstalkers by openly pointing out the fact they
are using libel, defamation,
And you're not? You called me a drug pusher repeatedly in a thread
about Marijuana. You never recanted. And your "proof" was that you
could see no other reason for my defending the drug against
accusations that it was "lethal".
And what's this "Cyberstalkers" in plural suddenly?? First it's just
Tony C stealing identities and pretending to be a bunch of people and
now there are more than one cyberstalker after you. Make up your mind.
Cyberstalking and lies against me.
Such defenses do not represent Cyberstalking in reverse. It is a
simple and truthful defense provided I *respond* to these
Cyberstalkers and I have not *initiated* a pattern of posts
obviously designed to exclusively libel or defame them. (If you
have any questions regarding your legal rights to defend against
Cyberstalkers, then contact your lawyer, or email me and you can
receive information my lawyers have already provided me in this
regard).
Like I said, times have changed on the Internet. I hope the
Cyberstalkers all get the message, but I bet, just like the last
time, they won't, and this time their legal problems will be much
more "expensive" than they can ever imagine. I am sad to say that
I expect only after these Cyberstalkers and Identity thieves are
prosecuted will they then "get the message" that Cyberstalking is
a crime.
We shall see.
Doug Grant (Tm)
You are one sick person.
See a shrink.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
14 Mar 2005 01:48:40 PM |
|
|
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nLadnaI8vsj8JqnfRVnyhw@giganews.com...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:17:35 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING
Recently, an individual using various different names, such as
TonyC/Salmaneous/GoofyRubin/etc . . . Has attempted to steal
identities of real American Veterans and other real people
(including mine) and then use those stolen identities to
cyberstalk individuals on this newsgroup.
Gee, and I missed it? Damn. I haven't seen one forged post of
yours.
Please provide a sample post or a reference to a post where
Tony C
"stole the identity" of any vet. What he DID do, since you
claimed you
didn't read Alt.War.Vietnam, was to take posts by veterans who
chose
to *only* respond to your posts AWV and miss off the rest of
the
groups in your list, and repost them to groups which you do
read and
say: Here's what a Vet in AWV says.
He did that several times.
Doug Says: The problem is the Vets did not say what he said they
did, and in one case, he used a Vet's name to forge a post that
died in 1997. He used mostly make believe Vets to post - and
they did not "choose" not to post on alt.news. They were
fabricated by TonyC aliases et al.
This Cyberstalker is
also using various real names he has stolen from various other
sources for other nefarious purposes. This Cyberstalker is also
regularly using defamation, libel, libel per se and malicious
libel, and threats that in context should be perceived as
bodily
injury or death threats.
Doug, answering your posts in a public forum is not
"cyberstalking".
SteveL - if your answers are exclusively meant to defame, libel,
libel per se and malicious libel, then they are not "answers" to
my posts, that pattern represents the classic pattern of
Cyberstalking. I have told you this before SteveL. In fact,
after I advised you to stop using Cyberstalking you started to
post some responsible arguments. I don't mind arguments,
regardless of how misguided or incorrect they might be, but
Cyberstalking is Cyberstalking - I provided the definition, it is
easy to understand the differences.
Around the time someone else was questioning your service, a
fellow
named Chip C, you also claimed everyone posting in the threads
was
cyberstalking you.
You'd even start new threads called "Paul Lies Again", or
SteveL lies
for Chip!" and call us cyberstalkers when we responded to your
posts
about us!!
Message-ID: <09hs8vo8mlt67f0pobnlggeloa0vchf1pf@4ax.com> and
thread.
You do know how to search for message IDs don't you?
Doug Says: SteveL, you know those posts were in *response* to
your Cyberstalking. Moreover, "everyone" turned out to be only
one alais - the pattern of Cyberstalking and choice of phrases
are precisely the same. If you do not Cyberstalk, then expect no
response from me to your Cyberstalking.
And now again your service is questioned and again come the
"Cyberstalkers"
Doug Says: My service questioned? Who questioned it? You?
HAHAHAHAHAHA. I offered to prove my Vietnam service to any Vet
that will do the same, or to any non-vet that will provide me
with his lawyer's name. I do not provide personal information to
every moron that asks for it on the net. So that issue was never
in question. What is in question is when someone libels me or
tries to defame me by claiming I lied when I said I served in
Vietnam, although it is clear the Cyberstalker has absolutely no
basis to make such claims, and refuses to review the evidence to
the contrary when I offer it! That is libel, and that is
Cyberstalking.
"CYBERSTALKING is the use of the net, email, open
forums etc . . . to try and harass, libel or discredit a
person,
or single
that person out to be harassed via vitriolic and hate posts."
That appears to be a quote. How about a cite for that? It isn't
mentioned in the URL you quote below.
I seriously doubt that arguing in a newsgroup - even extremely
persistent and insulting arguing - counts a "cyberstalking" if
it
stays in the group (flames and flamewars are not
Cyberstalking). If it
mutates into emails or personal contact, yes.
Doug Says: Then you disagree with all of the written statutes.
The statutes specifically *include* newsgroups. Flame wars that
use libel, malicious libel, defamation, which is being done
publicly is certainly more defaming and libelous than if it was
done via private email. You need to talk to a lawyer, I have.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm
Cyberstalking, in general, is a crime.
Identity theft, and all of its variations, such as using a
poster's
real name to send or request solicitations or spam is a crime.
Any unauthorized use of another person's identity for any
nefarious or illegal purpose is also a crime.
Forging an email identity to fraudulently subscribe to various
web sites or information is also considered a form of identity
theft in most States.
Even *attempted, identity theft* is also a crime. Such as
sending
out fake requests for personal information, sending fraudulent
solicitations for graft, theft, or to otherwise in any manner
attempt to secure personal information for the purpose of
perpetrating any kind of fraud, libel, libel per se, or
defamation. Such as trying to fraudulently discredit a person
for
financial gain, directly or indirectly.
Knowingly sending a computer virus to other computers is also a
crime.
Libel and especially "Malicious libel" is a crime in many
States.
Why Cyberstalkers Do It?
I do not propose to claim that I understand the criminal mind.
However, in the case of the Cyberstalker TonyC alias, he was
caught in outright lie after outright lie, and further was
caught
red handed stealing and using other people's identities.
All I ever saw was a set of accusations. I didn't see proof
ever. You
didn't post any, at any rate. What's your evidence for claims
that he
is pretending to be multiple people? Surely you took message
headers?
No? Then Start,
Yet, he
ignored his lack of credibility due to his obvious flagrant
lying
and libel, and he simply continued with his cyberstalking and
identity theft regardless of his exposure as a con man and
Cyberstalker. .
Accusations are not "exposure".
Does he want to be caught? Does he want criminal
charges to be filed against him? Does he just want attention
like
a pathetic neglected child? I cannot answer those questions,
and
I will leave that to the police psychiatrists - who no doubt
will
want to talk to this criminal once they arrest him.
Has he contacted you at home?
This is my final warning to all Cyberstakers. If the
Cyberstalking continues from this day forward, I will prosecute
any such person to the full extent of the law. The last time a
gaggle of Cyberstalkers surfaced and was used against me, I was
forced to hire a lawyer and track each Cyberstalker down and
force him to publicly apologize.
Strange I never heard a thing from a lawyer, and you once
accused me
and a "gaggle" of others of cyberstalking you, simply because I
was
doing this: Answering your absurdly dishonest posts.
<snip>
Doug Says: When I pointed out that you were Cyberstalking you
stopped under your present SteveL name. And so did the other
person as well. Those that did not stop definitely did hear from
my lawyer, and one even was sued. My warnings stand.
I should also mention my lawyers assure me that I can defend
myself against Cyberstalkers by openly pointing out the fact
they
are using libel, defamation,
And you're not? You called me a drug pusher repeatedly in a
thread
about Marijuana. You never recanted. And your "proof" was that
you
could see no other reason for my defending the drug against
accusations that it was "lethal".
Doug Says: First, I never called you a "drug pusher" unless you
were pushing drugs. If you were pushing drugs, then you are a
drug pusher. Please provide the post and the context please
Stevel, we both know you lie incessantly in your posts.
And what's this "Cyberstalkers" in plural suddenly?? First it's
just
Tony C stealing identities and pretending to be a bunch of
people and
now there are more than one cyberstalker after you. Make up
your mind.
Doug Says: I suspect only one person, but there may be more. If
the Cyberstalking continues, I will file charges and then of
course I will find out for sure if there is a conspiracy to
commit crimes as well as the crime itself.
Cyberstalking and lies against me.
Such defenses do not represent Cyberstalking in reverse. It is
a
simple and truthful defense provided I *respond* to these
Cyberstalkers and I have not *initiated* a pattern of posts
obviously designed to exclusively libel or defame them. (If you
have any questions regarding your legal rights to defend
against
Cyberstalkers, then contact your lawyer, or email me and you
can
receive information my lawyers have already provided me in this
regard).
Like I said, times have changed on the Internet. I hope the
Cyberstalkers all get the message, but I bet, just like the
last
time, they won't, and this time their legal problems will be
much
more "expensive" than they can ever imagine. I am sad to say
that
I expect only after these Cyberstalkers and Identity thieves
are
prosecuted will they then "get the message" that Cyberstalking
is
a crime.
We shall see.
Doug Grant (Tm)
You are one sick person.
See a shrink.
Doug Says: I suggest you see a lawyer. Your "opinions" on what
is Cyberstalking and what is not might get you in trouble. The
Flame War days that uses libel, and threats, and defamation are
over. Learn to live with it.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "SteveL" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
14 Mar 2005 03:15:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:48:40 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nLadnaI8vsj8JqnfRVnyhw@giganews.com...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:17:35 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING
Recently, an individual using various different names, such as
TonyC/Salmaneous/GoofyRubin/etc . . . Has attempted to steal
identities of real American Veterans and other real people
(including mine) and then use those stolen identities to
cyberstalk individuals on this newsgroup.
Gee, and I missed it? Damn. I haven't seen one forged post of
yours.
Please provide a sample post or a reference to a post where
Tony C
"stole the identity" of any vet. What he DID do, since you
claimed you
didn't read Alt.War.Vietnam, was to take posts by veterans who
chose
to *only* respond to your posts AWV and miss off the rest of
the
groups in your list, and repost them to groups which you do
read and
say: Here's what a Vet in AWV says.
He did that several times.
Doug Says: The problem is the Vets did not say what he said they
did, and in one case, he used a Vet's name to forge a post that
died in 1997. He used mostly make believe Vets to post - and
they did not "choose" not to post on alt.news.
I'm afraid they did. The posts are there in AWV versions of the
threads and not in the other groups. It is considered good practice to
not cross post. Others are more dilligent than you (or me).
Here's a post you complained about:
First is TonyC's post quoting Perry, next is your post saying, I
believe, that TonyC is pretending to be Perry, and finally Perry's own
post in AVW *only* that Tony Picked up.
Call it "Cyberstalking" if you wish. I and other sane people call it
proof.
If you doubt any of this, take each message ID and search for it in
Google. They will appear there just as they appear here. The Google
record cannot be faked. Certainly not by the likes of me, anyway.
A) Tony's post:
Note the Newsgroup list: Read the text of the quote.
********************************************************************************************************************
Path:
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!proxad.net!216.239.36.134.MISMATCH!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "TonyC" <tonyc@volcanomail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: FAKE VETERANS (WAS Re: PROOF OF VIETNAM SERVICE
Date: 5 Mar 2005 11:49:46 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <1110052186.149637.223020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References:
<38oqdfF5qdunaU1@individual.net><d07jqh$fub$0@pita.alt.net>
<Q_WdnS_St8fGKLXfRVn-vw@comcast.com>
<2ueh21pm2d4tr4rk3mbu4d4a2onfhfkd99@4ax.com>
<0Lydnex4euzidbXfRVn-gA@comcast.com>
<qo6i21t5297gjatn9p2nj3nre9ndm2vu67@4ax.com>
<1109992294.488858.198170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<EtadndtDu5uqSrTfRVn-rw@comcast.com>
<ngqj211g9csi02vtn2f8hj31n74d0uldov@4ax.com>
<1110044191.429544.268980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
<UYSdnTi4WolJabTfRVn-rg@comcast.com>
<ostj21t4kov2cat9nsn0m9m3b54bp0ppqv@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110052189 13889 127.0.0.1 (5 Mar 2005
19:49:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 19:49:49 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <ostj21t4kov2cat9nsn0m9m3b54bp0ppqv@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=152.163.100.5;
posting-account=6pSG-w0AAAAu5nDAZM7KqCXLgu7GVugt
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.news-media:173494
alt.war.vietnam:552012
Doug you might have missed this response from Perry.
Perry wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:05:22 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET>
wrote:
"TonyC" <tonyc@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1110044191.429544.268980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Doug, you might have missed Perry's response to your lunatic
ramblings.
TonyC/your aliases are showing again. You must have missed my
earlier reply to Perry Marlin - who's web site seems to only
contain a map of the last election. If these vets are real, they
will contact me, if they are your aliases they will not. Also, I
suggest you read "Sarges' post again, some strange stuff in
there. You are starting to make your same old tired mistakes
Tonybin, is it time for me call my New Jersey lawyer friends
again?
Here is my reply to your "Sarge"
Ok you are a veteran if you say so but your stories don't back it up.
This is my last reply to you.
**************************************************************
B) Your post complaining about Tony's Post: (not important but
included to show you bitched about this particular post)
***************************************************************
Path:
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!proxad.net!newshosting.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!207.115.63.142.MISMATCH!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 07:11:10 -0600
From: "DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET>
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.war.vietnam
References:
<38oqdfF5qdunaU1@individual.net><d07jqh$fub$0@pita.alt.net>
<Q_WdnS_St8fGKLXfRVn-vw@comcast.com>
<2ueh21pm2d4tr4rk3mbu4d4a2onfhfkd99@4ax.com>
<0Lydnex4euzidbXfRVn-gA@comcast.com>
<qo6i21t5297gjatn9p2nj3nre9ndm2vu67@4ax.com>
<1109992294.488858.198170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<EtadndtDu5uqSrTfRVn-rw@comcast.com>
<ngqj211g9csi02vtn2f8hj31n74d0uldov@4ax.com>
<1110044191.429544.268980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
<UYSdnTi4WolJabTfRVn-rg@comcast.com>
<ostj21t4kov2cat9nsn0m9m3b54bp0ppqv@4ax.com>
<1110052186.149637.223020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Subject: TONYC'S "VETERAN" DIED IN 1997 (WAS Re: FAKE VETERANS (WAS
Re: PROOF OF VIETNAM SERVICE
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 08:11:26 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Message-ID: <efmdnUs4NOPznLbfRVn-tw@comcast.com>
Lines: 55
X-Trace:
sv3-P3P1S0b2ukzjUh2szp7WVV9LteMff/jpkfxmeqFTg23RJy8ncKYRsV7yzj/5ufowMTrP4eD0uQHsoKV!4yvHgKTcnkXyO4l99lS+DlxWPDArOg8+aEoDdY8qFp3spDk1UO0G7NbDzECR2g==
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.news-media:173561
alt.war.vietnam:552142
"TonyC" <tonyc@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1110052186.149637.223020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Doug you might have missed this response from Perry.
Perry wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:05:22 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET>
wrote:
"TonyC" <tonyc@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1110044191.429544.268980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Doug, you might have missed Perry's response to your
lunatic
ramblings.
TonyC/your aliases are showing again. You must have missed
my
earlier reply to Perry Marlin - who's web site seems to only
contain a map of the last election. If these vets are real,
they
will contact me, if they are your aliases they will not.
Also, I
suggest you read "Sarges' post again, some strange stuff in
there. You are starting to make your same old tired mistakes
Tonybin, is it time for me call my New Jersey lawyer friends
again?
Here is my reply to your "Sarge"
Ok you are a veteran if you say so but your stories don't back
it up.
This is my last reply to you.
Doug Says: TonyC, what you really mean is that you are about to
change aliases again, and your "Fake Veteran" that you tried to
pan off as real died in 1997. Moreover, you would not know a
true Vietnam story from a bass fiddle tied to your childlike
mouth. You were never there goofy, and neither were your "fake"
Veteran's that you created. TonyC and his dozens of aliases has
been caught again faking real people. TonyC faked a real Veteran
and tried to use that fake veteran to libel me -TonyC is pathetic
and a con man, and he pathological lying takes him to depths that
even most con men will not travel. Note the con men are bent on
stopping me from posting, or are trying their best to discredit
me - that is impossible to do simply because I never post a lie.
Discrediting the truth is something these con men and their
pro-terrorist masters are finding very difficult to do.
Doug Grant (Tm)
C) And finally the actual post from Perry: Note the group list (just
AWV) just as I said. It's a shame honest people have to resort to the
hard work of gathering evidence, while the dishonest can just throw
around charges to all and sundry with no effort at all.
**********************************************************************************************************************
Path:
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Perry <perry@perrymarlin.com>
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: FAKE VETERANS (WAS Re: PROOF OF VIETNAM SERVICE
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:18:04 -0600
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <ostj21t4kov2cat9nsn0m9m3b54bp0ppqv@4ax.com>
References: <38oqdfF5qdunaU1@individual.net>
<d07jqh$fub$0@pita.alt.net> <Q_WdnS_St8fGKLXfRVn-vw@comcast.com>
<2ueh21pm2d4tr4rk3mbu4d4a2onfhfkd99@4ax.com>
<0Lydnex4euzidbXfRVn-gA@comcast.com>
<qo6i21t5297gjatn9p2nj3nre9ndm2vu67@4ax.com>
<1109992294.488858.198170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<EtadndtDu5uqSrTfRVn-rw@comcast.com>
<ngqj211g9csi02vtn2f8hj31n74d0uldov@4ax.com>
<1110044191.429544.268980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
<UYSdnTi4WolJabTfRVn-rg@comcast.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net
/YKzaEoNUQc20re1Foj46gvjFknUdPMZ+DUI8T/qnuKn6JIRfb
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.war.vietnam:551991
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:05:22 -0500, "DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET>
wrote:
"TonyC" <tonyc@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1110044191.429544.268980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Doug, you might have missed Perry's response to your lunatic
ramblings.
TonyC/your aliases are showing again. You must have missed my
earlier reply to Perry Marlin - who's web site seems to only
contain a map of the last election. If these vets are real, they
will contact me, if they are your aliases they will not. Also, I
suggest you read "Sarges' post again, some strange stuff in
there. You are starting to make your same old tired mistakes
Tonybin, is it time for me call my New Jersey lawyer friends
again?
Here is my reply to your "Sarge"
Ok you are a veteran if you say so but your stories don't back it up.
This is my last reply to you.
**********************************************************************************
****************************************************************
Now after that sad exercise in pedantry from me, back to your post:
They were
fabricated by TonyC aliases et al.
When did he do that? Serious question. Who was the Vet who died in
'97? Show your evidence that there were aliases involved. Use usenet
headers, not the force of your rhetoric.
This Cyberstalker is
also using various real names he has stolen from various other
sources for other nefarious purposes. This Cyberstalker is also
regularly using defamation, libel, libel per se and malicious
libel, and threats that in context should be perceived as
bodily
injury or death threats.
Doug, answering your posts in a public forum is not
"cyberstalking".
SteveL - if your answers are exclusively meant to defame, libel,
libel per se and malicious libel, then they are not "answers" to
my posts, that pattern represents the classic pattern of
Cyberstalking. I have told you this before SteveL. In fact,
after I advised you to stop using Cyberstalking you started to
post some responsible arguments.
I didn't change my manner of posting at all. Your stance and feeble
threats of transatlantic legal action had no impact at all. Your
charges of Cyberstalking were always laughable.
I don't mind arguments,
regardless of how misguided or incorrect they might be, but
Cyberstalking is Cyberstalking - I provided the definition, it is
easy to understand the differences.
Around the time someone else was questioning your service, a
fellow
named Chip C, you also claimed everyone posting in the threads
was
cyberstalking you.
You'd even start new threads called "Paul Lies Again", or
SteveL lies
for Chip!" and call us cyberstalkers when we responded to your
posts
about us!!
Message-ID: <09hs8vo8mlt67f0pobnlggeloa0vchf1pf@4ax.com> and
thread.
You do know how to search for message IDs don't you?
Doug Says: SteveL, you know those posts were in *response* to
your Cyberstalking.
They were accusations of cyberstalking. An important distinction.
Moreover, "everyone" turned out to be only
one alais - the pattern of Cyberstalking and choice of phrases
are precisely the same. If you do not Cyberstalk, then expect no
response from me to your Cyberstalking.
One alias, eh?. Yes you tried to say that then, as now, but you
provided not the merest shred of evidence at all.
And now again your service is questioned and again come the
"Cyberstalkers"
Doug Says: My service questioned? Who questioned it? You?
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Are you claiming to not remember now? I did not make any such
accusations. I was wondering why the big song and dance about 10k bets
when all you had to do was post your proof. Back then it was "secret",
now it's "call me if *you* are a vet". (BTW, did you get any calls?)
I offered to prove my Vietnam service to any Vet
that will do the same, or to any non-vet that will provide me
with his lawyer's name. I do not provide personal information to
every moron that asks for it on the net. So that issue was never
in question. What is in question is when someone libels me or
tries to defame me by claiming I lied when I said I served in
Vietnam, although it is clear the Cyberstalker has absolutely no
basis to make such claims, and refuses to review the evidence to
the contrary when I offer it! That is libel, and that is
Cyberstalking.
"CYBERSTALKING is the use of the net, email, open
forums etc . . . to try and harass, libel or discredit a
person,
or single
that person out to be harassed via vitriolic and hate posts."
That appears to be a quote. How about a cite for that? It isn't
mentioned in the URL you quote below.
I seriously doubt that arguing in a newsgroup - even extremely
persistent and insulting arguing - counts a "cyberstalking" if
it
stays in the group (flames and flamewars are not
Cyberstalking). If it
mutates into emails or personal contact, yes.
Doug Says: Then you disagree with all of the written statutes.
The statutes specifically *include* newsgroups. Flame wars that
use libel, malicious libel, defamation, which is being done
publicly is certainly more defaming and libelous than if it was
done via private email. You need to talk to a lawyer, I have.
But you have already said that you do not give personal information on
the internet. Nobody can defame an alias.
<snip>
Strange I never heard a thing from a lawyer, and you once
accused me
and a "gaggle" of others of cyberstalking you, simply because I
was
doing this: Answering your absurdly dishonest posts.
<snip>
Doug Says: When I pointed out that you were Cyberstalking you
stopped under your present SteveL name.
No I didn't! I have always used this name and just this name! Now
who's libelling?
And so did the other
person as well.
Chip C? He has a website. He's a real person. Paul Kneisel? Yes I
remember you did accuse he and I of being the same person, and even
claimed you had proof. We asked what that proof was since we had IP
addresses on different continents. Needless to say, we had to bet
money to see it.
Those that did not stop definitely did hear from
my lawyer, and one even was sued. My warnings stand.
But I thought we we're all the same person? Make up your mind. So who
did you sue. Which "handle" got the chop from your lawyer? Chip C? He
was the driving force. Did you sue him? I doubt it. Wasn't me. Paul?
Nah.
I don't believe you (again).
I should also mention my lawyers assure me that I can defend
myself against Cyberstalkers by openly pointing out the fact
they
are using libel, defamation,
And you're not? You called me a drug pusher repeatedly in a
thread
about Marijuana. You never recanted. And your "proof" was that
you
could see no other reason for my defending the drug against
accusations that it was "lethal".
Doug Says: First, I never called you a "drug pusher" unless you
were pushing drugs. If you were pushing drugs, then you are a
drug pusher.
What kind of logic is that? You a character from Catch 22?
Please provide the post and the context please
Stevel, we both know you lie incessantly in your posts.
No Doug. This time I'm going to take your line: "Do a Google Search".
I've done enough work tracking the posts above. I have provided this
information for you several times in the past and each time, after
making a big song and dance of asking for the post and context, you
simply ignored my efforts outright. I'm sure you'll find those posts
too.
And what's this "Cyberstalkers" in plural suddenly?? First it's
just
Tony C stealing identities and pretending to be a bunch of
people and
now there are more than one cyberstalker after you. Make up
your mind.
Doug Says: I suspect only one person, but there may be more. If
the Cyberstalking continues, I will file charges and then of
course I will find out for sure if there is a conspiracy to
commit crimes as well as the crime itself.
My you are paranoid.
Cyberstalking and lies against me.
Such defenses do not represent Cyberstalking in reverse. It is
a
simple and truthful defense provided I *respond* to these
Cyberstalkers and I have not *initiated* a pattern of posts
obviously designed to exclusively libel or defame them. (If you
have any questions regarding your legal rights to defend
against
Cyberstalkers, then contact your lawyer, or email me and you
can
receive information my lawyers have already provided me in this
regard).
Like I said, times have changed on the Internet. I hope the
Cyberstalkers all get the message, but I bet, just like the
last
time, they won't, and this time their legal problems will be
much
more "expensive" than they can ever imagine. I am sad to say
that
I expect only after these Cyberstalkers and Identity thieves
are
prosecuted will they then "get the message" that Cyberstalking
is
a crime.
We shall see.
Doug Grant (Tm)
You are one sick person.
See a shrink.
Doug Says: I suggest you see a lawyer. Your "opinions" on what
is Cyberstalking and what is not might get you in trouble. The
Flame War days that uses libel, and threats, and defamation are
over. Learn to live with it.
This is alt.politics. Not alt.doug.grants.private.forum
Go on SUE me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
14 Mar 2005 06:55:46 PM |
|
|
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:NaWdnSOh3pR-Y6jfRVnygg@giganews.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:48:40 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nLadnaI8vsj8JqnfRVnyhw@giganews.com...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:17:35 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING
Recently, an individual using various different names, such
as
TonyC/Salmaneous/GoofyRubin/etc . . . Has attempted to steal
identities of real American Veterans and other real people
(including mine) and then use those stolen identities to
cyberstalk individuals on this newsgroup.
Gee, and I missed it? Damn. I haven't seen one forged post of
yours.
Please provide a sample post or a reference to a post where
Tony C
"stole the identity" of any vet. What he DID do, since you
claimed you
didn't read Alt.War.Vietnam, was to take posts by veterans
who
chose
to *only* respond to your posts AWV and miss off the rest of
the
groups in your list, and repost them to groups which you do
read and
say: Here's what a Vet in AWV says.
He did that several times.
Doug Says: The problem is the Vets did not say what he said
they
did, and in one case, he used a Vet's name to forge a post that
died in 1997. He used mostly make believe Vets to post - and
they did not "choose" not to post on alt.news.
I'm afraid they did. The posts are there in AWV versions of the
threads and not in the other groups. It is considered good
practice to
not cross post. Others are more dilligent than you (or me).
Doug Says: Please SteveL, are you the one that was using the
TonyC alias? Moreover, the posts might be there but the Vets are
fake. One of those Vets even complained openly about someone
using his name in a Flame War. Funny how you keep missing the
proof that the TonyC alias was stealing identities and using them
for defamation.
Here's a post you complained about:
First is TonyC's post quoting Perry, next is your post saying,
I
believe, that TonyC is pretending to be Perry, and finally
Perry's own
post in AVW *only* that Tony Picked up.
Call it "Cyberstalking" if you wish. I and other sane people
call it
proof.
Doug Says: That is not "proof." The fact that someone used a
name to post on another newsgroup proves nothing. Moreover, if
you are talking about Perry Marlin, then you are very mistaken.
The fact that con men use real names of Vets only reinforces the
fact they are Cyberstalking. I asked any and all of the Vets the
TonyC alias used to contact me directly either via email or by
telephone. None have responded. I am still waiting. Why would
they be afraid to even Email me if they were real Vets?
If you doubt any of this, take each message ID and search for
it in
Google. They will appear there just as they appear here. The
Google
record cannot be faked. Certainly not by the likes of me,
anyway.
Doug Says: The fact these names were used to post anonymously on
another newsgroup, and then that post was transferred to this
newsgroup does not prove anything. The TonyC alias has been
caught lying outright on this newsgroup several times. His (and
your) credibility is zero or less. Your claim that because the
TonyC alias used a fake name to post on another newsgroup, then
transferred that fake name post to this newsgroup, and the
so-called Vet did not post on the right newsgroup that was
carrying the threads because TonyC did not want the details of
the post parsed, only reinforces the obvious fact that TonyC was
caught faking Veteran names, and in one case he clearly stole
another Vets identity. The fact that you are lying for the TonyC
alias is also what is very suspicious. Considering that his
posts and yours are very similar, and that you have been already
warned about your Cyberstalking before, and the TonyC alias
distorts and lies about what I said in the precise same manner as
you have in the past, I can only suspect that you and TonyC are
either one and the same, or are conspiring together to libel and
Cyberstalk me.
Moreover, repeating libel is libel. And now you are repeating
libel that was initially posted by what appears to be your alias
or co-conspirator. If you have some basis of fact, or if anyone
has some basis of fact to claim a "statement of fact" against me
that is defaming, then I invite them to post it here and now. If
you have no basis of fact to back up the libel you are posting,
regardless of whether you attribute that statement of fact to one
of your aliases, fake names, or someone else, you are the one
repeating it and you need some reason or basis of fact to do so -
if not that is called "malicious libel."
Just making up stories about me without any basis of fact to do
so, and claiming that I did something that I did not do also
without any basis of fact is malicious libel and clearly
represents defamation. As an example, I said that you are a
liar. That is my opinion yet I can prove that fact easily in a
court of law. I said that you distorted what I said in previous
posts and then tried to ridicule your own distortions, I can
prove that even more easily in a court of law. I have called you
names, that is my opinion. But I have never said that you lied
about your military service, or any service because I have no way
of knowing one way or another. A "statement of fact" about
someone that is not true is libel. A statement of fact about
something that is not true and has no basis at all to be
published is "malicious libel." An "insult" (a name) is an
opinion, not a "statement of fact." When you post "statements of
facts" about me that are not true nor have any basis to be true,
then you are asking for a libel suit or a criminal charge if it
is repeated to a degree it can be considered Cyberstalking.
Also, if you want me to sue you like you claimed, then please
contact me with a real name and address that will allow me to
serve you. You clearly do not understand the Cyberstalking
laws, and you also do not understand the Libel laws. I assure
you that you are not above these laws regardless of how many
aliases you might choose to use for the purpose of Cyberstalking.
We can call each other names all day long, that is no more than
an "opinion" and coming from a moron and obvious liar like
yourself such an "opinion" means nothing to me. But when you
publish a false "statement of fact" such as I am lying about
serving in Vietnam, or some other similar "statement of fact"
like "I make up War Stories" those statements of fact, if untrue,
represent malicious libel. The fact is that I did serve in
Vietnam and I am willing to prove that to anyone that contacts me
personally and proves their identity if they are also a Veteran,
and if they are not a Vet, they furnish me the name of their
lawyer. Yet you ignore that offer completely, then continue to
repeat your libel.
Obviously, you are exclusively interested in defaming and
libeling me with your posts, and even when you are offered
irrefutable proof that contradicts your libel you ignore the
proof and continue with your libel. I also stated that I am
willing to back up my Vietnam stories with the "Morning Reports"
of the unit in which those events occurred. Nothing could
provided a more accurate substantiation of the events I
described - yet once again, you "ignored" that offer of proof and
continued with your libel and defamation. You clearly want to
libel me regardless of the evidence that contradicts your libel,
and that fact indicates to me that you have also been using
aliases as well to further your Cyberstalking and defamation.
Moreover, you have invited me to sue you. I will be glad to do
so - but first I need a verifiable name and address to serve, and
if you do not wish to provide that information, (a lawyer's name
will do) then you have just been caught in yet another lie and
distortion.
The time has come to prove our positions in a legal arena. I am
willing to do so, how about you?
Also, if anyone wants to review the various laws on Cyberstalking
that are presently on the books in various states, then email me
and give me the name of the State.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "SteveL" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
14 Mar 2005 07:49:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:55:46 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:NaWdnSOh3pR-Y6jfRVnygg@giganews.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:48:40 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nLadnaI8vsj8JqnfRVnyhw@giganews.com...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:17:35 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING
Recently, an individual using various different names, such
as
TonyC/Salmaneous/GoofyRubin/etc . . . Has attempted to steal
identities of real American Veterans and other real people
(including mine) and then use those stolen identities to
cyberstalk individuals on this newsgroup.
Gee, and I missed it? Damn. I haven't seen one forged post of
yours.
Please provide a sample post or a reference to a post where
Tony C
"stole the identity" of any vet. What he DID do, since you
claimed you
didn't read Alt.War.Vietnam, was to take posts by veterans
who
chose
to *only* respond to your posts AWV and miss off the rest of
the
groups in your list, and repost them to groups which you do
read and
say: Here's what a Vet in AWV says.
He did that several times.
Doug Says: The problem is the Vets did not say what he said
they
did, and in one case, he used a Vet's name to forge a post that
died in 1997. He used mostly make believe Vets to post - and
they did not "choose" not to post on alt.news.
I'm afraid they did. The posts are there in AWV versions of the
threads and not in the other groups. It is considered good
practice to
not cross post. Others are more dilligent than you (or me).
Doug Says: Please SteveL, are you the one that was using the
TonyC alias?
You mean you can't tell one way or the other? How is it you can be so
certain about TonyC and his many aliases if you have to ask that
question? The answer is no I am not Tony C.
Moreover, the posts might be there but the Vets are
fake.
I'm sure Perry, with a posting history going back to the earliest
headers in AWV would be interested in knowing he's only a beard for
Tony C. (Hint. The headers are the same for all Perry posts, Doug.)
And, you need to check such things before you fly off the handle with
half cocked and demonstrably *false* accusations of aliases and forged
posts.
The post from "Perry" that Tony C quoted was a "real" post, not made
up by TonyC pretending to be Perry. Whether or not Perry is real is a
moot point. If he isn't then the author could be ANYBODY (within
reason, posting address, and Path not withstanding), and the fact that
TonyC quoted it so you'd see it is no basis for claiming it was a
forged post!. Therefore your accusation against Tony C was *baseless*.
One of those Vets even complained openly about someone
using his name in a Flame War. Funny how you keep missing the
proof that the TonyC alias was stealing identities and using them
for defamation.
Here's a post you complained about:
First is TonyC's post quoting Perry, next is your post saying,
I
believe, that TonyC is pretending to be Perry, and finally
Perry's own
post in AVW *only* that Tony Picked up.
Call it "Cyberstalking" if you wish. I and other sane people
call it
proof.
Doug Says: That is not "proof." The fact that someone used a
name to post on another newsgroup proves nothing.
"Someone", exactly. It was a real post. You have no proof it was
TonyC.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
14 Mar 2005 08:44:30 PM |
|
|
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ssWdnXv_9tOHoqvfRVnyvg@giganews.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:55:46 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:NaWdnSOh3pR-Y6jfRVnygg@giganews.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:48:40 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in
message
news:nLadnaI8vsj8JqnfRVnyhw@giganews.com...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:17:35 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING
Recently, an individual using various different names, such
as
TonyC/Salmaneous/GoofyRubin/etc . . . Has attempted to
steal
identities of real American Veterans and other real people
(including mine) and then use those stolen identities to
cyberstalk individuals on this newsgroup.
Gee, and I missed it? Damn. I haven't seen one forged post
of
yours.
Please provide a sample post or a reference to a post where
Tony C
"stole the identity" of any vet. What he DID do, since you
claimed you
didn't read Alt.War.Vietnam, was to take posts by veterans
who
chose
to *only* respond to your posts AWV and miss off the rest
of
the
groups in your list, and repost them to groups which you do
read and
say: Here's what a Vet in AWV says.
He did that several times.
Doug Says: The problem is the Vets did not say what he said
they
did, and in one case, he used a Vet's name to forge a post
that
died in 1997. He used mostly make believe Vets to post - and
they did not "choose" not to post on alt.news.
I'm afraid they did. The posts are there in AWV versions of
the
threads and not in the other groups. It is considered good
practice to
not cross post. Others are more dilligent than you (or me).
Doug Says: Please SteveL, are you the one that was using the
TonyC alias?
You mean you can't tell one way or the other? How is it you can
be so
certain about TonyC and his many aliases if you have to ask
that
question? The answer is no I am not Tony C.
Doug Says: I know who else is using the TonyC, but I have not
sent your information to the Private Detectives yet to run down.
Moreover, the posts might be there but the Vets are
fake.
I'm sure Perry, with a posting history going back to the
earliest
headers in AWV would be interested in knowing he's only a beard
for
Tony C. (Hint. The headers are the same for all Perry posts,
Doug.)
And, you need to check such things before you fly off the
handle with
half cocked and demonstrably *false* accusations of aliases and
forged
posts.
The post from "Perry" that Tony C quoted was a "real" post, not
made
up by TonyC pretending to be Perry. Whether or not Perry is
real is a
moot point. If he isn't then the author could be ANYBODY
(within
reason, posting address, and Path not withstanding), and the
fact that
TonyC quoted it so you'd see it is no basis for claiming it was
a
forged post!. Therefore your accusation against Tony C was
*baseless*.
Doug Says: *****, TonyC could have used another alias to post
under that stolen identity. And that appears exactly what he did
do. My basis is that Perry Marlin died in 1997.
One of those Vets even complained openly about someone
using his name in a Flame War. Funny how you keep missing the
proof that the TonyC alias was stealing identities and using
them
for defamation.
Here's a post you complained about:
First is TonyC's post quoting Perry, next is your post
saying,
I
believe, that TonyC is pretending to be Perry, and finally
Perry's own
post in AVW *only* that Tony Picked up.
Call it "Cyberstalking" if you wish. I and other sane people
call it
proof.
Doug Says: That is not "proof." The fact that someone used a
name to post on another newsgroup proves nothing.
"Someone", exactly. It was a real post. You have no proof it
was
TonyC.
Doug Says: TonyC and you were was the one that repeated the
libel, and TonyC was the one that went to that newsgroup and
received a self-serving post. I can prove easily that TonyC
posted the libel, and I can also prove the only poster that
gained from the fraud was TonyC and of course, you. The posts
were from a fake Veteran, and the person that constantly
referenced the name of that fake Veteran was none other than the
TonyC alias. But the headers will be traced, I assure you if
TonyC surfaces again. Identity theft is a crime.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "SteveL" |
|
| Title: Re: NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING |
15 Mar 2005 01:07:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:44:30 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ssWdnXv_9tOHoqvfRVnyvg@giganews.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:55:46 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:NaWdnSOh3pR-Y6jfRVnygg@giganews.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:48:40 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in
message
news:nLadnaI8vsj8JqnfRVnyhw@giganews.com...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:17:35 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
NEWSGROUP CYBERSTALKING
Recently, an individual using various different names, such
as
TonyC/Salmaneous/GoofyRubin/etc . . . Has attempted to
steal
identities of real American Veterans and other real people
(including mine) and then use those stolen identities to
cyberstalk individuals on this newsgroup.
Gee, and I missed it? Damn. I haven't seen one forged post
of
yours.
Please provide a sample post or a reference to a post where
Tony C
"stole the identity" of any vet. What he DID do, since you
claimed you
didn't read Alt.War.Vietnam, was to take posts by veterans
who
chose
to *only* respond to your posts AWV and miss off the rest
of
the
groups in your list, and repost them to groups which you do
read and
say: Here's what a Vet in AWV says.
He did that several times.
Doug Says: The problem is the Vets did not say what he said
they
did, and in one case, he used a Vet's name to forge a post
that
died in 1997. He used mostly make believe Vets to post - and
they did not "choose" not to post on alt.news.
I'm afraid they did. The posts are there in AWV versions of
the
threads and not in the other groups. It is considered good
practice to
not cross post. Others are more dilligent than you (or me).
Doug Says: Please SteveL, are you the one that was using the
TonyC alias?
You mean you can't tell one way or the other? How is it you can
be so
certain about TonyC and his many aliases if you have to ask
that
question? The answer is no I am not Tony C.
Doug Says: I know who else is using the TonyC, but I have not
sent your information to the Private Detectives yet to run down.
Moreover, the posts might be there but the Vets are
fake.
I'm sure Perry, with a posting history going back to the
earliest
headers in AWV would be interested in knowing he's only a beard
for
Tony C. (Hint. The headers are the same for all Perry posts,
Doug.)
And, you need to check such things before you fly off the
handle with
half cocked and demonstrably *false* accusations of aliases and
forged
posts.
The post from "Perry" that Tony C quoted was a "real" post, not
made
up by TonyC pretending to be Perry. Whether or not Perry is
real is a
moot point. If he isn't then the author could be ANYBODY
(within
reason, posting address, and Path not withstanding), and the
fact that
TonyC quoted it so you'd see it is no basis for claiming it was
a
forged post!. Therefore your accusation against Tony C was
*baseless*.
Doug Says: *****, TonyC could have used another alias to post
under that stolen identity. And that appear | | | | | | | |
