Why, you ask? I read your little self-congratulatory circle-jerk about "all having a kind word for me" It made me sick. You people turned on me like a pack of rabid dogs and then congratulated yourself for being so nice. The ONLY two people who were here during this whole disgusting episode who I consider to be above the level of dumb animals. are Heather (whose voice was ignored) and Sarah (who you SCUMBAGS called a fascist for expressing an opinion at variance with that of the majority) To the rest of you: THIS IS NOT AN OPEN FORUM. PEOPLE WHO DEVIATE FROM THE PERMITTED RANGE OF OPINIONS ARE SILENCED. NOT ONE OF YOU SAID SHIT TO THAT WASTE OF SKIN ABOUT LEAVING ME ALONE WHEN I ASKED HIM TO. NOT ONE OF YOU. NOT ONE OF YOU SAID SHIT TO HIM ABOUT FOLLOWING ME AROUND THE BOARDS. NOT ONE OF YOU. NOT ONE OF YOU SAID SHIT TO HIM ABOUT DRIVING ME OFF OF THE BOARDS. BUT EVERY LAST GODDAMNED ONE OF YOU WASTES OF OXYGEN HAD SOMETHING NASTY TO SAY TO ME WHEN I FLAMED HIM FOR... WELL, FOR FOLLOWING ME AROUND AND FLAMING ME. WELL FUCK YOU ALL!!!!!! I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!!! I AM PISSED OFF FOR A REASON, BUT YOU MORONS ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF EMPATHIZING WITH WHITE MALES!!!! ALL OF YOU PATHETIC PSEUDOLIBERAL BULLSHIT HERD ANIMALS SHOULD BE SHOT BEFORE YOU BREED.

get over it.

When you and your cronies have been driven off of the boards and not before.

Pathetic. Truly.

Who the FUCK do you think you are? Do you even know what happened? NO, you don't. You haven't even been here. You are just following the herd. Fuck off.

try getting over it.

You have nothing to contribute. Fuck off.

Come to think of it, I don't think ____ has ever posted anything that wasn't a waste of bandwidth. So I guess this is pretty much true to form.

yup. pretty much. is there anything you'd like to add to that?

i saw aggies page dave, you gots a cute lil one on yer hands? is that you with the beer cap on yer nooze?

she is indeed beautiful. nah, that's my friend.

Go away. Every goddamned time I say something, you fuckers drown it in your bullshit. Very well, as my post is now virtually inacessible due to your filibustering, I will repeat. Why, you ask? I read your little self-congratulatory circle-jerk about "all having a kind word for me" It made me sick. You people turned on me like a pack of rabid dogs and then congratulated yourself for being so nice. The ONLY two people who were here during this whole disgusting episode who I consider to be above the level of dumb animals. are Heather (whose voice was ignored) and Sarah (who you SCUMBAGS called a fascist for expressing an opinion at variance with that of the majority) To the rest of you: THIS IS NOT AN OPEN FORUM. PEOPLE WHO DEVIATE FROM THE PERMITTED RANGE OF OPINIONS ARE SILENCED. NOT ONE OF YOU SAID SHIT TO THAT WASTE OF SKIN ABOUT LEAVING ME ALONE WHEN I ASKED HIM TO. NOT ONE OF YOU. NOT ONE OF YOU SAID SHIT TO HIM ABOUT FOLLOWING ME AROUND THE BOARDS. NOT ONE OF YOU. NOT ONE OF YOU SAID SHIT TO HIM ABOUT DRIVING ME OFF OF THE BOARDS. BUT EVERY LAST GODDAMNED ONE OF YOU WASTES OF OXYGEN HAD SOMETHING NASTY TO SAY TO ME WHEN I FLAMED HIM FOR... WELL, FOR FOLLOWING ME AROUND AND FLAMING ME. WELL FUCK YOU ALL!!!!!! I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!!! I AM PISSED OFF FOR A REASON, BUT YOU MORONS ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF EMPATHIZING WITH WHITE MALES!!!! ALL OF YOU PATHETIC PSEUDOLIBERAL BULLSHIT HERD ANIMALS SHOULD BE SHOT BEFORE YOU BREED.

i would be proud and i know i have recently stated my position against child birth,personally anyway, but we have been discussing it lately, it's becoming more and more of an appealing idea, emotionally anyway.....i have found myself falling more and more in love with my wife over the last 6 years, and it seems we are reaching a point where this may happen. i look fondly at parents, especially seeing a father holding his baby, something so big and strong cradling and protecting something so small, fraile, vulnerable and most of all dependent.

And you are still claiming that this is not harassment? This is a FILIBUSTER. People, please SCROLL UP PAST IT!!!!

markus - I tried to email you at hotmail and they said you didn't exist. do you?

what's the url to agatha's web page?

look in the "other sorabjites" on menu in the main sorabji page, "kelsey"

can you post a more specific url? I don't see anything that says "other sorabjites" on the http://bbs.sorabji.com page

click on "wander around" and scroll down.

oh yeah. scroll down. I forgot I could do that.

dave, you are a liar.

about what? the picture? that's alphonse de campagne. honest.

and patrick, despite all the negative press and the inherent burden connected to having kids, it can be pretty fucking amazing. but watch out: it'll change you. yes it will.

little _____ laying on sorabji's dirty floor.

ALRIGHT, DAMMIT! When people threaten to shoot me before I breed/then even I begin to take offense. I've only been back on the boards for abt a month/so I really have no clue as to why you & Patrick are at each others throats, Lucy. So I stayed out of it. And now you're going from board to board/screaming at everyone here/calling names & generally being a royally obnoxious pain in the ass. NOBODY IS TRYING TO SILENCE YOU, LUCY. Chill the fuck out! And direct yr anger to the specific parties that are harrissing YOU -- preferably via email -- rather then taking up bandwidth w/somethign that is obviously way personal. You used to always be good for a funny dig, Lucy. But now you'te starting to give me a headache.

firstly, I had no idea you could put pictures into posts. How did you do that, Dave?? secondly, she is really cute. Her name is Cleo? I'm bad with names. She looks like Ramona Quimby. She looks like I looked when I was a little kid. I really like that picture.

Oops, RC. You've said a bad thing to Lucy. You've just officially become a waste of skin. Sorry... :-) Lucy, was that a physical threat? Are you going to use that new gun of yours (the one you talked about on these very boards...) on one of us? I wonder if the people at SLAC would like to know that a someone using their computers is physically threatening others over the internet. Remember what just happened to a guy in Florida who threatened a Columbine student...

it's a pretty simple thing for a hacker like me. but keep quiet about it or sorabji-god will mess up everybody's tcp-ip stack. i didn't see anything, did you see anything?

oh my cuteness. i'll take 5 or 6 of those, please.

don't let all that cute fool you. cleo's a total bad-ass. rips out her own teeth with her bare hands, knocks over every glass at the table at will, and takes no shit from NYC waiters. i'm trying to convince her ma'n pa to move to the city so she can be my fulltime bodyguard. the girl's got juice.

R.C. - you are a voice of reason. But you just became a member of some club that exists only in the mind of one person...sorry. mmmmmmm....the name of the club may have to change now though.

oh jesus, dave and kelsey you two spawn well. hanging out with my niece makes me want to make a nate jr. or natalie. i must be arriving at that age. father urges are kicking in squarely.

agreed sir

oh, and on topic: there is no such thing as free speech in this country. speech is limited by a preceived "freedom from offense." which, plainly is at hand in this forum, which, to my knowledge, has never been advertised as a forum for free speech. i think Mark Thomas has made a statement about this in the past, which, to my recollection, expressed his desire to have this place be here for people to post on, limited only when absolutely necessary. ie: extreme, meaningless spam. ie: well, shit. i can't even bear to type the name. but those of you who remember who i speak of , D____, you will recall that at first we let him rant, and then his posts started disappearing. When that became too tedius, we had to kill him. Nobody has been as annoying or brainless as D_____, and to make this clear, I would not advocate banishing anyone from here. But the idea of free speech is a fool's dream.

off-topic, parental urges still haven't hit me yet, & by this age, they likely never will. the idea of a crimson, jr. fills me w/ a deep fear for humanity. any kid i spawned would likely be a two-headed circus freak. the next jeffrey dahmer would probably spring from my loins. hubby & i both have twinning in our families, too. the crimson twins. holy shit. forget about it. i'll just leave the kidstuff to the professionals. however, my profound congrats go out to anyone who can do it well. there's a desperate lack of intelligent, ethical parents in the world, which is precisely why i'll never breed: i'm seriously lacking in both categories.

i don't know who D_____ is but i do remember some schmuck here a few months ago talking about his money making schemes and then in a matter of seconds, POOF! all of his posts were gone........i thought that was an amazing exercise of power and instilled in me a little fear of the man behind the curtain with the voice digitizer

pffffffft. to hell with it.

RC Please look at what happened before you judge me too harshly. Firstly, I specifically referred to people who were HERE during this. You WEREN'T. Secondly, I am pissed off for an EXTREMELY good reason. I got into an argument with Patrick and Nate about Affirmative Action. I said white males weren't oppressed and suddenly every white male on the damned board was appearing on the thread to flame me. I didn't have time to read Patrick's posts b/c he was just repeating himself mindlessly and accusing me of scapegoating him because he's a white male, even after I had told him 3 times that nobody was saying it was his fault. So I started ignoring him. I told him why. I said "Look, Patrick, you are repeating yourself and I've already answered this, so I'm just going to tell you to scroll up yourself" Well, Patrick apparently doesn't like being ignored. So Patrick, as Patrick CONSISTENTLY does, started sniping at me on the other threads, whether or not I'd said anything to him. In fact, he did it whether or not I'd even BEEN on the thread. This was OUT OF LINE. WAY out of line. I repeatedly asked him to leave me alone. He refused. Eventually, I flamed him for it, and and most of the other white males on the board joined him, because it was SO unfair that I flamed him after he harassed me for weeks (the harassment went on with NO comment from ANY of these sheep). Now I can't post ANYTHING of consequence. I can make no point and have it heard because this group of sheep, who have a hell of a lot more leisure time than I do, will immediately descend on ANY thread on which they see my name and BURY it in mindless, reflexive flames. I have REPEATEDLY asked Patrick not to post to me at all and he has REPEATEDLY told me that he will stop posting to me. He has yet to do so. When he does not post to me, he posts something long and unrelated, in a TRANSPARENT ploy to prevent my posts from being read. I am not willing to believe that it is coincidence that he just HAPPENS to find any thread on which I have posted something about this issue a good place to sit and chat. If you have ANY shadow of a doubt as to whether or not they have been using filibuster tactics to silence me, please read "What is the cruelest thing you ever did"/ "the cruelest thing I know..." You will see a blatant filibuster, in which Maple Leaf posts twice JUST to call me names, every other "secret whiteboy handjive" participant appears to put in their "I hate Lucy" post (with absolutely no relationship to the issues I had raised), and Patrick repeats his longest post TWICE, one of the repetitions occuring AFTER I had answered it. NOBODY on Sorabji.com said anything to him about this blatant harassment. NOBODY on Sorabji.com said anything when I tried to let it drop and they continued to flame me randomly. NOBODY even said anything when FetidBeaver URGED MY BOYFRIEND TO LEAVE ME, BECAUSE I FLAMED HIS BUDDY. My boyfriend was disgusted with it and did not, but the fact that he attempted something like that, and that it went completely unremarked. EVERYBODY on Sorabji.com had something nasty to say to me when I FINALLY, AFTER WEEKS OF ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF THESE FUCKING TERRORISTS, started flaming them back. TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY, PEOPLE. IF YOU LET HIM GET AWAY WITH THAT, THEN YOU HAD DAMNED WELL BETTER LET ME GET AWAY WITH FLAMING HIM FOR IT. I will not back down, because I know that I am right. The behavior of people on this board is a textbook example of mob mentality. Everybody is too lazy to go back and check what happened, so they are taking the word of the majority. Of course, this being a medium that is dominated by affluent white males, there were more white males involved in the incident than advocates of Affirmative Action. They even had a running joke between them about "secret whiteboy handjive." (their clever response to "oppressive minorities") So there were more posts from people in the Anti-Lucy faction. And that was really all they were interested in: they hated me. It no longer had anything to do with any issue. It was Patrick's grudge, which he managed to get all the whiteboys to help him satisfy. Jesus, these people are so UNWILLING to think that they called Sarah a fascist for dissenting on the self-congratulatory little circle-jerk that Patrick set up as a Flame Lucy Thread. Now, we've seen the tactics used by the TERRORISTS, we've seen the behavior that went on on the part of the HERD, now let's see what the RESULT is. The net result is that these people, by abusing the free nature of the forum, have effectively PREVENTED me from commenting on anything related to race. And they have set a precedent that allows them to write off as "racist" and to harass endlessly, anyone who supports Affirmative Action. Does that sound like free speech to you? This is a matter of principle, and it is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT principle. These fuckers have already prevented the Left from having any real voice in other media. Will you allow them to take over this one. Now do you understand why I will not allow this bullshit to go unchallenged? GO BACK AND CHECK IT YOURSELF. You are too smart to be taking your opinions from the HERD like this.

the problem, lucy, is that you're a big baby.

this is hilarious: "Firstly, I specifically referred to people who were HERE during this. You WEREN'T. " as if this is some sort of temporal media in which someone might miss a conversation because they weren't in the room. it all remains. there were a lot of people on your side when you started lucy, but when you went from arguement to this babble of paranoia and conspiracy you lost most of your supporters. in the face of everything, you are guilty of EVERY SINGLE THING you accuse the sheep of being (not the least of which is calling anyone who opposes your views, regardless of how, a sheep.) so in your mind it is: 1. Lucy is right. 2. If you do not side with Lucy you are a sheep, and a part of the whiteboy conspiracy. and all along you are proving yourself wrong, because the fact of the matter is that white males are oppressed because if they are critical of anything race or gender based, they are automatically sexist bigots. just like i am automatically an anti-semite because i write something that is a view held by nazi groups or some shit. but when you write something that is a view held by zionists, you're "not a zionist and never have been and blah blah blah high and mighty and listen to me because I AM FUCKING INSANE AND I CANNOT DROP SOMETHING NO MATTER HOW WRONG I AM OR HOW TIRED THE SUBJECT IS OR HOW MUCH NO ONE ELSE CARES."

FUCK you, NAZI-BOY. I posted that in order to allow MY views to be HEARD WITHOUT BEING DROWNED IN WHITEBOY MAFIA FLAMES. I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT? There is no need for a conspiracy. Domestic chickens will gang up and peck one of their own to death without any kind of secret communication. You people are as intelligent as domestic chickens(barely). Therefore, I believe that it is possible for you people to gang up on somebody without communicating secretly about it. NO CONSPIRACY NEEDED. Now, RC, please scroll up and read my post. You have read their side, and I think that it is only fair that you hear mine as well before you judge me based on the opinions of the HERD. (Mine is the one with the actual background information. NOTICE that the whiteboys NEVER urge you to read it for yourself because they know that the facts speak for ME) JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS IN THE MINORITY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE WRONG.

baaaaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaaaa (Sorry for wasting bandwidth. But I had to do it.)

there is such a thing as free speech. only that people who truly speak freely are labeled as "psychotic" or, more formally, "mentally unstable". maybe they are, maybe they are not. but it's interesting that society has to commit people who are free to say whatever they want. that's more of a reflection of how fucked up the "normal" people are. anyway, get back to playing scrabble, you slackass bitches. i'm bored. nobody has taken their turn in eons.

Oh, and just to make it clear, so that ANTIGONE has no way of HARASSING ME PERSONALLY, as he has just *THREATENED* TO DO. I AM NOT THREATENING ANYONE!!!!! I AM SAYING THAT YOU PEOPLE ARE ASSHOLES I AM SAYING THAT YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID I AM NOT THREATENING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!! ANTIGONE IS THE ONE MAKING THREATS!!!! THIS FUCKER IS THREATENING TO TRY TO GET ME FIRED FROM MY JOB!!! PEOPLE, THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!

lucy, you're not going to win anyone over with that attitude. "FUCK you, NAZI-BOY." "I posted that in order to allow MY views to be HEARD WITHOUT BEING DROWNED IN WHITEBOY MAFIA FLAMES." "You people are as intelligent as domestic chickens(barely)."

Spies v The Queen S35/1999 (10 December 1999) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ATLANTIS Office of the Registry Atlantis Central No S35 of 1999 B e t w e e n - PETER MANNERY SPIES Applicant and THE QUEEN Respondent Application for special leave to appeal GAUDRON J HAYNE J TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT ATLANTIS ON FRIDAY, 10 DECEMBER 1999, AT 12.08 PM Copyright in the High Court of ATLANTIS MR P. MENZIES, QC: If your Honours please, I appear with my learned friend, MR C.J. BEVAN, for the applicant. (instructed by Clinch Neville Long) MR P.L. ROBERTS, SC: I appear for the respondent, if the Court pleases. (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) GAUDRON J: Yes, Mr Menzies. MR MENZIES: Your Honour, in an endeavour to hopefully assist efficiency, we have actually reduced - - - GAUDRON J: You might have assisted efficiency if you had made this application in time. HAYNE J: Why should we extend time to an advised and competent litigant in circumstances where the penalty has been fully met? Why should time be extended? MR MENZIES: Your Honour, the reason why time should be extended is that although the penalty has been met and served, the opprobrium which is attached to the conviction still remains. HAYNE J: Then all the more reason why a well advised, apparently able litigant, should get on and do it quickly. Why should we now grant an extension? MR MENZIES: It should not fall upon the litigant's shoulders to suffer a detriment as a consequence of delay in the circumstances where - - - GAUDRON J: Whose delay, though? That is the problem, is it not? Certainly there is a period of delay referable to the Court of Appeal, that much can be understood. But then nothing seems to have happened for some months. October, I think, one eventually got the reasons. January, is it, that instructions were given? February, the application was made. MR MENZIES: That is certainly so, your Honour. GAUDRON J: Well, Christmas takes up a little - - - MR MENZIES: Delay, in part, as your Honour Justice Gaudron points out, in awaiting the written reasons of the Court of Criminal Appeal, then certainly the Christmas vacation. GAUDRON J: It does not take a lot. Christmas vacation does not take up a lot of that time. MR MENZIES: No, your Honour. HAYNE J: What do we have, about 12 or 16 weeks of delay if no account is taken of the vacation and if we date time from receipt of the reasons of the Court of Appeal? MR MENZIES: That is so, your Honour, yes. But the consequence upon the applicant, of course, is significant and the prejudice that he suffers is significant. He cannot prosecute an appeal. It means little so far as the administration of justice is concerned generally or the position of the respondent of the appeal. GAUDRON J: I suppose we might find out if an extension of time is opposed. It usually is not, is it? MR ROBERTS: Can I just point out to your Honours that the date, according to the affidavit which is page 86, the applicant's solicitors wrote to the registrar was on 15 October requesting a copy of the written judgment and it was received on that very same day. GAUDRON J: No, it was not. HAYNE J: The transcript was. MR ROBERTS: A transcript of the extempore judgment. HAYNE J: Yes, 19 October is, it seems to me, the more relevant date which is the - - - MR ROBERTS: That is four days later, your Honour. HAYNE J: Yes, well, 15, 19 October, little may turn on that period. MR ROBERTS: Yes. Well, I just point that out, but questions of delay are matters for your Honours. GAUDRON J: You do not take any point on the matter. MR ROBERTS: Not on that, no. GAUDRON J: No point is taken, so you - - - MR MENZIES: After that rocky start, your Honours, let me try and deal with it. GAUDRON J: Having survived that hurdle, we do not think we wish to hear from you further. At this stage we would rather hear from the respondent. MR MENZIES: If your Honours please. MR ROBERTS: If your Honours would turn to page 76 of the appeal book, the error that was found by the Court of Criminal Appeal in this case related to a lack of direction that was given to the jury who found the applicant guilty of fraud. That lack of direction concerned the subjective belief of the accused which was said not to have - he lost an opportunity of being acquitted because of the misdirection that the Court of Criminal Appeal said was appropriate in this case. HAYNE J: That is, the jury were not instructed that they had to consider whether the applicant knew the shares, the subject of the dealing, were either worthless or worth far less than the amount for which they were credited. MR ROBERTS: It was not sufficiently put to the jury that the accused's subjective belief could determine the question of whether fraud was found or not. GAUDRON J: These were shares that were traded for around about the amount of money involved a little later - $50,000 difference. MR ROBERTS: Well, I think, factually, that does not really encompass what happened at all. Your Honours, could I just follow this through, if I may? The court found that there was insufficient direction. This was at a time nine months after the trial had taken place, so, at that stage, the accused was nine months into an 18 months sentence. What would have occurred normally in this situation, had the substituted verdict not been the result, would have been a new trial. Now, it is suggested twice - it is not suggested, it is stated in the applicant's latest document that he was acquitted of this charge of fraud - that is not correct at all. HAYNE J: I assume no verdict was taken on the alternative charge, was it? MR ROBERTS: That is so. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not acquit in relation to the fraud charge. This is under section 7(2) where a verdict is replaced. It is not the same as an acquittal at all. What otherwise would have occurred in this is that there would have been a new trial and what the Court of Criminal Appeal did was to substitute a verdict for the corporations charge instead of the fraud charge. HAYNE J: How could the Court of Criminal Appeal do that in face of the deficiency which it identified in the trial judge's charge? That is, given that deficiency, how could they then be satisfied that the jury's finding entailed conviction for the second alternative charge? MR ROBERTS: Well, there are two points there. Your Honour, firstly, what the Court of Criminal Appeal had to be satisfied of was the fact that the jury's verdict would have encompassed the facts as sufficient and, we say, the fact sufficient was certainly found. The error was that there was insufficient direction in relation to the subjective element of fraud which was not required for section 229(4). Therefore, it was open to the Court of Criminal Appeal to do what it did. Can I just follow through what I was endeavouring to do in relation to this matter, and pointing out to your Honours that what otherwise would have happened if a substituted verdict had not taken place would have been a new trial and both charges, presumably, would have been open. GAUDRON J: At that stage, pursuant to what was said by section 76, there would have been an investigation, presumably, about the circumstances in which the lease went to the holding company, an investigation that was not undertaken in the trial. MR ROBERTS: No, that was not the error that was found - - - GAUDRON J: What is the error? I have great difficulty in understanding how this matter went to trial on the basis that it did. MR ROBERTS: Your Honour, without attempting to go through all of - - - GAUDRON J: Page 76 is the error identified: the jury had to be satisfied that the accused knew that the transaction by which value had been given to the shares - and that, presumably, was putting the lease in the holding company - or as the Crown put it, the appearance of value had been given to the shares, was a transaction which was liable to be set aside - That is, the lease. MR ROBERTS: The whole transaction. GAUDRON J: Which transaction? MR ROBERTS: The transaction whereby the lease was placed in the name of the second company - it was not really a holding company at all, it just had the name Holdings - - - GAUDRON J: No, he called it - - - MR ROBERTS: But in the second company - - - GAUDRON J: It was not put at trial, was it, that that, in itself, was an offence? MR ROBERTS: No, but it was part of the factual matrix and the jury found objectively - - - GAUDRON J: They needed some very detailed instructions, would they not? MR ROBERTS: Well, that was the flaw that was said to have pertained to the verdict, was that the accused lost a chance of acquittal because the subjective matter was not properly put. So, they must have found him guilty objectively, but without taking - - - HAYNE J: No. GAUDRON J: Guilty objectively - - - MR ROBERTS: On the objective facts without taking into account this one matter of the subjective out. GAUDRON J: The matter with which he was charged was selling the shares to the other company, is that not right? MR ROBERTS: That was the fraud that was identified, yes, your Honour. GAUDRON J: Yes, that was the fraud. He was not charged with respect to having the lease put in the name of - we will call it Holding Company. MR ROBERTS: Yes. GAUDRON J: He is charged only with selling shares, presumably, if one looks at section 76, in circumstances in which he knew that the lease was liable to be set aside or treated as fictitious in some way. MR ROBERTS: But the whole transaction whereby the second company obtained that lease - - - GAUDRON J: What is the whole transaction? MR ROBERTS: Well, the transaction was, in effect, that the lease should have, by rights, belonged to Sterling Nicholas Duty Free. GAUDRON J: But that was not charged. MR ROBERTS: Well, it was, in effect. That is not the error that was identified by the Court of Criminal Appeal. They had not said there is anything fundamentally wrong with the charge. That is just, with respect, not the point that was identified by the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is merely - - - GAUDRON J: Yes, I know, but let us assume that the error is not telling them the applicant had to know - they had to be satisfied that the applicant knew that this whole lease arrangement was liable to be set aside, a notion with which I have some difficulty, on the facts, but let us assume they were told that. Why would not they have to be told precisely the same thing on the second count? MR ROBERTS: Your Honours, there is a different mental element in 229(4). GAUDRON J: Yes. HAYNE J: We accept all that. MR ROBERTS: Which only required objective matters - - - GAUDRON J: But what was the substance of - we are not talking about the mental elements so much as the substance that seems to have been bypassed at some point. MR ROBERTS: Well, your Honours are saying that, and it has been put in these submissions that there was a fundamental flaw in the charge. It may be that your Honours are saying this, but that is not what the Court of Criminal Appeal - - - HAYNE J: No, Mr Roberts, the point is, I think, this. If you go to the indictment at page 1 of the application book, charge 1 relevantly was defraud by causing purchase for $500,000. MR ROBERTS: Yes, your Honour, that is so. HAYNE J: At its simplest, that was defraud by causing purchase of something worth far less than 500,000 or worthless. MR ROBERTS: That is so. HAYNE J: And the jury's attention was never invited to whether the shares that were bought were worthless or worth far less than 500 because they were never directed to look at the sufficiency or the understanding of the sufficiency of this lease transaction. That being the deficiency at trial, how can the Court of Appeal say the verdict of the jury must be taken to mean that there was an improper use of position by causing purchase for 500. At some point in that chain, you have to have the step in the second charge of saying what was bought was not worth 500. MR ROBERTS: Your Honours, the problem with the verdict was not that it was not properly put in relation to the share transaction, the problem with his Honour's direction was that the jury could have been left with the belief that as long as they were satisfied that the shares were not worth anything, that was sufficient to convict. Now, what the court said was wrong in relation to that was the accused could have believed there was real value in the shares even if, objectively, others would not hold that belief. Clearly, the jury were of the view there was no value in those shares. That is why they convicted him of fraud. So he lost the opportunity of an acquittal because he could have believed - - - GAUDRON J: You say that, but it is very difficult to understand how they could have come to that view without having formed the view that the lease transaction was liable to be set aside, to use that term "undone" - - - MR ROBERTS: Well, clearly, they did, your Honour, that is why they convicted him. GAUDRON J: Why? HAYNE J: Given the charge at page 10, which seems to me to be the sum total of the judge's charge on this question, at line 40 all the judge said was, rehearsing the Crown's argument: that the purpose of the sale.....was for no reason other than to delay or hinder creditors by making the accused, himself, a creditor rather than a debtor; No question of whether the transaction was of proper value, improper value, whether the surrounding lease transaction was good, bad or indifferent. On those instructions, the jury could properly have convicted had they said, "We think he did this to delay creditors". MR ROBERTS: Well, your Honours, there are other portions in the summing up but what I have put to you as being the reasons of the Court of Criminal Appeal are those that they gave. What your Honour is putting to me, with respect, is not what the Court of Criminal Appeal have said. GAUDRON J: No, I know it is not, but what they have done, they have said, "This conviction cannot stand", provisionally set it aside, "but we can substitute another one". What I am putting to you is that they needed a far more thorough analysis of the factual situation before they could simply substitute conviction on one charge for another. MR ROBERTS: Your Honours, the facts that were found on pages 71 through to 73, coupled with a finding that the only flaw in relation to this was the judge's summing up in relation to the subjective matter, that was sufficient for a finding under 229(4) - - - GAUDRON J: Is there a finding that that was the only flaw? MR ROBERTS: Page 76, line 6: The jury could have been left with a belief that as long as they were satisfied as a fact that the shares were not worth anything, the charge could have been made out, even if the accused believed that there was real value in the shares - GAUDRON J: But that is not the way it was - the jury could have been satisfied on any number of other bases. MR ROBERTS: Your Honour asked me what the Court of Criminal Appeal, as I understood it, did and that is what they said. This is the one matter that was identified, was a failure to put - if the accused believed there was real value in the shares after the transaction, that needed to be disproved, in effect, because fraud requires subjective and objective elements, and the subjective element was not sufficiently put to the jury. That was the one and only flaw that was identified in relation to this matter. GAUDRON J: Then the next question is, was the objective element sufficiently put to the jury? MR ROBERTS: There was no criticism by the court in relation to the objective element which was clearly made out. GAUDRON J: No, but I am asking you. MR ROBERTS: In my submission, yes, it was sufficiently put. No error was identified - - - GAUDRON J: Where was it put? This is sufficiently put to enable a substituted verdict, we are talking about. MR ROBERTS: Your Honours, what we are looking at is whether the facts as found by the jury verdict must have been found. This is what is required under the provision, whether the facts found by the jury, and in order to find him guilty of fraud the whole case rested upon whether the shares were really valueless because they really, in effect, belonged to Sterling Nicholas Duty Free and not the other company. That is what the whole case turned upon. GAUDRON J: Except that is not what was charged. MR ROBERTS: Well, it was what was charged, but what their Honours have said is because of the nature of the case it was a little more complex than that and it required a direction along the lines of what their Honours have pointed out. That was what was lacking in this case. It was the lack of direction. Could I just come back to this point which I did not quite make? The result of a successful appeal, had it not been for a substitution of the charge, would have been a retrial. Now, what is now being sought is a quashing of this second substituted verdict, so, in effect, what they are seeking is that there will be no conviction at all and no retrial and that, by reason of effluxion of time - - - GAUDRON J: They may not achieve that - - - MR ROBERTS: That is what they are seeking, your Honour. GAUDRON J: That is a matter within the hands of - assuming they were granted special leave and were successful on an appeal, the question whether or not there is a retrial was entirely in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions or whoever else now has the power - - - MR ROBERTS: Assuming, of course, that the court - well, that is what is being sought, to quash this second - - - HAYNE J: You have not opposed the extension of time, Mr Roberts? MR ROBERTS: No, I have not opposed the extension of time - - - HAYNE J: The bed has been made. MR ROBERTS: But I do oppose the grant of leave and what I am suggesting is - - - GAUDRON J: On the ground what? On the ground that - - - MR ROBERTS: They could not have achieved what they are now seeking in the Court of Criminal Appeal because they would have got a fresh trial. GAUDRON J: It would have achieved a new trial, yes. MR ROBERTS: That is so. GAUDRON J: They cannot achieve any more here than they can achieve in the Court of Criminal Appeal. MR ROBERTS: Well, what they are seeking to achieve is the quashing of - - - GAUDRON J: Well, they may be seeking it and if they achieve it, it is not because of the way in which appeals are allowed. MR ROBERTS: It is by effluxion of time, the sentence having been served - - - GAUDRON J: No, it is not by effluxion of time - - - MR ROBERTS: The sentence having been served, your Honour - - - GAUDRON J: It is not be effluxion of time. If it is achieved, it is achieved by prosecution policy. MR ROBERTS: Well, with respect, your Honour, depending on what the result is. If he was successful in relation to what he is seeking, there would be a quashing of the second count - sorry, not the second count, the substituted - - - GAUDRON J: The conviction would be set aside. There would be no quashing. The conviction would be set aside, simpliciter. Whether or not there is a subsequent prosecution, assuming special leave were granted and the appeal allowed, would be a matter within prosecution policy. MR ROBERTS: Could I submit, your Honour, that if this Court is going to act in the place of the Court of Criminal Appeal, it either makes a decision under section 6(1), or 7, or 8. They are the three options that are available. Section 6 involves a quashing which says "and an acquittal". Section 7 is a substitution. GAUDRON J: Where is 6, 7 and 8? As I understand it, the powers of this Court are to do what could have been done in the intermediate Court of Appeal. MR ROBERTS: Section 6(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act of New South Atlantis: Subject to the special provisions of this Act, the court shall, if it allows an appeal under section 5(1) against conviction, quash the conviction and direct a judgment and verdict of acquittal to be entered. Now, 7(2) is the substituted verdict and section 8 is the new trial. So there has to be one of those courses taken. GAUDRON J: Yes, section 8 is the new trial. MR ROBERTS: Well, I am merely pointing out that this Court would have to do one of those three things and it is not a matter whether the Crown puts him up again, which would obviously be, it is a question of which of those three sections this Court would utilise. GAUDRON J: Yes, well, what it would do, on the arguments thus far advanced, is order a new trial. Whether or not that happened is in your hands on the arguments as they are advanced here. MR ROBERTS: I appreciate that is what your Honour did. I was pointing out that what they are seeking is a quashing of this - that is what it says in their draft grounds of appeal. GAUDRON J: People sometimes are a little optimistic when they come to this Court, on both sides, it seems to me. MR ROBERTS: I am merely pointing out that which is sought, with respect, your Honour. To just come back to the correctness of the decision, we say that the facts, as found by the jury, must have encompassed that the share transaction itself, in effect, was, to use the vernacular, I suppose, a scam, and the lease, in effect, belonged to Sterling Nicholas Duty Free and, in those circumstances, the Court of Criminal Appeal was entitled to substitute the verdict. Those are the submissions of the respondent, if your Honour pleases. GAUDRON J: There will be a grant of special leave in this case, but before the parties depart the Bar table, let me say something which can be relayed to other members of the profession. It should not be assumed henceforth that extensions of time will be granted simply because they are not opposed. One of the problems that may emerge by the extension of time is adverted to in this case. It may be that time will have so passed between the conviction and the ultimate final appeal that prosecution policy will come into operation and bring about a situation that really ought not, in the interests of justice, to occur. So it should be understood hence forward that applications for extension of time in criminal matters must be accompanied by proper explanation of all the delay, and it must be clear that it is not referable merely to standing by on the part of the applicant and it should not be taken that the dilatoriness of counsel is a sufficient explanation in these cases. Similarly, it should not be taken that the absence of legal aid is a sufficient explanation. So if you gentlemen would be kind enough to impart that information to your colleagues it may - - - MR MENZIES: It will spread like wild fire. GAUDRON J: Yes. It may save them the embarrassment that occurred to Mr Menzies today. The Court will now adjourn to reconstitute. AT 12.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Look, I have just been threatened with personal retaliation for a flamewar. THIS IS WRONG!!!!!!! WRONG WRONG ANTIGONE IS STALKING ME ANTIGONE IS STALKING ME ANTIGONE IS STALKING ME Now you'll forgive me if that's more important to me than being fucking polite to you. Answer me this: DO YOU THINK THAT TAKING PERSONAL REVENGE FOR A FLAMEWAR IS RIGHT? YES OR NO? ANTIGONE IS FUCKING STALKING ME!!! WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT??? ARE YOU ALL SO TOTALLY INTO HATING ME THAT YOU WANT TO SEE ME HARASSED IN MY PRIVATE LIFE BY THIS PSYCHO?

Lucy...go back and check yourself...I did not get involved in the Affirmative Action discussion as it is a USA program and I know little of it and have not experienced it. I posted nothing until you started striking out needlessly. Obviously you and they had differing opinions but it would have been to your benefit to read their posts. each of you had valid points to make and when done....you should have gone your separate ways. But....NO!!!!...you had to continue trying to get your point across inspite of attempts to avoid you. Just because someone posts on the same thread doesn't mean it is there for you....it is there for everyone. It was at this point that I added my 2 cents worth (US currency) as I was disturbed by your arrogant pig headed manners. You then commenced to include me in your perceived "white boys' club". You have now associated me with a "hand jive" of which I have no knowledge. I am not a sheep. I am not a sheep. I am not a sheep. I only used name calling on you AFTER you and your pussy whipped grunt of a boy friend decided that you should be including me in your tirade. I have attempted to stay out of this....but if you continue to drag me in ...... Give it a rest.

hey nate does this contain elements of a stalk? "Antigone on Wednesday, December 22, 1999 - 01:54 am: Oops, RC. You've said a bad thing to Lucy. You've just officially become a waste of skin. Sorry... :-) Lucy, was that a physical threat? Are you going to use that new gun of yours (the one you talked about on these very boards...) on one of us? I wonder if the people at SLAC would like to know that a someone using their computers is physically threatening others over the internet. Remember what just happened to a guy in Florida who threatened a Columbine student..." i have had a particular interest in legal matters say in ohh, the last hour or so and the one being discussed is of interest

what is your need, people? you must stop. just stop already. if you stop, the whole mess will stop. if you feed it, it will continue. it's your choice. it is not even remotely entertaining anymore. it's just boring and tedious. besides, there is no right or wrong, there is only Sock Monkey. and if you'll recall, Sock Monkey never did nobody no wrong.

Sarah, thank you for asking these people to leave me alone. However, this is EXTREMELY SERIOUS!!! This asshole is trying to ATTACK ME PERSONALLY in a VERY SERIOUS MANNER. That is STALKING and LIBEL I WILL SUE THE FUCK OUT OF HIM IF HE EVEN FUCKING THINKS ABOUT IT!!!!! Antigone, if you attempt to harass me at work, I WILL NOT HESITATE TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU!!!!!

The Queen v Taikato S115/1995 (23 August 2002) IN THE HIGH COURT OF COSTA RICA Office of the Registry Escazu # S115 of 2001 B e t w e e n - THE QUEEN Appellant and JO-ANNE TERUIA TAIKATO Respondent Directions hearing GAUDRON J (In Chambers) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT ATENAS ON FRIDAY, 23 AUGUST 2002, AT 9.32 AM Copyright in the High Court of Costa Rica (Only part of the proceedings recorded by Auscript) ...Judiciary Act which provides that in the event of a split, the decision, if the decision is from a decision of a Justice of the High Court or a decision of the Supreme Court, that the decision appealed against stands, It would be my respectful submission, in the event that there was to be made a submission, that this is not a decision from a State Supreme Court, it is an appeal, not from a State Supreme Court but an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal, in which case the decision of the Chief Justice would prevail. Now, if we have a two-all split with the Chief Justice on our side, then I suppose I might be being asked to risk a certain - - - HER HONOUR: I do not know that you should make any assumption as to the purpose of today's mention. I do not think that would be wise to make any assumption, but it is a matter for you. The fact is no decision has been given. MR KINTOMINAS: Your Honour, could I have half a minute? HER HONOUR: Yes, certainly. MR KINTOMINAS: I am just - - - HER HONOUR: You can have longer than half a minute. It may be a matter on which you would like to get instructions. MR KINTOMINAS: Your Honour, I do have a view as to what is to be done and as long as my instructing solicitor does not disagree, I will indicate that view immediately. HER HONOUR: Yes. Well, shall I adjourn or do you just wish to speak - - - MR KINTOMINAS: If no disrespect if I turn my back to your Honour for a moment. HER HONOUR: Yes, certainly, thank you. MR KINTOMINAS: Your Honour, I am instructed to agree to the remainder of the Court giving a decision on the matter. HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. In that event - I am sorry, I think your junior wants you. MR KINTOMINAS: Yes, my junior has just pointed out that there was a video, I think, operating when the matter was being heard. If the remaining three Justices wish to view the video of the argument, I would have no objection. HER HONOUR: Was there a video? MR KINTOMINAS: There was close circuit television. Whether or not there is a tape in existence that can be viewed, I do not know. But if there is, I would have no objection to the Justices viewing that tape. HER HONOUR: Thank you. I suppose the same goes for you, does it, Mr Keleman? MR KELEMAN: Yes, subject to whatever view the Court takes under section 19. HER HONOUR: That is not a matter on wish to put argument, is it? MR KELEMAN: No. MR KINTOMINAS: Your Honour, the only thing that then remains is, as a result of this being done, is it envisaged that any supplementary submissions in writing may be required from either side? HER HONOUR: I think not. Thank you, gentlemen. The transcript will be made available to the other Justices of the Court, together with the other documents in the case. The Court will now adjourn. AT 9.37 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

YOUR FILIBUSTER WILL NOT WORK. I WILL NOT ALLOW THIS PSYCHO TO RUIN MY LIFE THIS IS FUCKING SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ANTIGONE HAS THREATENED TO HARASS ME AT WORK. NOT TO MENTION THE IMPLIED THREAT OF VIOLENCE. ANTIGONE, YOU HAVE TO GIVE YOUR REAL NAME TO CONTACT MY EMPLOYER, AND AS SOON AS YOU DO, IT WILL GO ON A RESTRAINING ORDER AND A SUMMONS FOR A SLANDER/ LIBEL LAWSUIT!!!!!!! CYBERSTALKING IS WRONG, EVEN IF THE VICTIM WAS RUDE TO HER ASSAILANT.

I have contacted a stalking victims' resource. This is EXTREMELY SERIOUS. Antigone, I will not allow your TERRORISM to ruin my life. I WILL TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU IF YOU PERSIST

Lucy: I don't have time to fish back thru "The Worst Thing I've Ever Done" or wherever all this crap started -- lately I can only access the boards at work & they don't pay me to surf the Net. But I will say this -- you are WRONG abt Nate. He may be an affluent white dude/but he is NOT a racist or Anti-Affirmative Action. He's been around here long enuf & particiapted in enuf discussions on the topic w/me & others to make that crsytal clear. (Check out the Archives.) Calling him 'Nazi Boy" was TOTALLY OUT OF LINE & you shd apologize. Calling anyone a Nazi in this day & age is akin to spitting in someone's face. . As for the rest of it/I've butted heads w/a few former & current Sorabjians (the infamous D____ & FetidBeaver, specifically) in discussions of race & AA. D_____'s vulgar remarks & name-calling got so bad that he had to be censured & eventually blocked from the boards (which only Mark can do). But FB is still here -- despite the opinions of some folks that anyone who disagrees w/R.C. or Nate will immediately be set upon & beaten to a bloody pulp. I don't have the kind of power over anyone. Neither does Nate. And when folks disagree w/me & can show me where I'm wrong/I'll admit that I'm wrong & back down. If it's a difference of opinion based on cultural issues or personal perspective/then I will agree to disagree -- & I usually manage to do so w/out flaming or threatening anyone or calling folks out of their name. But you've gone way past the point of making yr point, Lucy. It is an open forum & lots of shit gets slung. But what's going on w/you, Lucy.... I dunno. I don't see how you can have any fun here at all if you feel you're being "stalked & consipred against". You said you were leaving a couple of weeks ago/but you're still here. And still miserable becuz you seem to think so many people are out to get you... Considering the fact that what many of you here will observe as Xmas is less than 48 hrs. away/ can't we ALL declare a cease-fire on this Lucy issue (inc. you Lucy) -- in the name of Peace on Earth & Good will? Please?

where do i sign RC?

RC, please at least scroll up and read what I said. And Nate does NOT support Affirmative Action, or at least he argued against it a lot for somebody who supports it. He also DID say a lot of very anti-Semitic things on that board (starting with "Everyone knows the Jews are running the country") He later tried to claim that it was some sort of reductio ad absurdum thing, but it was only AFTER he spent SEVERAL WEEKS defending the statements that he had made. When I called him on his anti-Semitism, he told me that I was trying to silence objections to Israeli policy and US policy towards Israel, using "Zionist tactics" (assuming that I am a Zionist solely because I am Jewish) He persisted in assuming that I was a Zionist even AFTER I told him SEVERAL times that I opposed Israeli policy and US policy towards Israel. (I marched against the Gulf war, Ferchrissakes) That IS the earmark of a bigot. He also said that he was shaving his head for the new year, and implied that he would attack me. This was probably in jest. However, the fact that he found it humorous certainly causes him a lot of respect in my book. And the fact that more people here like him than don't does NOT mean that he is not a racist. Shit, I think Pink proved that pretty conclusively. The majority is NOT always right. I was under the impression that you understood that. I stand by what I said. As for Antigone, please scroll up and see for yourself. He threatened PERSONAL REVENGE against me. I take that shit pretty seriously. This PSYCHO made it quite clear that he knew how to find me. This PSYCHO has also said on Where in the World is Tom Moore, that he considers rape and assault to be acceptable responses to making fun of a man's penis. I am afraid for my life. I have contacted a stalking victims' support resource, as I will get no help from this MOB. RC, PLEASE think for YOURSELF. Read my side of the story, look into it, and DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. Do not base your decisions on the actions of the majority. We all know what happens when people leave moral judgements to the majority.

There is no peace on earth for somebody who is being stalked. I may have been rude, but cyberstalking is a SERIOUS CRIME, and I DID research this. Antigone's behavior constitutes stalking and he has shown a fondness for violence against women. Would you take any chances in a situation like that?

Firstly, to Antigone THE STALKER: Recant and apologize immediately or face legal action. Secondly, to the LYNCH MOB IN GENERAL: The mob mentality of the people here has gotten EXTREMELY out of hand. This FUCKER is STALKING me and you people think it's okay? ANTIGONE'S BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTES STALKING, Even if you don't like me, ANTIGONE'S BEHAVIOR STILL CONSTITUTES STALKING Even if I am in the minority IT DOESN'T CHANGE ONE LETTER OF THE CYBERSTALKING LAWS. Now, the Sorabji.com community needs to decide whether or not it considers cyberstalking to be acceptable behavior. If it does not, somebody has to DO SOMETHING about Antigone. I don't have the technical know-how to protect myself. That PSYCHOTIC SCUMBAG knows that and has taken advantage of it in order to harass me. If it does consider WHAT IS LEGALLY STALKING, NO MATTER HOW UNPOPULAR THE VICTIM IS, to be unacceptable behavior then we're all fucked. Look, I know all you people hate me because I flamed the whiteboys, but the precedent you set could be applied to you someday. This psycho is not going to stop at harassing me. He could go after any of you. J- you made fun of his penis. I know you hate ME, but do you want him tracing YOU to YOUR workplace? And I know all of you have flamed him at one time or another. Your silence is your assent, people. Speak up. Yes or No? Is cyberstalking acceptable behavior on Sorabji.com?

Give it a rest..... We have Patrick's signature. Here is mine.....for my small part in this. Next?

Look, Maple Leaf, your posts NEVER meant shit to me. You're a fucking moron. Great, I'm glad you won't be wasting bandwidth with your little flames, but I'm a little more concerned with being STALKED. STALKING IS NOT OKAY. Does ANYBODY on this board feel that stalking is wrong, or is it okay if you don't like the victim?

In a stalking situation (which I agree is wrong) the stalker needs to 'KNOW' who is he/she is stalking and the stalkee needs to 'KNOW' who is stalking her/him. Neither of you know anything tangible about each other. He knows the IP address of your employer (any of us could figure that out). And you know some person by a handle who lives 30 miles from the stalker. The only things you know about him are his choosen handle and the fact that you don't like him. You are safe. Give it a rest. Please???

Mine was there a long time ago (sigh). Although my 2 cents are apparently not worth the base metal, all this place really is is a bunch of ideas expressed by individuals. There are similar places on the net where you can express any opinion you wish to. This is not the only forum left in the world for relatively free expression of ideas. If I personally had a big beef with the people here, i would not come back here. It's that simple. I mean, hey, if you're at a party, and you realize that you are diametrically opposed to most of the people there, wouldn't you leave? I sure as hell would, and have. I'm not suggesting anything to anybody. I am NOT suggesting ANYTHING to ANYBODY (it saddens me to have to emphasize this). Look folks, there are two solutions to this problem: either ignore all posts by whomever you find offensive, or wipe the slate clean, as has been suggested. I much prefer the second one, because, even after all this, I believe in redemption and forgiveness. Happy Holidays. PS. Are those actual court transcripts? pps. how the jingle bells did you get to post an image? Damn cute kid, btw.

Frankly, Lucy, Cyber Stalking is something I take abt as seriously as I take being told "your cybercheck is in the mail." Or that the fillings in my teeth make it possible for aliens to communicate with me in secret/even when I'm in a crowded elevator. The sad fact is/if Antigone or Nate or Patrick or anyone else around here w/a little computer savvy really wanted to hurt you/YOUR ASS WD BE DEAD BY NOW!(Did it ever occur to you that you might have a problem w/men...? Just asking.) But you're still here/making a fucking nuisance of yrself/going from board to board whining & bitching & begging everyone to pay attention to Poor, Persecuted, Lucy! [BTW: Scrolling back & reading yr previous posts here & at the "Worst Thing" thread offered NOTHING to help yr case, Lucy. You have been WAY out of line w/nearly everyone here. So it ovbiously can't all be everyone else's problem -- ya know?] Whatever was said to you -- in reality or that twisted fantasy world you live in -- IT'S TIME TO GET THE FUCK OVER IT! You've certainly given as much grief as you got & pissed all the rest of us off in the process. This is not abt you being Jewish. THis is not abt you supporting Affirmative Action. This is not abt some Whiteboy Handjive Mafia putting out a contract on Lucy. THIS is abt YOU behaving like a self-centered 2-yr-old/throwing verbal tantrums on EVERY SINGLE BOARD in search of someone who will support you & yr viewpoints. Then calling everyone names who won't come to yr aid. As we say 'round the way: Don't start none, won't be none..." But if you insist on stirring up shit/be prepared to defend yrself all by yr lomesome. Becuz nobody wants to be bothered taking up for an asshole. You are like the half-assed looking chick in the bar at 2:00 a.m./sitting around talking loudly abt how men are so intimidated by her beauty that nobody ever asks her out. Completely oblivious to the fact that the only person listening to her is the bartender -- who gets paid to listen to drunk assholes. If she weren't so obnoxiously self-centered/maybe some one wd come over & talk to her. But her insistence on bringing every discussion back around to her viewpoint/& her delusional belief in her own so-called beauty/are more than anyone cares to swallow. And she'll be sitting in that bar every Sat. nite all by herself. Becuz she refuses to accept the sad fact that her lousy personality isn't enuf to compensate for her half-assed physical appearance /which is why nobody wants to sit down & chat her up. So put on yr coat & GO HOME, LUCY. You stomped off in a huff less than 2 weeks ago -- well,have the courage of yr own convictions. GO & STAY GONE! Becuz at this point/you have no friends left here. You've taken off yr shirt & danced on the bar/you've pissed in everyone's drinks -- intentionally -- & now that you're sitting in the corner cyring in yr cups/NOBODY is interested in paying ANY ATTENTION TO YOU!

Whoa. What did I say about R. C. going full on?

I'm new here, so I probably don't count, but anyway ... Cyberstalking is wrong, and if someone had mentioned contacting my employer I'd be scared. I recently wrote a paper for Uni on Holocaust denial, for which I spent some time in denial chat places. One of the more rabid deniers took offence and threatened to contact my university. I didn't take it seriously, but I was still scared. Even seeing a post here by someone calling themselves "Jar Jar" made my pulse race, because the denier who threatened to contact my university called him/herself "Jar Jar." I don't pretend this is logical, but fear is like that. So even joke threats that have no actual intent can still be frightening, and please don't make them even if you think it's hysterically funny. But Lucy - I don't really understand why you claim the others are trying to drown you out. Your posts are freely available, and I always read them like all the others. Having people post after you is not the same as people talking over you. Cleo is gorgeous. I had two seconds of maternal longings, then diverted them to the beanie babies.

Taetia, i was posting as Jar Jar (and yes those are acutal Austrailian court transcripts), i am sorry to startle, a friend who pokes and plays with the whole doody around jar jar sent me an email prior to my post, again sorry to startle, i was just playing around......(he lives in the bay area and we have mutual friends at Lucas Arts, the jokes and satire are ongoing) RC, i would kiss you because that was the most beautiful diplay of sensibility i have since missed from you...... i look to you as the mother of tough love, who beats me hard when i fuck up good and who has the sweetest kiss around. you remind me of my grandmother, your words are very southern in tongue, despite where you may be from, I was raised on that tongue my grandmother was hard on me, but she also spoiled me when i wasn't screwing up, she was my mother more than my mother was, she is old now and will die soon, perhaps I am displacing affection, but the words strike a serious cord nonetheless...

I don,t hate you Lucy,I thought you knew that.

Patrick, I jess calls um lak I sees um. I know I can be a First Class Bitch sometimes. But I only get that way when I've been pushed to the limit. Plus, I can't stand whiners -- esp. whiners who use caps ALL the time. If a person thinks everyone here is set against them/they shd just leave/rather than bitching all over the boards. [My mother was/is a daughter of the South (W.Va.). Her Ma was from Ireland but immigrated to the States/landed in Virginia then settled in W.Va. My Mom still has a trace of the accent.]

R.C.--I'm new here too. But here's my signiture anyway.

Patrick - thanks :o) If anyone wants to see the other Jar Jar (the Holocaust denial fuckwit Jar Jar), go to http://www.air-photo.com/wwwboard/wwwboard.h tml and given him hel

Dave and Kelsey,she,s a doll,same age as Jonathon,they are so cute and innocent,like angels.And their minds are like sponges.

thanks j.

i have been gone a very long time and i come back to see Lucy bitching and moaning and complaing and making me waste a good 30 mins of my life bcuz he/she(im notsure)is overlysensitive. i think if it went away most of us wouldnt be able to bother it. and if it quit bitching back, eventually people would lose interest.

WOW! I just read this entire thread and I'm amused and confused. I didn't realize that I was #2 on the evil whiteboy list, right behind Patrick. Also who said I'm white? Does anyone really care about what I have to say here? I'm dumbfounded that RC was so offended by anything I said, way back when was that again? Currently I'm printing these "Lucy threads" and take them to work where I discuss them with the staff psychiatrist. (this thread is 27 pages to date) Sometimes I make comments just for the reactions. This thread is a gold mine though. I probably shouldn't tell you but I'm very intoxicated on Rum right now and don't care.

i'm kinda hurt that i wasn't even mentioned. i guess i wasn't trying hard enough. i'm definitely a whiteboy. german and scandinavian. it doesn't get whiter than that.

quiet honky.

How have you been Bable16? How,s school?

FB - let us know what the psych. thinks. I'm glad I didn't try to assemble all of this into a document - 27 pages just for this thread!? I was considering doing that and giving the document to my mom, to see what she thinks. She's a professional social worker and deals with problems similar to Lucy's all the time.

... There's a lot of love in this room. Think happy thoughts. :P

Um, excuse me RC, but you are FULL OF SHIT! Antigone is TRYING TO GET ME FIRED FROM MY JOB!!! Don't fucking tell me I'm whining, if I object to that. I know all of you hate me and I promise I'll go away if YOU PEOPLE, and every one of you who supported THE STALKER's actions, or who did not speak up, is culpable, will just PLEASE STOP TERRORIZING ME I DON'T CARE ABOUT WINNING I DON'T CARE ABOUT CONVINCING ANYONE OF ANYTHING I JUST WANT MY LIFE BACK!!!!

the only terrifying thing here is that lobe of fat behind your eyes.

here is the answer http://ttsw.com/HenrysSheep/SheepHomePage.htm l

I wish the link was valid.

pladow no charge.

danke.

ANTIGONE MALICIOUSLY POSTED PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT ME WITH THE STATED INTENTION OF TRYING TO GET ME FIRED FROM MY JOB. WHY HAS NOBODY TAKEN NOTICE OF THIS FACT?

is this bad performance art or are you really this lame?

http://www.jokewallpaper.com/html/280.htm

as susan powder would say, stop the madness. i'm back. did y'all miss me?

Yes! How was yr Xmas, Agatha? Are you doing anything for New Year's? (Tell ____ I got the CD but I don't know what to load. I sent him an email.) What did Cleo get for Xmas?

i missed you i missed you. now on to the details. you owe us. we're waiting. . .. ... .... ..... .... ... .. .

Hi Agatha. I missed you. I hate being third.

oh shit it's the dots. "is this bad performance art or are you really this lame? " i urinated.

Nate, is that a haiku ?

i don' think so?

what would you like to know? i will start a new thread, you can all ask your questions there so we don't steal anyone's fire.

You guys are really funny, you know that?

Take my wife, please! Thank you, I'm here every weekend! Be sure to drink up!

holy shit, I can't believe I just read this whole goddamn thread. I hate work. and what did I learn? how are we supposed to help you Lucy? what would that do? I know I could get shotdown -hardcore- for saying this but we can't even see you, much less fend off stalkers. Really. It's not that I don't care about you or the people here or anything, but i severely doubt that saying: "oh, please oh, please Mr.hacker stalker-man, leave her alone!! *sob**sob*!!" will do shit against a supposed PSYCHO, as you like to call him. Damnit. Only Mark can do anything about Anti's posts*, and he seems to be playing Indifferent God at the moment. If you truly are in some sort of trouble, realize right now that no one here can help you, no matter how much we want to or how many caps you use. NONE OF US CAN HELP YOU. welcome to the matrix, kiddo. i hate being the realist. everybody just EAT HOT FUCK (*Disclaimer: by posting this I mean no offence to Antigone, ______, Nate, Patrick, F.B. or whoever else Lucy has expressed fear or hatred towards lately. I'm a neutral kid. Luv to all you guys *hugs*)

cleo rocks

thanks, but why did you choose to mention that here? just curious.

there's a picture way up there it was somehow worth having to see some of the stuff around it i've been gone for a while

god I can't wait till my friends' kids are that age. she looks like she could teach you stuff.

oh, okay. i comprehend now. yeah, she's a little too smart for her own good. it gets annoying when your daughter can argue with you and win.

nate, you remembered the dots!

it is kind of amazing, isn't it? back when i never sorabji'd sober. oh, i wasn't really ever sober. you'd think i'd have forgotten. the dots. a tidbit of sorabji folklore. knowledge of the dots. seperates the gods from the mortals. i don't know what i'm talking about.

not just knowledge of the dots. but knowledge of the real and symbolic power of the dots.

well, yeah. anyway, the power seems to hold.

Umm...you people do know that everyone in the whole world with a computer can read this? You don't know who i am but i am doing a research project on cyberstalking and it sound like this lucy has been a victim. I kknow nothing about you people at all, i don't even know your real names. i might be out of area so i might be silenced but i don't care. what if a little kid got onto this website and found out all the swearing that you guys have done, hmm... i know this is a board where you can say anything you want to, but you people should be ashamed of yourselves threatening to kill people and swearing at each other. And you who put that picture up of that little girl, i could understand if she is yours but how do i know that. well i hope lucy you haven't shot anyone yet and i hope that everyone learns a lesson when i say that a little kid could look in on this and learn all about you guys.

you better shut up or you're gonna GET IT!

I'd be happy to discuss the whole Lucy incident with you, B.H. My e-mail is greg_barton@yahoo.com We can also chat about it on this board as well, if you don't feel comfortable with e-mail.

where did RC go? I miss her.

Anyway, to address your message, yes B.H. we are all aware that anyone can read what we write. Not only that, but just about anyone who posts here long enough will find out that the IP address you post from (the numerical address of your computer on the internet) is also available to everyone in the world. So posting here is somewhat less that anonymous. It's part of the appeal, imho. It was also part of the reason for the whole Lucy fiasco. She was making statements that I found to be potentially threatening. I was posting from my home IP at the time, and thus my home address was available on the internet. (Still is, if you dig a bit.) That made me think there was a possibility her threatening words could become threatening actions. I also thought Lucy was a student misusing the computers at Stanford, using them to post vague threatening posts about having a gun, people who don't deserve to live because of their political beliefs, etc. I thought my concerns might lead to contacting a system admin at Stanford and wanted to warn Lucy first. I thought that she might reconsider posting in such an irresponsible way if I threw a bit of reality into the mix. I was obviously wrong. :) Anyway, that's my take, five years removed. It's funny how this issue keeps coming back again, over and over.

Oh, and about kids and swearing: I grew up in a household where my parents and their friends swore all of the time, and not just in anger. "It's colder than a witch's tit in a brass bra" and "I don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut" were two if my parent's favorite sayings. I turned out just fine, though one can debate that. :)

"I don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut" AAhahahahahaha!!!! That was great! Here's another one for ya- Well, fuck me running backwards through a cornfield! It's great!

what up with the children=no swearing bullshit? There is nothing wrong with swearing. It doesn't hurt anyone or anything. 99.9% of everyone on earth, ever, throughout history, has used swearing and will continue to do so. Who cares if kids read it? They're going to swear a lot one day too. Just like their parents did. And their grandparents before them. Why not try to do something usefull instead of reminding people not to swear in public? How about next time you pick up some litter instead?

I remember the first time I swore in anger. Before that I'd just danced around and sang the "shit song" for fun, a little song I made up so I could say "shit" as many times as possible in 30 seconds. Yes, I danced and sang as a child. Fear me. Anyway, I was walking home with friends in 5th grade. My math teacher had written a note to my parents (which I was reading, of course) that said I might get a C in his class. I was pissed. I was real pissed. Math was...who I was. It was everything. I had worked my ass off, and I knew the subject down cold. He was being unfair. I yelled, "GOD DAMN HIM!" My two friends got all quiet. I felt, at once, excited, and a bit scared of myself. What did I just do? Would God really damn him? Did I really say that? Felt fuckin' great.

I remember being afraid of swearing when I was a kid, and I had this crazy belief that when you were an adult you automatically grow out of swearing and being angry. Which totally makes no sense, because the only people I saw swearing and being angry were adults, so I have no idea in hell where I got that belief from. In fact, my mom freaked me out one day when I heard her swear "goddammit to hell." I think I cried. But anyway, I used to wince whenever I heard anyone swear, or even when I saw swear words printed, like in that one Far Side cartoon where Noah tells the animals they'll be filing into the ark in alphabetical order and the zebras think, "Damn," (seriously, that bothered me), and I remember getting kinda depressed when I heard Kelly DeVuono up the street swear, because she was my last non-swearing friend, and I felt like I was all alone on my side of the swearing river or something. And then one day in sixth grade, my locker wouldn't open, and I said "damn!" and kicked it. And then for the longest time I would only say "damn," "hell," and "ass." Now I can just about say everything, but I use "fuck" sparingly because I always feel like I'm going to be smacked for it. That don't stop me from writing or thinking it, though.

My mom was big time anti-swearing. We were also not allowed to say "shut-up." When I was younger, I thought I'd never swear. And when I started swearing more, for a while, it felt really false to say fuck or shit. I think it's kind of cool to be a mostly non swearing person, because people notice when you do swear. The first time I heard my nana say bullshit, it was the cutest thing ever. I recently heard my mother say fuck for the first time and she apologized. It was cute.

I find it touching when someone apologizes for swearing in front of me. My brother is now dating a Mormon, and he gets on my case when I say "my God" or "oh lord," not because he's offended but because he's hypersensitive to those words' potential offense quotient. Or something. Whatever. It's very annoying.

For some reason this one woman at work... who is very very Irish, which has nothing to do with this story at all... Anyway, I said something tame like "bitch", and she was shocked and she stared at me and exclaimed "You just swore?! I've never heard you swear! I didn't think you were like that!" To which i replied: "Fuck fuckity-fuck-fuck." This of course, is hillarious. But I rarely talk to her so she only knows the 'I'm quiet and shy and i don't really know you very well' version of me, while the others know that if you ask "can you hand me that piece of paper?" my immediate response will be "Why don't you suck my dick?!"

Does she say Tursday for Thursday. Our Irish chick at work does and it makes me laugh. Tursday. Tursday. The day after Wednesday ITS TURSDAY.

I remember the first time I heard my mother say Fuck. I tricked her into it. She asked me where I wanted to go eat, and I was going to suggest the restaurant Fudruckers. But I acted like I couldn't remember the name and was saying "What's that burger place... Rud-... uh... Rud-something..." . . And she said, "Fuckers?" . Then I cracked up and she smacked me. . My girlfriend almost never swears. When she gets frustrated with something, she says, "Piss on it!" . I like to mix up my expletives so they sound odd or don't make sense. Like "Stupid piece of fuck" or "What the shit?!" or "Mother Shitter!" "Gosh Fuckit!" . Also, Strong Bad has opened my eyes to the versatility of the word Crap.

I think "piss on it" is far more graphic than "fuck." Spider, does your brother understand that just dating this woman is potentially offensive to all of her Mormon friends and family? Saying oh God or Christ is the least of his worries. Oh, and that's my daughter up there, and I'm proud to say that she will never grow up and chastise people she doesn't know on the internet and that she will never give a rat's ass about whether or not people use profanity in front of her. We raised her right, methinks. And you truly do NOT understand the Lucy thing, if anyone was stalking it was she to the others on this board and not vice versa. I think I must be in a bad mood today, or something.

hey moonit, she says 'Tursdee'. It IS funny. I try not to talk to her, she is really loud and overdramatic. My mom swears every now and then, but she still doesn't like it when i do. And if we're watching tv or a movie and two people are kissing or are obviously about to have sex off-screen, she'll do a big *GASP!* noise. I have no idea why. It's annoying. One time I called her on it: "Mom? They're married. I think they're allowed to kiss." She just got all awkward. I don't get it. Ah, moms.