🚀 go-pugleaf

DLF flushed and announced:

>"macfizz@gmail.com" <macfizz@gmail.com> Wrote:
>
>>I've written to the abuse-meisters at Google Groups quite a few times
>>with no response. You could probably get its ISP to shut the troll's
>>access down, but as it has told us already it can go into a cyber-cafe
>>anywhere and carry on once more. I dare say some folks would like to
>>find the troll's real name and address and go round to discuss the
>>matter human to worm, but part of the nature of this kind of pond-life
>>is its anonymity.
>
>Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1@kidneys.mac.com> Wrote:
>
>>The CH thing is not even trolling in the sense that I know it. It's 
>>infantile, grossly offensive cross-posting on a level that way 
>>out-offends "Macs suck - discuss." I've actually never seen anything 
>>like this before, and it makes me wonder that if he could be located 
>>then could he actually be prosecuted for libel?
>
>Margolotta <naggingdoubt@thebackofyourmind.invalid> Wrote:
>
>>Well he must be able to be prosecuted for something. I have resisted 
>>temptation but his remark that everyone with HIV is a 'dirty faggot' got to 
>>me. I know of a bloke with HIV (he sells The Big Issue in Oxford) - he's not 
>>gay - he's a haemophiliac. That's right, he acquired the virus via a blood 
>>transfusion. When the supplier of the blood was contacted, he didn't even 
>>know he was positive - he'd never been tested. 
>>
>>You're right, it's not libellous, but it's surely designed to be provocative? 
>>If it had been said in public, it would be incitement to riot/violence, 
>>surely.
>>
>>There MUST be some law he can be prosecuted under, *surely*?! He can't be 
>>allowed to get away with it. 
>
>Norbert Lieckfeldt <n@lieckfeldt.com> Wrote:
>
>>No, because there's a suspicion that he's broken the law. No-one knows 
>>whether he has unless he is being prosecuted by the proper authorities 
>>and convicted by a court of law. But the suspicion that he may have 
>>should be enough to bring it to the attention of prosecuting authorities 
>>who will come to a decision on whether to prosecute or not.
>
>5605 <not@chance.com> Wrote:
>
>>I refer you all to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. This would 
>>be my start point, along with recent legislation concerning the misuse 
>>of electronic services.
>
>Graham W <graham@nospamgrahamwilson.co.uk> Wrote:
>
>>Well, I've handed 150 of it's more offensive posts to the Old Bill, but 
>>doubtless it'll make little difference in the long run. That said, the 
>>OB did get rid of the 'Reverand' character on the East Anglia group a 
>>few years ago for similar postings. Seems they 'knocked on his door' 
>>quite early in the morning and removed computers etc. Here's hoping...
>
>David Kennedy <davidkennedy@dmnc.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> Wrote:
>
>>Anything that helps is good. Complaining to Google Groups - or his ISP - 
>>seems to be a waste of time and space.
>
>Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>  Wrote:
>
>>No, a few people want to see him face due process for something that *you*
>>see as trollign and others see as racial hatred and homophobia.
>>I don't see reporting someone to the police for hate crimes as 
>>"inappropriate". Graham's to be applauded for doing the right thing.
>
>Kit <kitzyme@yahoo.com> Wrote:

I'll give you $25 American for this one.  Provided it's female and
doesn't have saggy fried egg titties.

>
>>People who believe that a law may have been breached are entitled to
>>bring this fact to the attention of the authorities. 
>
>"Toby" <tl36265@spamhole.com> Wrote:
>
>>You'd best be careful with language like that as may well find PC Plod
>>on your doorstep wanting to interview you for inciting hatred. And I'll
>>be the first to stand up and make a complaint againt you.
>
>Bonge Boo! <bingbong@spamcop.net> Wrote:
>
>>Please feel free to do the same. Once we've got that shut down, if he
>>continues, I'll just try to get other accounts closed.
>>Anyone who has the know-how and inclination to get his ISP to terminate him,
>>please feel free to correspond: powerbookboy@gmail.com