Slander from Google

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.skunks,misc.writing (More info?)

Gaiawar wrote:
> Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net>...
>> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as
>> the
>> publisher of slander and defamation.
>>
>> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
>> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups
>> from
>> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
>> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs
>> up
>> to the court date.
>>
>> Douglas MacDonald
>
> You are the type that decent parents warn their children about, and
> you also happen to be a Down Under dweller like Dr. Zen, one of those
> ethnic groups who are known for their sniveling and parasitically
> socialist ways. You have blasphemed the sanctity of wisdom and
> justice, therefore you will forever suffer in darkness. Only you can
> change that destiny. The messenger is not culpable of the message for
> which he is only a conduit. What part of stupid don't you unnerstand,
> idjit? I wager that you deserve the flames; now I will go and see.
>
> -Gaiawar, Echosyn of Jachin618, Guardian of the East Pillar, A*****e
> of the first water

Drummed out of AW again, eh? The more things change, the more they stay
the same ...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.skunks,misc.writing (More info?)

Gaiawar wrote:
>
> Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net>...
> > Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> > publisher of slander and defamation.
> >
> > For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> > continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> > their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> > Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
> > to the court date.
> >
> > Douglas MacDonald
>
> You are the type that decent parents warn their children about, and
> you also happen to be a Down Under dweller like Dr. Zen, one of those
> ethnic groups who are known for their sniveling and parasitically
> socialist ways. You have blasphemed the sanctity of wisdom and
> justice, therefore you will forever suffer in darkness. Only you can
> change that destiny. The messenger is not culpable of the message for
> which he is only a conduit. What part of stupid don't you unnerstand,
> idjit? I wager that you deserve the flames; now I will go and see.
>
> -Gaiawar, Echosyn of Jachin618, Guardian of the East Pillar

webtv, home of hot and uninformed winds...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net>...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
> to the court date.
>
> Douglas MacDonald

Yeah - Usenet needs twats like you...
If you´re so thin skinned, then go elsewhere idiot. This is how Usenet
is and has always been.
If you can´t handle that, then dont come here.
We don´t need anal retentives like you trying to squeeze the life out
of everything.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net>...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
> to the court date.
>
> Douglas MacDonald

The Web is a perfect democracy, where all opinions are open, and
without prejudice. If you don't like it, don't use it.

P.S. I would love to see the post that got your panties all bunched
up.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Cindy Goebbels wrote:
>
>
> Yeah - Usenet needs twats like you...
> If you´re so thin skinned, then go elsewhere idiot. This is how Usenet
> is and has always been.
> If you can´t handle that, then dont come here.
> We don´t need anal retentives like you trying to squeeze the life out
> of everything.

Posting host: <cab6737f.0502110011.3013b09b@posting.google.com>
Precisely why someone has to do something.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net>...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
> to the court date.
>
> Douglas MacDonald

Boy you must be nut who got nothing better to do.
If you think Google is against you, you better stop using Goggle.
Go get real life. Stop posting or reading google.
It is like I'm going to sue NBA just because I'm tall enough
to play NBA.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca>
stated that:

>Lionel wrote:
>
>> Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca>
>> stated that:
>>
>>
>>>To my knowledge no internet company has been found liable for content posted via
>>>its services.
>>
>>
>> Incorrect:
>> <http/www.sourceuk.net/indexf.html?00794>
>
>No. Correct. They weren't found liable for the posting, they were found liable
>for not removing the posting at Godfrey's request. Quotes from same source:
>
>--"He requested that the posting be removed. Unfortunately, Demon failed to take
>action and the posting continued to be available on its news server until it
>expired in the usual way ten days later."
>
>--"It <Demon> was successful in claiming that it was merely involved as an
>operator or provider of access to a communications system through which the
>statement was made available."
>
>That 2nd quote is something Doug should pay attention to. Further, Doug should
>be making efforts to have the slanderous/libelous info removed to show he is
>making an effort outside the court to protect his integrity.

You're assuming that he, (& I) haven't done that.

>> In my opinion, Googles negligence in failing to take fairly simple
>> technical measures to kick the troll off their system leaves them wide
>> open to a similar action.
>>
>>
>>> OTOH, they usually will cooperate with the police or a court
>>>order to provide details about the offending poster. Your lawyer will probably
>>>need to get a court order in your home state/province and send that to Google
>>>(or better, the offenders ISP if that is clear from the Google header). They
>>>will provide what data they can.
>>
>>
>> The posts come via hijacked proxies.
>
>That's what "...provide what data they can." means. You would be silly to take
>to court evidence that is not clearly/cleanly linked to the originator.

For the purposes of this kind of lawsuit, the originator is Google.

>>>Put it in this context, if a television reporter makes a libelous statement
>>>about you on camera without anything to back it up, you can sue him and the
>>>station; if the station shows tape of some person making a libelous statement
>>>about you, then you can sue the person making the statement but not the station
>>>or reporter.
>>
>>
>> You're forgetting about the forgeries - they count too.
>
>Forgeries can be shown to be such in most cases. The plaintiff would have to
>show the headers in detail tracing the posting to the originator. You can forge
>headers to some degree, but there will be something incorrect about the header
>that will reveal it didn't come from where the (innocent in this case) defendant
>typically posts on the NG's.

That's easily done.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> stated that:

>Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, I am an expert in the field.
>>
>> Australian law? - I doubt it.
>
>In the technical operation of Usenet, which, as I know you know, bears no
>resemblance to the nonsense he's rambling about.

But he & I are talking about law, not the technical operations of
Usenet.

>I fully agree that something should be done about the Google problem, but
>this most definitely is not it.

I'm very open to suggestions. I've been trying to deal with this ongoing
problem via the traditional methods, but they haven't succeeded. It
seems to me that Douglas's lawsuit is all that's left.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca>
stated that:

>I do understand the reasoning, I don't believe a court will hold it up. Google
>will defend itself as being a well known search engine and repository of
>information both right and wrong.
>
>--did you track down the originating ISP?

No - the posts were created from Googles web-interface, via a series of
open proxies in places such as Mexico or Korea.

>--did you ask them to remove the offending info?

We asked Google to remove them, yes.

>--did you ask your lawyer to get a court order against that ISP to reveal who
>the IP belonged to?

Which ISP, & how would we go about finding that out?

>My opinion stands that the originator is the problem, not Google. Leave it at that.

For the purposes of the defamation laws, Google *is* the originator.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[TAZ]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Honest You Honour, they ties me to the keyboard and propped my eyes open
with toothpicks and made me read their posts." "Killfilter? What's a
killfilter?"

"Red Cloud" <mmdir2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1c9e1197.0502120108.5299674a@posting.google.com...
> Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net>...
> > Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> > publisher of slander and defamation.
> >
> > For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> > continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> > their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> > Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
> > to the court date.
> >
> > Douglas MacDonald
>
> Boy you must be nut who got nothing better to do.
> If you think Google is against you, you better stop using Goggle.
> Go get real life. Stop posting or reading google.
> It is like I'm going to sue NBA just because I'm tall enough
> to play NBA.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:

> But he & I are talking about law, not the technical operations of
> Usenet.

The two are inseparable. His premise is based on a nonsensical idea of
how Google interacts with Usenet, an idea that is completely incorrect
and which would be debunked by the first expert witness Google put on
the stand. I would gladly be that expert witness, despite my dislike
for the actions of Google Groups, in the interest of preventing this
dangerous precedent.

>> I fully agree that something should be done about the Google problem, but
>> this most definitely is not it.
>
> I'm very open to suggestions. I've been trying to deal with this ongoing
> problem via the traditional methods, but they haven't succeeded. It
> seems to me that Douglas's lawsuit is all that's left.

In the event it actually goes anywhere, it will only make things worse.

Don't fall into the trap of "something must be done; this is something;
therefore this must be done." You know better than that.

I'm at the end of my Google rope, too. At this point I'm having trouble
thinking of any reason they should be allowed to be on Usenet at all. I
wouldn't shed a tear if they lost all of their peers -- which is not as
far-fetched an idea as it might sound at first blush...

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:58:51 +1000, Deciple of EOS <decipleofeos@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> Are you the same Jeremy Nixon who claimed to have 'expert' knowledge of
> photography in a discussion about the perspective of a portrait a few
> weeks back?. Hmmm. Expert networking engineer too it seems.

I use Jeremy Nixon's "cleanfeed" software (now maintained by Marco
D'Itri). My impression is that it does its job very well.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net>...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
> to the court date.
>
> Douglas MacDonald

Douglas,

Please think about what you are doing with these pieces of information
in hand:

From Google's Terms and Conditions:

Discussion Groups

The Service contains certain discussion forums and news groups,
including Usenet and other third party news groups (collectively, the
"Groups").

MUCH OF THE CONTENT OF THE GROUPS--INCLUDING THE CONTENTS OF SPECIFIC
POSTINGS--IS PROVIDED BY AND IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON
POSTING IN THAT GROUP. GOOGLE DOES NOT MONITOR THE CONTENT OF THE
GROUPS AND TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH CONTENT. INSTEAD, GOOGLE
MERELY PROVIDES ACCESS TO SUCH CONTENT AS A SERVICE TO YOU.

By their very nature, Groups may carry offensive, harmful, inaccurate
or otherwise inappropriate material, or in some cases, postings that
have been mislabeled or are otherwise deceptive. We expect that you
will use caution and common sense and exercise proper judgment when
using Groups.


From Google's Posting Style Guide:

Never forget that the person on the other side is human.

Because your interaction is through a computer it is easy to forget
that there are people "out there." Situations arise in which emotions
erupt into a verbal free-for-all that can lead to hurt feelings.
Please remember that people all over the world are reading your words.
Do not attack people if you cannot persuade them with your
presentation of the facts. If you are upset at something or someone,
wait until you have had a chance to calm down and think about it. Try
not to say anything to others you would not say to them in person in a
room full of people.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brad Carroll wrote:
> Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net>...
>
>>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>>publisher of slander and defamation.
>>
>>For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
>>continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
>>their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
>>Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
>>to the court date.
>>
>>Douglas MacDonald
>
>
> Douglas,
>
> Please think about what you are doing with these pieces of information
> in hand:
>
> From Google's Terms and Conditions:
>
> Discussion Groups
>
> The Service contains certain discussion forums and news groups,
> including Usenet and other third party news groups (collectively, the
> "Groups").
>
> MUCH OF THE CONTENT OF THE GROUPS--INCLUDING THE CONTENTS OF SPECIFIC
> POSTINGS--IS PROVIDED BY AND IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON
> POSTING IN THAT GROUP. GOOGLE DOES NOT MONITOR THE CONTENT OF THE
> GROUPS AND TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH CONTENT. INSTEAD, GOOGLE
> MERELY PROVIDES ACCESS TO SUCH CONTENT AS A SERVICE TO YOU.
>
> By their very nature, Groups may carry offensive, harmful, inaccurate
> or otherwise inappropriate material, or in some cases, postings that
> have been mislabeled or are otherwise deceptive. We expect that you
> will use caution and common sense and exercise proper judgment when
> using Groups.
>
>
> From Google's Posting Style Guide:
>
> Never forget that the person on the other side is human.
>
Brad...
You seem to forget that Google have relayed messages sent to their
server alone, by a person concealing their identity, using devious means
and hi-jacked proxys in far away countries. Google publish this stuff.
It originates from their servers in the published sense. They opened
their network to the public and allow them to post through it.

I'm not talking about the library of Google newsgroups, I'm on about the
facility Google provide for people to post messages. They have to be
responsible for that. All the other data caching is out of their control
and not a part of my case.