🚀 go-pugleaf

Thank you for your comments...I will address some of them now.

I do think that its important that if ISPs have AUP (acceptable usage
policies) that users should be taken to task by their ISPs when they
blatatntly break them with offensive langauge and violent toned messages
which come across as threats.

More below.

**


"Raymond J. Henry" <rayhenry@TROLLmts.net> wrote in message
news:%8At9.15610$EX4.77282@news1.mts.net...
> Although you have seen fit to remove text before and/or after these
> allegations in an what I can only see as an attempt to take them out of
> context and make them appear in a worse light, I shall endeavour to
address
> the question(s).

**
There is no way to say that I am putting these messages in the worst
possible light.

When you make those kinds of comments they don't need any more context!

Some users have put my address on the site and suggested fires happening on
the street..and have used the vilest profanity in thier out of control rage
filled rants.

They have never been discpined in any way for violating their AUPs.
**



>
> "�-�� tayl�rchuk ��|I" <taylorchuk@shaw.ca> wrote in message
 > > How much of this content addressed to one person is considered
actionable.
> >> > Libel
> > > Threats
> > Vulgarity in violations to most ISPs aup (acceptable usage policies)


> > "I've warned you before of the consequences. Please do take me
seriously,
> >  Peter D"
>
> None of the above appears to be valid here. It's not illegal or against an
> AUP to indicate possible legal action in a posting.
>


**
He wasn't threatening to take legal action against me there.

He made up some ridiculous story that I had phoned his house and his family
and then went on to make a series of violent toned posts at me threatening
me for going or calling his house!

I never in my life ever called or attempted to contact this idiot and yet he
has spread the lies on the newsgroups that I did.

He has the ability to trace every single call into his house with the simple
push of two buttons and yet insisted on trying to attack me by saying that I
called him..and then proceeded to threaten me with violence for calling him!

That is just plain disgusting and I think actionable on several fronts.
**


> > ***
> >
> > "People like you are the ones that wind up wondering what happened just
as
> > their skull is splitting open from a baseball bat impact, or when you're
> > trying to hold your guts in after a 6" blade has penetrated that flab,
and
> > introduced your intestines to the environment."
>
> Again, none of the above appears to be valid here. An observation is
> perfectly legal, and you must provide a copy of the AUP portion that you
> feel is violated, if you object to it on that platform.
>

**
You are basically encouraging others to engage in this type of practice.

The other person posts my address..you throw out the instructions on how to
carry out a threat..knowing darn well that there could be anyone reading
this thread.

The other poster posted my address on a motorcycle newsgroup.

It is a threat plain and simple and an attempt to cause me or my family
harm.

It is actionable and most certainly a violation of the ISPs aup.
**
 > > ***
> > "I've warned you before of the consequences. Please do take me
seriously,
> > Don,
>
> This is the same as the first.

**
No, as I said..he was making a threat to do physical harm to me for
something that I have never done.
**
>
> > ***
> >
> >
> > "You come anywhere near me or mine you stalking self loving freak and
> you'll
> > get more than just a hawkin goober sent toward your tin can head...thats
a
> > guarantee."
>
> Is there any real threat here? Due in part to what *may* be your
deliberate
> removal of possible surrounding text, it's impossible to ascertain exactly
> what the recipient should expect. Perhaps being called a "doo-doo head" is
> what the original poster is implying. In any case, it's up to the person
> making the objection to prove the intent.

**
Again its what I said above.

1. He lied that I ever tried to contact his house by saying that I phoned
him. Easy for him to prove but he never bothered to

2. he then proceeded to libel me with many comments and then added
3. threat against me

**


>
> > ***
> >
> > "Rumour has it there will be a fire sale shortly somewhere in the 200
> > block of *and. Word in the rumour mill has it someone is looking
> > to fraudulently claim fire insurance....."
>
> Far too vague to be conclusive, and based on this exact excerpt and this
> excerpt alone, it's very dubious that a court of law would be able to make
a
> ruling.
>

**
Yeah..right.

It is suggesting a possible future fire on my street..just a few moments
after this poster  posted my entire address in another thread and on  a
motorcycle newsgroup.

**


> > **
> >
> >
> > "I strongly suggest for your own piece of mind and personal well being
> > that you put down the stick.
> >
> > It would be most uncomfortable embedded in the wrong place.
> >
>
> Absolutely no indication of violated laws or AUP's.
>
*
Uh huh..yeah right.
**


> > **
> > Piss off, dink. You haven't the guts to stomp over there -
> > guess your panties get all soiled when you dump a load
> > facing those cretins. If you had any guts you'd either leave
> > or face the music. You slink over here hoping the ass
> > fuckings will stop.  Dream on, sissy.
> >
>
> Perhaps a violation of an AUP, if you can provide the portion of the AUP
> from the supposed violator's ISP. As for legal issues, again, very little
> chance that a court of law would find this actionable.

**
Finally you are starting to see the picture.

*


>
> > **
> > Or *WHAT*?!?! Your gonna hold your breath and count to a thousand?
> > *FUCK YOU* and the stick-horse you rode in on!!
> > So WHY the fuck are you posting about it, you fucking imbecile?!?
> >
>
> Back around to the AUP again. As is always the case, you must first
provide
> proof of the supposed violation. Certainly no actionable content here. Not
> even close.

**
This is considered offensive content and should be grounds for discipine by
his aup.

**