Where are you now Justin???

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:56:33 GMT, "Roger" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ha ha ha ha,
>Where are you now Justin???

Maybe consulting with lawyers if he has actually been harrassed?

Maybe signing up for an account at one of the many News Servers
that allow totally anonymous posting?

Such efforts as we saw yesterday are usually very counter productive.

---

› See More: Where are you now Justin???

"Renaldo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:56:33 GMT, "Roger" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Ha ha ha ha,
> >Where are you now Justin???
>
> Maybe consulting with lawyers if he has actually been harrassed?
>

Unless what was posted is false, it is not at all likely that a lawyer can
do anything for Justin. It certainly is not harrassment as it is a public
forum. It is not deffamation or slander if it is true. It looks as though
Justin would have no case.

Tom Veldhouse

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:39:00 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Unless what was posted is false, it is not at all likely that a lawyer can
>do anything for Justin. It certainly is not harrassment as it is a public
>forum.

To tell folks to harrass his boss by telephone? Depends on the state
but in many that is exactly what qualifies as harrassment.

"Renaldo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:39:00 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Unless what was posted is false, it is not at all likely that a lawyer
can
> >do anything for Justin. It certainly is not harrassment as it is a
public
> >forum.
>
> To tell folks to harrass his boss by telephone? Depends on the state
> but in many that is exactly what qualifies as harrassment.

The people that call his boss would be doing the harrassing, not the guy who
told them that they could or should do it. Now, if he formed and led an
"organization" to harrass him, then he would be guilty even if he didn't
call himself, but suggesting such a thing in a newsgroup certainly doesn't
qualify.

Good luck Renaldo of Italy who seems to love Sprint PCS ... which should
matter little to a student of Italy

Tom Veldhouse

Actually if Justin can prove the identity of the poster, and can
demonstrate harm ( I think the technical term is "Tort"). Then he
actually may have a case. This might be treated as a negligence tort as
"whoever" posted this information did so expressly condoning the actions
of others to commit "harrassment". I could make a case that this would
similar to someone inciting a person to yell "fire" in a crowded
theater.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "Renaldo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:39:00 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Unless what was posted is false, it is not at all likely that a lawyer
> can
> > >do anything for Justin. It certainly is not harrassment as it is a
> public
> > >forum.
> >
> > To tell folks to harrass his boss by telephone? Depends on the state
> > but in many that is exactly what qualifies as harrassment.
>
> The people that call his boss would be doing the harrassing, not the guy who
> told them that they could or should do it. Now, if he formed and led an
> "organization" to harrass him, then he would be guilty even if he didn't
> call himself, but suggesting such a thing in a newsgroup certainly doesn't
> qualify.
>
> Good luck Renaldo of Italy who seems to love Sprint PCS ... which should
> matter little to a student of Italy
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"ben dejo" <direcció[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually if Justin can prove the identity of the poster, and can
> demonstrate harm ( I think the technical term is "Tort"). Then he
> actually may have a case. This might be treated as a negligence tort as
> "whoever" posted this information did so expressly condoning the actions
> of others to commit "harrassment". I could make a case that this would
> similar to someone inciting a person to yell "fire" in a crowded
> theater.

Telling somebody to go jump off of a bridge would not make you responsible
if they do so. The same goes for the obvious harrassment. Making the
information availble is not illegal ... using it in a harrassing manner is.
Now, if you could show consipiracy, then the poster might be prosecuted
without having actually done the harrassing. I am not sure there are too
many cases where conspiracy to harrass would come into play, and certainly
here it does not (who is he working explicity with to harrass Justin?).

There is simply no way that this guy can be successfully prosecuted [with
any half-way compentent defense] and only a foolish lawyer (of which there
are plenty I am sure) would take it on prosecution.

So, having said that ... JUSTIN, GO JUMP OFF OF A BRIDGE! If Justin quits
posting, don't blame me

Tom Veldhouse

Inciting people to jump off a bridge would entail this. It works like
this, you post a persons information whom is not too popular right now
(I'll use Richard Nixon, he's dead so who is it going to hurt, but it
could be anyone who is alive) and you convince enough gullible, pissed
off, and possibly chemically impaired hippies that jumping off a bridge
in protest to the Viet Nam war was going to stop Mr. Nixon from
continuing to bomb Cambodia, and if they actually jump...now you can be
held liable in their deaths...because you said they should.

Is this case iron clad, no. But it's not what you or I say, it's 12
unemployed people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "ben dejo" <direcció[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Actually if Justin can prove the identity of the poster, and can
> > demonstrate harm ( I think the technical term is "Tort"). Then he
> > actually may have a case. This might be treated as a negligence tort as
> > "whoever" posted this information did so expressly condoning the actions
> > of others to commit "harrassment". I could make a case that this would
> > similar to someone inciting a person to yell "fire" in a crowded
> > theater.
>
> Telling somebody to go jump off of a bridge would not make you responsible
> if they do so. The same goes for the obvious harrassment. Making the
> information availble is not illegal ... using it in a harrassing manner is.
> Now, if you could show consipiracy, then the poster might be prosecuted
> without having actually done the harrassing. I am not sure there are too
> many cases where conspiracy to harrass would come into play, and certainly
> here it does not (who is he working explicity with to harrass Justin?).
>
> There is simply no way that this guy can be successfully prosecuted [with
> any half-way compentent defense] and only a foolish lawyer (of which there
> are plenty I am sure) would take it on prosecution.
>
> So, having said that ... JUSTIN, GO JUMP OFF OF A BRIDGE! If Justin quits
> posting, don't blame me
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:03:48 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Making the
>information availble is not illegal ... using it in a harrassing manner is.

Yes but the poster (In another post Identified) did more than just
post phone numbers. They also said: "I suggest everyone in the
newsgroup call him up". I think most groups of 12 folks would call
that incitement.

It seems a double standard to object to Justins' posts, and then
defend the "Anonymous" post as free speech.

If you want to allow the "Anonymous" post under the free speech,
anything goes on USENET theory, then all of Justins posts are fine and
dandy.

If you want these cellular newgroups a tad closer to what might be
found in a moderated news group then you ought to be somewhat more
Fair and Balanced in what you object to.

"Renaldo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It seems a double standard to object to Justins' posts, and then
> defend the "Anonymous" post as free speech.
>

Did I defend the post as free speech? No. I simply said posting true
information was not illegal. I made no statement of whether it was right or
wrong.

> If you want to allow the "Anonymous" post under the free speech,
> anything goes on USENET theory, then all of Justins posts are fine and
> dandy.
>

Now that is a leap of logic that just doesn't fly. BTW .. I didn't "allow"
(like I had a say about it) the post under "free speech". The discussion
wasn't about whether the post is appropriate here, but whether it was a
crime and the poster could be prosecuted. Did I miss something or are you
trying to change the subject?

> If you want these cellular newgroups a tad closer to what might be
> found in a moderated news group then you ought to be somewhat more
> Fair and Balanced in what you object to.
>

I can object to anything I want ... I have no need to be "fair and
balanced". My assimulation to the "fair and balanced" mindset has nothing
at all to do with what is proper behavior in a Usenet forum.

So why do you, Phillipe, Justin and friends post here? Do you want to hear
somebody say something you know they don't want to say? Do you want to make
it so that it is a generally unhappy place to converse? Do you get off
making people feel negative feeling (i.e. frustration and anger)? Why post
if you don't have anything to contribute?

I recently rebuilt my PC and saw the trolls from Justin trying to grab my
attention (the subject line was simply to troll me into a conversation and
had NOTHING to do with Sprint PCS ... it was a TROLL by every definition).
You want proof that Justin is a troll, that is it. I didn't answer it, but
instead reestablished my filters. Hell, I haven't even exchanged words with
Justin in weeks and yet he is still addressing me as if we have a discussion
to complete (which we don't).

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "Renaldo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > It seems a double standard to object to Justins' posts, and then
> > defend the "Anonymous" post as free speech.
> >
>
> Did I defend the post as free speech? No. I simply said posting true
> information was not illegal. I made no statement of whether it was right or
> wrong.

But you and I (and just about everyone lese here) know that wasn't the
question. The point of that statement in context was that Justin may
have a legal case against anyone who calls his superiors and complains
against his activities, and the person who is inciting them to do so.

>
> > If you want to allow the "Anonymous" post under the free speech,
> > anything goes on USENET theory, then all of Justins posts are fine and
> > dandy.
> >
>
> Now that is a leap of logic that just doesn't fly. BTW .. I didn't "allow"
> (like I had a say about it) the post under "free speech". The discussion
> wasn't about whether the post is appropriate here, but whether it was a
> crime and the poster could be prosecuted. Did I miss something or are you
> trying to change the subject?

Actually Tom, you did.
>
> > If you want these cellular newgroups a tad closer to what might be
> > found in a moderated news group then you ought to be somewhat more
> > Fair and Balanced in what you object to.
> >
>
> I can object to anything I want ... I have no need to be "fair and
> balanced". My assimulation to the "fair and balanced" mindset has nothing
> at all to do with what is proper behavior in a Usenet forum.

Then if you cannot find in yourself a barier to to "irresponsible"
USENET behaviour, how can you expect it from some else?
>
> So why do you, Phillipe, Justin and friends post here? Do you want to hear
> somebody say something you know they don't want to say? Do you want to make
> it so that it is a generally unhappy place to converse? Do you get off
> making people feel negative feeling (i.e. frustration and anger)? Why post
> if you don't have anything to contribute?

No I do not. I also do not want this to be a Sponsored by Sprint fluff
room. If there are bad experiences with Sprint, they have aevery right
to post as much as those who have good experiences with Sprint.
>
> I recently rebuilt my PC and saw the trolls from Justin trying to grab my
> attention (the subject line was simply to troll me into a conversation and
> had NOTHING to do with Sprint PCS ... it was a TROLL by every definition).
> You want proof that Justin is a troll, that is it. I didn't answer it, but
> instead reestablished my filters. Hell, I haven't even exchanged words with
> Justin in weeks and yet he is still addressing me as if we have a discussion
> to complete (which we don't).
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
I'll be the first to admit I am Trolling to a degree. I think the
difference is the tone and civility we choose to impose on ourselves.
(though that too, some times gets the best of me)

[posted via phonescoop.com]

ben dejo wrote, in reply to Tom:

>> So why do you, Phillipe, Justin and friends post here? Do you want to hear
>> somebody say something you know they don't want to say? Do you want to make
>> it so that it is a generally unhappy place to converse? Do you get off
>> making people feel negative feeling (i.e. frustration and anger)? Why post
>> if you don't have anything to contribute?
>
> No I do not. I also do not want this to be a Sponsored by Sprint fluff
> room. If there are bad experiences with Sprint, they have aevery right
> to post as much as those who have good experiences with Sprint.

Absolutely.

But when you have people like Foolippe that twist peoples' words around,
and flat-out lie to make their point, when you have people like Justin who
has every right to be pissed off at Sprint but fills up the newsgroup with
posts screaming at each other and then threatens to make the newsgroup "a
cesspool," is that ok? (Mind you, I agree with Justin being pissed off. I
think he got screwed. But that doesn't make the threats ok.)

> I'll be the first to admit I am Trolling to a degree. I think the
> difference is the tone and civility we choose to impose on ourselves.
> (though that too, some times gets the best of me)

You've posted some pretty hostile stuff here lately.

--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:

>You've posted some pretty hostile stuff here lately.

I have, I'll admit it. I think Sprint has big issues with it's middle
(regional and below) managment that makes it a very unappealing company
to work for. Unfortunately for the consumer this translates into poor
service, poor training, and poor knowledge by supposed professionals who
do this for a living. And with the current "value" focus at sprint has
translated into more hostile employees who will take it out on customers
and continue to feed this board. Ask the avarage sales rep at a store
to fix your vision problem and you will get a person who maybe has had
three days actual training on "what is sprint" and none with Vision
services, or any of the test equipment he is supposed to be able to run
tell you what is wrong with your phone.

Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> ben dejo wrote, in reply to Tom:
>
> >> So why do you, Phillipe, Justin and friends post here? Do you want to hear
> >> somebody say something you know they don't want to say? Do you want to make
> >> it so that it is a generally unhappy place to converse? Do you get off
> >> making people feel negative feeling (i.e. frustration and anger)? Why post
> >> if you don't have anything to contribute?
> >
> > No I do not. I also do not want this to be a Sponsored by Sprint fluff
> > room. If there are bad experiences with Sprint, they have aevery right
> > to post as much as those who have good experiences with Sprint.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> But when you have people like Foolippe that twist peoples' words around,
> and flat-out lie to make their point, when you have people like Justin who
> has every right to be pissed off at Sprint but fills up the newsgroup with
> posts screaming at each other and then threatens to make the newsgroup "a
> cesspool," is that ok? (Mind you, I agree with Justin being pissed off. I
> think he got screwed. But that doesn't make the threats ok.)
>
> > I'll be the first to admit I am Trolling to a degree. I think the
> > difference is the tone and civility we choose to impose on ourselves.
> > (though that too, some times gets the best of me)
>
> You've posted some pretty hostile stuff here lately.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
> 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
> Steve Sobol, Proprietor
> 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

I find it extremely curious that since Jason has stopped posting,
either because he just decided to leave, went on vacation or for some
other personal or business reason, that folks still want to hear from
Jason, considering all the personal attacks he made on many of us ...

And no, just in case Phillipe ... in any ID he has used or will use in
the future wants to say anything against yours truly for not
discussing "the" post ... I do not agree with that Anon poster's
message or his threats to contact Justin's employer.

I just think it's a lot quieter, and much more pleasant in this
newsgroup, now that he's gone. Let it rest folks ... and let's get
back to the discussion of SPCS and trying to help those newbies who
post here who need some help or advice ...

Fair enough?

Bob

an absollute defense for this would be if the infomation happened to be
the truth...remember the line from Gone with the Wind,"I am not in the
habit of shooting people for telling the truth, my dear".

direcció[email protected] (ben dejo) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Actually if Justin can prove the identity of the poster, and can
> demonstrate harm ( I think the technical term is "Tort"). Then he
> actually may have a case. This might be treated as a negligence tort as
> "whoever" posted this information did so expressly condoning the actions
> of others to commit "harrassment". I could make a case that this would
> similar to someone inciting a person to yell "fire" in a crowded
> theater.
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> >
> > "Renaldo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:39:00 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Unless what was posted is false, it is not at all likely that a lawyer
> > can
> > > >do anything for Justin. It certainly is not harrassment as it is a
> > public
> > > >forum.
> > >
> > > To tell folks to harrass his boss by telephone? Depends on the state
> > > but in many that is exactly what qualifies as harrassment.
> >
> > The people that call his boss would be doing the harrassing, not the guy who
> > told them that they could or should do it. Now, if he formed and led an
> > "organization" to harrass him, then he would be guilty even if he didn't
> > call himself, but suggesting such a thing in a newsgroup certainly doesn't
> > qualify.
> >
> > Good luck Renaldo of Italy who seems to love Sprint PCS ... which should
> > matter little to a student of Italy
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
> >
> >
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:22:50 -0000, direcció[email protected] (ben dejo)
wrote:

>
>
>"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in article
><[email protected]>:
>>
>> "Renaldo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > It seems a double standard to object to Justins' posts, and then
>> > defend the "Anonymous" post as free speech.
>> >
>>
>> Did I defend the post as free speech? No. I simply said posting true
>> information was not illegal. I made no statement of whether it was right or
>> wrong.
>
>But you and I (and just about everyone lese here) know that wasn't the
>question. The point of that statement in context was that Justin may
>have a legal case against anyone who calls his superiors and complains
>against his activities, and the person who is inciting them to do so.

I was addressing the "double standard ... free speech defense"
accusation. I didn't defend the post as free speech, I simple said it
wasn't illegal to post true information. You can say what you like
about "MY" statement, but it simply is not true.

>
>>
>> > If you want to allow the "Anonymous" post under the free speech,
>> > anything goes on USENET theory, then all of Justins posts are fine and
>> > dandy.
>> >
>>
>> Now that is a leap of logic that just doesn't fly. BTW .. I didn't "allow"
>> (like I had a say about it) the post under "free speech". The discussion
>> wasn't about whether the post is appropriate here, but whether it was a
>> crime and the poster could be prosecuted. Did I miss something or are you
>> trying to change the subject?
>
>Actually Tom, you did.

I did what? "Allow the post"? I don't have the authority to "allow"
anything. Nor did I claim the post was proper (although I find it
rather satisfying).

>>
>> > If you want these cellular newgroups a tad closer to what might be
>> > found in a moderated news group then you ought to be somewhat more
>> > Fair and Balanced in what you object to.
>> >
>>
>> I can object to anything I want ... I have no need to be "fair and
>> balanced". My assimulation to the "fair and balanced" mindset has nothing
>> at all to do with what is proper behavior in a Usenet forum.
>
>Then if you cannot find in yourself a barier to to "irresponsible"
>USENET behaviour, how can you expect it from some else?

What on Earth are you talking about?


>>
>> So why do you, Phillipe, Justin and friends post here? Do you want to hear
>> somebody say something you know they don't want to say? Do you want to make
>> it so that it is a generally unhappy place to converse? Do you get off
>> making people feel negative feeling (i.e. frustration and anger)? Why post
>> if you don't have anything to contribute?
>
>No I do not. I also do not want this to be a Sponsored by Sprint fluff
>room. If there are bad experiences with Sprint, they have aevery right
>to post as much as those who have good experiences with Sprint.

I have my own greivances with Sprint (posted here for you to dig up if
you like). You are singing to the choir buddy. What I was referring
to is this CRAP from Justin:

---
From: "Justin" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Subject: Where did Tom go?

Is he still hiding behind his kill filter? Come on out, Tom. Stop
hiding.
---

Or this:

---
From: "Justin" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Subject: Did Tom take his toys home to play?


This newsgroup's really starting to go to the crapper. I mean, I see
more and more people making claims they can't back up than ever
before.

If you want to flame someone, better know what you're talking about,
right Rob? Right Chris?
---

You don't call this trolling?

Tom Veldhouse