| |
|
|
Help us help men
Every $20 helps!
|
|
On our page listing "threats" presented to the judge at the hearing, we invited people to submit posts that they considered contained threats. Here's the announcement on that page:
Note: If you find posts you think should be referenced on this page, that you think demonstrate that respondent Abraham made threats, please let us know and we'll reference them. Det. Shirey could not find any, aside from the snowboarder post and "Living Under the Threat of Death," but maybe you will have more luck.
On this page we list Posts submitted as presenting threats. Participants in the Usenet newsgroup rec.skiing.alpine have submitted posts they feel embody "threats." The first is from September, 1997, in a 73-post thread "RSA's Continued Self-Destruction." The man who reports what he considers threats states that he trolled Mr. Abraham. Here are the threats alleged, and the contexts in which they occurred.
Our lead article states that death threats and threats of physical violence were alleged. made. Were threats made? You decide. Here are references to the main posts involved.
| |
Submission #1
David Mann posted in  Deja.com message: Bert's Challange WAS: Tuesday's Opinions:
Can you define "threatened someone"? Here are snippets from 2 posts made by Scott and directed to me. I am
sure that he (and you) will deny that they are threatening.
I found them to be disturbing enough to archive.
NOTE: if you go to the archives you will see that I trolled Scott - in fact I told him at the time that I was trolling him.
Dave
First post cited: Deja.com message: Re: RSA's Continuing Self-Destruction Subject: Re: RSA's Continuing Self-Destruction
> In the good old days, I could challenge your cowardly ass to a duel.
> There are times I long for the code of the West: I assure you that you
> would learn some manners and etiquette quite quickly.
[snip...]
> Vail: It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts without the
> proper equipment, and Two Buddha has the proper equipment. The only
> question is whether it is noble to stick Mann's head in the fence.
Subject: Re: RSA's Continuing Self-Destruction
From: scottabe@seanet.com
Date: 1997/09/25
Newsgroups: rec.skiing.alpine
> Ain't a thinly veiled threat, David. It is merely an honest expression
> of how deeply you piss me off with your dishonesty and your vicious
> manipulations.
Mr. Mann is correct about the trolling. The threats he cites occurred in a thread entitled "RSA's Continuing Self-Destruction," begun by an anonymous poster. A poster objected to an anonymous poster commenting about the quality of the discussion. David Man's was the third response. Deja.com message: Re: RSA's Continuing Self-Destruction He brought Scott Abraham into the discussion for the first time. As he said, he trolled Mr. Abraham. There was an exchange (messages 4-5 and 6-7 in the thread). The first post cited is messages 8-9. It is a long response to David Mann, which begins:
David Mann proved that he is completely lacking in insight when he continued his arrogant, patronizing lectures on the state of the net::
> Give it up.
>
> Tina baited you and you swallowed her ruse hook, line, sinker
> and bobber. She entered into the fray with the intent of
> working you up into a frenzy and she succeeded beyond her
> wildest imagination. You were played like a violin.
Sure was. I tend to get seriously pissed off when people attack my reputation with malice aforethought. I find it an interesting comment on your character (or lack of such) that you never condemned the outright lies and blatant ad hominem attacks used by that bitch, and indeed, you supported her in her efforts.
I can only conclude that you support the use of slander and libel by anonymous parties on the net. You certainly have no compunctions about repeating such vomit.
As I said, Mann, you are a flaming hypocrit.
You get the tenor of the discussion.
The reference to "good old days" and dueling is a reply to Mr. Mann's statement: "In the good ol' days, we could settle this by putting eachother
in killfiles. "Tell your sys admin to install tin." A technocratic answer that is meaningless to the new commercial newbie." The Vail ... fence reference is a reference to a long-running joke on RSA about sheep with heads stuck in fences, and RSA participants "lurving" them.
In earlier posts in this thread Mr. Mann has objected to the tasteless jokes on RSA, and Mr. Abraham replied (message 5):
Most definetely. I've watched several newsgroups I monitor suffer deeply. Of course, the content of such newsgroups is a bit more meaningful than rsa's: I've done several papers on the content of the newsgroups that deal with healing from childhood sexual abuse. To conflate a few jokes and a pissing match on rsa into a threat to the net is ludicrous, David.
...
I am amazed that someone who presumes to make an assumption about my "misdirected rage" is so stupid as to believe that Two Buddha is a real person, in my mind or in anyone elses.
Lighten up, Mr. Mann.
It's a joke.
Perhaps there are times when my sense of humor is not to your taste. I assure you that your pretentious lectures are not to my taste.
...
Wonderful logic, Mr. Mann.
Sheep jokes are going to cause Congress to regulate the net, and Two Buddha will be blamed for the end of the Web as we know it.
I am so sorry.
Baaaaaa.
It is in this context that Mr. Mann presents these posts as threats to be concerned about. Another respected poster opined:
Cheez Whiz!
The increasing length of these attacks and counter-attacks leads me to believe that Mssrs. Mann & Abraham have been cooped up WAY too long. They've exchanged their real lives and true inner skiing
potential for cyberspace shadows of themselves. Soon I'm gonna need a personal T1 just to handle messages from these insurgents.
I hope it snows soon so the tortured souls of Mann & Abraham can be released from the dark netherworld of r.s.a. to the real worlds of Vail, Oootah and Mammoth.
And on Sept. 26th Mr. Mann, the man who presented these alleged threats by Mr. Abraham, that he "found them to be disturbing enough to archive" posted Deja.com message: Re: RSA's Continuing Self-Destruction :
Scott Abraham (scottabe@seanet.com) wrote:
: On the Raitman point, I'll cop a plea. Perhaps I should not have been
: so dismissive of his crap.
: Indeed, I'll apologize for stepping over the line: he ain't a regular,
: and I treated him like one. Perhaps I should not have done so.
Yup, exactly. Why do you think I delurked? Treat people nicer,
Scott. You're a bigger man than most folks in many ways.
Be responsible.
You want an appology? Here it is.
I intentially baited you and manipulated you. I knew I
could provoke you. My intention was to make you mad and to
hurt you. I'm sorry for the pain it has caused you.
In my defense, now you have a clue what Raitman felt like.
...
You have both of your wishes Scott. In fact, all three.
I have apologized for as much I can.
I will be going back down to periscope depth soon and
will "get off your back" as you wish.
And I tell you what... If you ever get out east, I'll
buy you coffee and I will give you the chance that you
ask for and we can talk about this stuff face to face.
Just e-mail me.
In the mean time, be nice to the newbies.
And Scott replied (message 54 in thread):
Deal. All is forgotten. May Vail bless you with a fine ewe, and a plane ticket to DIA.
Submission #2:
A person posting anonymously, using both an anonymous name and an anonymous remailer, quoted the post below. This post was made Nov. 4th, after Mr. Abraham had been served with the anti-harassment petitions and about a week before the court hearing on them. The "Anthea" referred to is Anthea Kerrison, a woman from Australia who was e-mailing copies of posts to Det. Shirey, for her to use as evidence in court. The post: Deja.com message: Re: About time....
Anthea Kerrison once again showed what a dishonest woman she is:
>
> I'm sorry, Bert, for ignoring you.
> Would you like to know what I think about Olin skis for women?
> I'm female. (I think).
No. You are ignorant, can't even carve a turn.
Ergo, your opinion is meaningless.
>
>
> >Second reason - I *abhor* Usenet censorship.
>
> Me too!
No wonder, considering all the lies you and your friends tell.
>
>
> >It astounds me to see how petty, personal
> >vendettas, netcopping In Real Life through anti-harassment orders and whines
> >to ISPs and concerted smear campaigns to drive people away can so easily end
> free
> >speech on Usenet.
>
> I'm glad to hear you say that.
>
> So I take it you won't be contacting my employers any more to complain about me?
Sure.
The day I get back MY job that your campaign of internet terrorism unfairly cost me.
Very simple. You write a letter to K2 in which you confess to slandering, lying, and terrorism.
You ask them to return me to my former status.
You post the letter here.
Peace and quiet, and your job is safe.
Oh, yeah.
Any time one of your friends harasses us again, like this week, we go after your job again.
Because YOU are responsible for the mess this newsgroup has become, and you encourage, support, and conspire with the people who continue to harass us. Oh, yeah.
You gotta pay Bert and I for the time we wasted with mailbombing, and what you cost him in business.
You gotta pay both of us for the time we will waste in court.
In short, Anthea, the day this campaign of harassment stops is the day you can stop worrying about losing your job.
But as long as YOU keep it in the real world, we will continue to show your employer that you are breaking the law on company time.
I do hope you choose the reasonable course, confess, make restitution, and apologize for being a vicious, vacuous, unconscionable bitch.
Scott
|
Concerned? Comments? Reactions?
Feel free to E-mail us. Please feel free to distribute this story of Internet censorship as widely as possible, provided that your intent is to halt court intervention in freedom of speech in cyber-space, and that it is not used for commercial purposes for financial gain to you. We can also accept (non-tax-deductable) contributions to a legal defense fund to seek to remove the gag from our Assistant WebMaster and combat court attempts to moderate discussions in Usenet groups. If you use this item, please do us the courtesy of letting us know when and where it is used, and what responses were received.
Return to "When is it a Felony to Talk about olin skis?"
|
|
Help us help men
Every $20 helps!
|
|
Press the "Back" button on your browser to return
| |
