Win 7 Security 2012

Discussion in 'Spyware' started by Ron, Jun 16, 2011.

  1. Damn, those are absolutely beyond nasty. Those posts of his are
    *award-winning* Slime posts. Hell, I thought he was bad in this group.
    The man deserves to have his computers ripped from his cold, dead
    fingers.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 20, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. NOTHING Randy does needs DHS or LE envolvement - you are sick. A very sick pup!
     
    David H. Lipman, Jun 20, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Prior to 2010, what lame rationalization did you use to
    explain away, to yourself, this obsession of yours?
     
    FromTheRafters, Jun 20, 2011
    #23
  4. Ron

    Aardvark Guest

    Just that anyone who refuses to answer his impertinent questions must be
    a criminal or a 'terrorist'.

    Or both.
     
    Aardvark, Jun 20, 2011
    #24
  5. Unfortunately, that appears to be a very true statement :-(
     
    David H. Lipman, Jun 20, 2011
    #25
  6. My point being that he just now used that DHS document as a
    reason (read 'excuse') for him asking such questions (i.e., they
    *are* his business) - and yet the lack of this would not have
    stopped him in years previous.

    What was his excuse *then* - back when PF purportedly had a
    visit from them.

    Shame on Janet for being such an enabler. :eek:D
     
    FromTheRafters, Jun 20, 2011
    #26
  7. Ron

    Dustin Guest

    Do your local authorities know you're stalking people online David?
     
    Dustin, Jun 20, 2011
    #27
  8. Ron

    Aardvark Guest

    "In the United Kingdom, the Malicious Communications Act (1998)
    classified cyberstalking as a criminal offense".

    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking>

    Looks to me like BD could at least be charged under the Protection from
    Harassment Act (1997). Quite a few people on usenet and other places
    would be well within their rights to report him under the act.

    Quite a few of his posts could be deemed 'offensive' under the MCA
    (1998), and therefore actionable by the authorities. Even under the PFA
    (1997), BD, if convicted, could have a restraining order placed upon him
    to prevent him contacting his targets again, under pain of a nice long
    stay in HMP.

    "Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998 it is an
    offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic
    communication or other article to another person and sections 85 Postal
    Services Act 2000 or s127 Communications Act 2003 there are similar
    specific offences relating to sending postal or telephone messages which
    are indecent offensive or threatening. Both offences are punishable with
    up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine. Because the Malicious
    Communications Offence is more wide ranging than the Telecommunications
    offence it is more likely to be charged by the Police than the Postal
    Services or Communications Act offences.

    In most cases involving malicious communications however there will be
    more than one offensive or threatening letter or telephone call and
    therefore the police will often choose to charge the offender with an
    offence contrary to section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
    Part of the reason for using this charge is that when someone is
    convicted of an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act the
    court can make a Restraining Order preventing them from contacting their
    victim again. Breach of a Restraining Order is punishable with up to Five
    years imprisonment. A Restraining Order cannot be imposed for a
    conviction under the Postal Services or Communications Act offences".

    <http://www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/comm.htm>

    FYI
    HTH
     
    Aardvark, Jun 21, 2011
    #28
  9. Ron

    ~BD~ Guest

    You are *WRONG* - *again*!

    How does that feel?
     
    ~BD~, Jun 22, 2011
    #29
  10. Ron

    ~BD~ Guest

    *WRONG* - *again*!

    None of the questions I ask are 'impertinent' - that is subjective.

    Normal, everyday 'ordinary' folk respond just as one might expect.

    Those who chose to react in some other manner will obviously fall under
    suspicion of the authorities and those of us who care about others.

    You are a master of spin Aardvark - I have never accused anyone of being
    a terrorist. The only criminal I have knowingly encountered is Dustin
    (he's admitted same) though I'd not be at all surprised to learn that
    /you/ had fallen foul of the law during your lifetime. I know FTR has! ;-)

    D.
     
    ~BD~, Jun 22, 2011
    #30
  11. Ron

    Aardvark Guest

    Well, you'll never fucking know, will you?
     
    Aardvark, Jun 22, 2011
    #31
  12. Ron

    Dustin Guest

    Excuse me? You sure do like making slimy comments about people. Inferring
    they might be much more dangerous to society than they really are.
     
    Dustin, Jun 22, 2011
    #32
  13. Ron

    Aardvark Guest

    All he's saying is that he avoids being up front and forthright at all
    costs.

    No surprise there.
     
    Aardvark, Jun 22, 2011
    #33
  14. Ron

    SeaNymph Guest

    One can only wonder why BD is so intent on labeling others as criminals, but
    ignores his own criminal behavior.
     
    SeaNymph, Jun 23, 2011
    #34
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.