Internet Troll gets three years

splinter65

pinkyeye wrote: »

What I think is a load of crap about this story is saying that he hadn't been outside in 17 years except for twice which is bs.

I presume a saddo like this is living on social welfare, therefore no way would his payments continue for 17 years if he had never gone out to sign on. Even if he is on disability benefit (for what disability?) he would have to go to a doctor to have this certified.

Are you suggesting that people should only get Disabilty for physical disabilities?

Faugheen

splinter65 wrote: »

You can’t answer the question. You see everything through the optic of gender only.
For you any crime where a woman is the victim, is, for some reason, more reprehensible then any crime where the victim is a man.
Any crime where a woman is the aggressor is to be excused, at least to some degree.
Can’t you see that this is sexist, anti-equality, and pointless.
Why isn’t the woman doing as long a sentence as the man?

What are you asking me for? I don’t know the answer to the question.

What is sexist is the people who say people should suck it up, who are playing this down and even said the women brought it one themselves are the sexists and misogynist.

As I’ve said, if you want to bitch about the sentence of another case then go to the thread we already have on it.

I’ll also ask you again, do you think his sentence should have been shorter?

bfa1509

Faugheen wrote: »

He was blocked, he used loads of different email addresses and accounts.

Again, someone who hasn’t read past the headline.

And these women ‘exposed themselves to abuse’ did they?

Another person who doesn’t get it and thinks these wimmins are ruining the internet for men.

I like how you spun my post to say that "women exposed themselves to abuse". Just shows the angle you will read everything from.

Faugheen

bfa1509 wrote: »

I like how you spun my post to say that "women exposed themselves to abuse". Just shows the angle you will read everything from.

I didn’t spin anything, as you stated below:

bfa1509 wrote: »

I have no sympathy for anyone who continues to use any form of social media that leaves them exposed to abuse.

Those are the very words that you said.

splinter65

Faugheen wrote: »

What are you asking me for? I don’t know the answer to the question.

What is sexist is the people who say people should suck it up, who are playing this down and even said the women brought it one themselves are the sexists and misogynist.

As I’ve said, if you want to bitch about the sentence of another case then go to the thread we already have on it.

I’ll also ask you again, do you think his sentence should have been shorter?

You don’t have any right to say who can post on a thread and who can’t. I’m the second poster you’ve tried to mod here this evening in the last hour and I’ve reported you for it.

Your hypocrisy is hilarious and so glaringly obvious.
You refuse to answer if you think the female teachers sentence should have been as long as the male stalkers, and even when I’ve been clear that I think the stalkers sentence is fair, I just think that the female teacher should be doing equal time at least for the pain and suffering she caused, your brain can’t grasp the concept of eqaulity of consequences, regardless of gender.
Sad.

Faugheen

splinter65 wrote: »

You don’t have any right to say who can post on a thread and who can’t. I’m the second poster you’ve tried to mod here this evening in the last hour and I’ve reported you for it.

Your hypocrisy is hilarious and so glaringly obvious.
You refuse to answer if you think the female teachers sentence should have been as long as the male stalkers, and even when I’ve been clear that I think the stalkers sentence is fair, I just think that the female teacher should be doing equal time at least for the pain and suffering she caused, your brain can’t grasp the concept of eqaulity of consequences, regardless of gender.
Sad.

I think the teacher should have got longer.

I just don’t see why we’re talking about here. This a thread about an internet stalker, yet you’re using it to fuel your outrage at another case we have a thread for already!

Raconteuse

splinter65 wrote: »

You can’t answer the question. You see everything through the optic of gender only.
For you any crime where a woman is the victim, is, for some reason, more reprehensible then any crime where the victim is a man.
Any crime where a woman is the aggressor is to be excused, at least to some degree.

Where are they saying this? This is about one case - and it's people who are downplaying it that are the ones who keep bringing up gender.

bfa1509

Faugheen wrote: »

I didn’t spin anything, as you stated below:

bfa1509 wrote: »

I have no sympathy for anyone who continues to use any form of social media that leaves them exposed to abuse.

Those are the very words that you said.

Yes, "anyone" referring to both men and women. Unless there are threats of death, violence or any other physical harm, people need to either toughen up or leave. The world will never be the utopia you expect it to be.

wiggle16

splinter65 wrote: »

You don’t have any right to say who can post on a thread and who can’t. I’m the second poster you’ve tried to mod here this evening in the last hour and I’ve reported you for it.

Your hypocrisy is hilarious and so glaringly obvious.
You refuse to answer if you think the female teachers sentence should have been as long as the male stalkers, and even when I’ve been clear that I think the stalkers sentence is fair, I just think that the female teacher should be doing equal time at least for the pain and suffering she caused, your brain can’t grasp the concept of eqaulity of consequences, regardless of gender.
Sad.

But Splinter, this is apples and oranges. They are two different crimes, and two different types of crimes. They don't compare.

In addition: a person is allowed to have an opinion on one thing, and reserve opinion on another. I agree with this sentence. 3 years is the minimum he should serve. And in relation to the student/teacher case? I'm allowed to say that I don't know how I feel about it (if I genuinely can't decide), so are others.

A person can agree or disagree with this sentence and hold a converse opinion in relation to the other sentence - they don't have to be consistent with one another.

A sentence is supposed to be valid on its own merits. You cannot say "it's too harsh because rapists typically don't get as long" from this judge. Your beef then is with his sentencing of rapists. And in that regard you'd have a point.

wiggle16

bfa1509 wrote: »

Yes, "anyone" referring to both men and women. Unless there are threats of death, violence or any other physical harm, people need to either toughen up or leave. The world will never be the utopia you expect it to be.

And that's why we need people like that creep to be jailed when caught, or things will never change. Those women were doing no one no harm. They did not deserve to be treated like that - they no more need to toughen up than they need to put up with it. They did nothing wrong.

Because that's all you are saying. That they should just put up with it. Ridiculous.

ceadaoin.

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I'm banned from twitter also for insulting a cam girl who scammed me out of £50, I really lost my rag with her. I was banned again for insulting the girl who recorded that angry bagel guy video in New York, I called her out for what she was, she made these anti suicide posts yet she records a video of a depressed man to make fun of him. Twitter is ran by extreme feminist rats.

Yes, literally the whole world is out to get you. It definitely isnt you doing anything wrong. All those times. Nope .

Beasty

splinter65 wrote: »

You don’t have any right to say who can post on a thread and who can’t.

I do, and your own post is an example of the backseat modding you are complaining about

Regardless, the pair of you (yourself and Faugheen) had better back off or I will be exercising that particular right

Again, any questions PM me

Calhoun

I think a big reason the sentence was 5 years with 2 suspended is because this is possibly new case law and doesn't have precedence already set.

RabbleRouser2k

Calhoun wrote: »

Sustained harrasment would also have taken it's toll on his victims and really impacted their mental health. Due to this I feel that he should have a criminal record.

I feel that had there been a case for mental health they probably would have taken it but they didn't.

I get what your saying though and I know the law in this space is relatively new and he could have been made an example of but people need to appreciate the damage he was doing to the victims.

A reasonable, genuine response-I had to reply to this because I felt you were respectful and I had nothing to disagree with you on.

Boggles

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

One could easily have banned him from owning an electronic device (as has happened with hackers in the past). Anything would stop him from harassing other individuals.

How would that work exactly? Specifically how would it be enforced?

Also he was charged and released on bail, he was subsequently arrested and jailed because he continued to harass.

riclad

He was at home ,he just sent loads of abusive rude tweets .He did not follow anyone around or try and break into a house.
Maybe they want to make an example of this case to warn other people
that being abusive or harrassing people using twitter is a crime even if you never speak to your victims or follow them in person.
i think someone can be banned from using a pc or a laptop ,
and isp,s will not give you service to acess the internet.
This has happened to hackers in american courts .
i do not think you can be a stalker if you stay at home all the time and just send tweets even if they are rude ,sexist and insulting to the victim .

bfa1509

wiggle16 wrote: »

Because that's all you are saying. That they should just put up with it. Ridiculous.

"...just put up with it" is exactly what I said they shouldn't do. But you can't stand in a public square (which is basically what the internet is) and expect not to get criticised.

wiggle16

bfa1509 wrote: »

"...just put up with it" is exactly what I said they shouldn't do. But you can't stand in a public square (which is basically what the internet is) and expect not to get criticised.

Absolutely. But you should have every reason to expect that the difference between criticism and abuse/harassment be appreciated and understood, and that the latter will not be tolerated.

Who said that they should not expect to be criticised? I don't think anyone has said that in this thread.

There is a world of difference between criticism and harassment/stalking. At the end of the day, these women did nothing wrong.

nkl12xtw5goz70

wiggle16 wrote: »

But you should have every reason to expect that the difference between criticism and abuse/harassment be appreciated and understood, and that the latter will not be tolerated.

If I call a journalist a lefty pseudo-intellectual narcissist, is that criticism or abuse?

Raconteuse

wiggle16 wrote: »

Absolutely. But you should have every reason to expect that the difference between criticism and abuse/harassment be appreciated and understood, and that the latter will not be tolerated.

Who said that they should not expect to be criticised? I don't think anyone has said that in this thread.

There is a world of difference between criticism and harassment/stalking. At the end of the day, these women did nothing wrong.

This is what keeps happening here - a dishonest parallel being drawn between mere disagreement/criticism and the behaviour of this man. Two different things.

"People should grow a thicker skin/keep off the internet" - total deflection of responsibility. Now people will be a bit rude to you now and then if you get involved in heated debates - certainly I experience it here. If I were to get really upset about this and let it bother me offline, I probably should indeed develop a thicker skin/stay off the internet. I do stay off Facebook and Twitter discussions because you've got the absolute dregs in those places.

But if I were being stalked and harassed constantly? No I shouldn't. The stalker shouldn't be harassing me.

wiggle16

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

If I call a journalist a lefty pseudo-intellectual narcissist, is that criticism or abuse?

I'd call it abuse because it's an ad hominem and therefore juvenile. But as a once off, most people could chalk it up to criticism.

If you send it to him via PM, 450 times over the course of several months, then it's abuse and harassment and you'd deserve to be treated accordingly.

Arghus

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

If I call a journalist a lefty pseudo-intellectual narcissist, is that criticism or abuse?

Reads like angry abuse to be honest.

nkl12xtw5goz70

wiggle16 wrote: »

I'd call it abuse because it's an ad hominem and therefore juvenile. But as a once off, most people could chalk it up to criticism.

If you send it to him via PM, 450 times over the course of several months, then it's abuse and harassment and you'd deserve to be treated accordingly.

Well, it was 450 messages over the course of six years, which works out to about seven messages a month on average.

I think there are certain columnists whom I probably call self-absorbed lefty pseudo-intellectuals several times a month, so I should probably be careful I don't land myself in jail...

ILoveYourVibes

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Well, it was 450 messages over the course of six years, which works out to about seven messages a month on average.

I think there are certain columnists whom I probably call self-absorbed lefty pseudo-intellectuals several times a month, so I should probably be careful I don't land myself in jail...

Maybe its a sign to calm down alright.

Salary Negotiator

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Well, it was 450 messages over the course of six years, which works out to about seven messages a month on average.

I think there are certain columnists whom I probably call self-absorbed lefty pseudo-intellectuals several times a month, so I should probably be careful I don't land myself in jail...

Maybe you should stick to novels and give the columns a miss for a while. Lower your blood pressure.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Maybe you should stick to novels and give the columns a miss for a while. Lower your blood pressure.

But Paul Krugman is always so infuriatingly WRONG, dammit.

wiggle16

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Well, it was 450 messages over the course of six years, which works out to about seven messages a month on average.

I think there are certain columnists whom I probably call self-absorbed lefty pseudo-intellectuals several times a month, so I should probably be careful I don't land myself in jail...

Yeah i really don't see why you'd feel the need to do that, what you get out of it, why you think it's okay.... the lot. And that's just if it's in a comment section. If you were PMing them then yeah, I'd shop you for it if I were them. Why should they have to put up with that from you?

I'd consider it to be nasty for the sake of it. No one is forcing you to read their columns, are they?

nkl12xtw5goz70

wiggle16 wrote: »

Yeah i really don't see why you'd feel the need to do that, what you get out of it, why you think it's okay.... the lot. And that's just if it's in a comment section. If you were PMing them then yeah, I'd shop you for it if I were them.

Seriously... Do you use Twitter? If high-profile journalists and columnists tried to "shop" everyone who called them a self-absorbed lefty seven times a month, they'd be in court every day of the week.

You say there's a clear line between criticism and abuse. There isn't. Indeed, many excel at strategically redefining legitimate criticism as abuse, harassment, or hate speech, so that they can conveniently shut down their critics.

Criticize Travellers, for instance, no matter how legitimately, and see how long it takes for someone to call you a racist.

The stuff that was quoted about him calling these journalists pseudo-intellectual lefties who are part of a Twitter thought bubble -- they might not have liked it, but a lot of the Irish media is that way. There's truth in that description that makes it a valid criticism.

RabbleRouser2k

Boggles wrote: »

How would that work exactly? Specifically how would it be enforced?

Also he was charged and released on bail, he was subsequently arrested and jailed because he continued to harass.

As has happened with sex offenders, they are often monitored to prevent them from having access to electronic devices. In the case of someone who was convicted of posessing child pornography, they're often monitored as to whether they try to own a laptop or smartphone in order to access child pornography. (Even a secondhand laptop can be traced from the previous owner).

There are even devices that can detect or block wifi connections. It's not too difficult.

Arghus

I must say some strange hills are being chosen on which to die on here.