Skip to comments.
Time to prosecute the Free Republic vandal outright. (Vanity)
today
| By Lazamataz
Posted on 05/09/2005 5:54:33 AM PDT by Lazamataz
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 1,401-1,415 next last
To: Socratic
Look at the link again. There's another name there...someone who signed up the same day and posted a message saying that James54's hack worked. Later, someone said it didn't. I suspect that's another name to work with.
401
posted on
05/09/2005 7:33:34 AM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: mhking
Mike: I understand what you're saying. And as I stated, look at the responses to the deed. What thrill would they have if everyone would simply ignore it. Problem is, we can't. They are here to offend and every response is a reply that we've been offended. Whoever, whether an individual or a group sits at their computer and with every reply goes "YES".
Sometimes in the battle of good over evil you have to choose your battles and then choose how they are to be waged. That's as important as doing the battle.
To: Voir Dire
403
posted on
05/09/2005 7:34:47 AM PDT
by
sitetest
(If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
>>Ignore it and they will eventually go away. Quietly have it deleted without comment.
As opposed to tracking the SOB down and eliminating his threat completely.<<
I think you're gonna need a different solution.
Given by the reaction I got yesterday, disagreeing but not trying to troll, a quiet reaction doesn't seem to be an option - it completely dominated the Bolton thread with content stopping completely... I think you're gonna need a blocking solution.
To: davidosborne
To: Eaker
406
posted on
05/09/2005 7:39:08 AM PDT
by
Eaker
(..Let them throw cake!! . (TheMom)
To: mhking
Good morning.
Wouldn't this thing's actions qualify as malicious mischief? Defacing a building with graffiti is a crime and this is similar. It's not much of a charge but it can get the law's attention and other charges can then be added.
Michael Frazier
407
posted on
05/09/2005 7:41:05 AM PDT
by
brazzaville
(No surrender,no retreat. Well, maybe retreat's ok)
To: Nathan Zachary
Well dial up and cable IPs are usually within a range aren't they? And AOL is tracable to AOL isn't it? Proxeys are different. The IP could be used to screen a potential FR members IP, not nessessarily limit the member to certain IPs. When I think about it limiting members to certian IPs would probably be impossible to do. But say someone is wants to sign up and they are not using a legit IP to do it couldn't they simply be blown off?
For instance trace this IP 80.227.56.46 here.
Now if this was the IP of someone signing would you think it's legit? Especially if the person signing up was also using a hotmail etc. type e-mail address? Maybe the e-mail IP should match the signup IP, most ISPs include e-mail addresses, I know my IP and signup e-mail address could be checked to verify I am not trying to hide behind anonymous IPs and e-mail addresses.
408
posted on
05/09/2005 7:41:16 AM PDT
by
dynoman
(Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marylin vos Savant)
To: Nathan Zachary
most ISP's have a domain range, which generates a max number of ip# They all do ;-) Have a range, or ranges that is. No single entity has "all" of the possible IP addy's.
The email registration account setup system is by far a much better way to manage accounts.
There are a fair number of alternatives for regulating joining, and possibly separately, posting. The limitation of e-mail account alone is a weak deterrant, because e-mail addy's are easy to get. I deal with hit and runs at Yahoo forums, and eventually went to "validate new poster (based on a post, not just an addy) before permitting a post." It's manageble only because of the low traffic.
409
posted on
05/09/2005 7:43:58 AM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: kcvl
I went into temporary internet files and this is the image:
http://rmeek141.home.comcast.net/DocRockZotFather.JPG
last modified: 10/24/04 6:13 p.m. last accessed: 05/09/05 9:12 a.m.
I didn't bring the image up to check and make sure, but I'm pretty sure this is it. I really didn't want to look at it again.
410
posted on
05/09/2005 7:44:09 AM PDT
by
sageb1
To: MineralMan
"I suspect that's another name to work with."
You might be right, in that I not familiar with that type of posting format, but I went to J54's name and checked out the link that listed all his posts. Most were on the same day in in April, but one was almost a most earlier. That same email address appears, and I think it unlikely that other person would be the one to respond to him almost a month a later (although, nothing is impossible).
411
posted on
05/09/2005 7:44:37 AM PDT
by
Socratic
(Ignorant and free? It's not to be. - T. Jefferson (paraphrase))
To: brazzaville
Since this occurred across state lines (almost certainly), extradition would be a factor.
You aren't going to get a DA to demand, much less get, extradition for what is at most a low-grade felony.
412
posted on
05/09/2005 7:44:44 AM PDT
by
jude24
("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
To: Lazamataz
I will let you know as well as the mods if I happen to run across any of this excrement. Unfortunately, there is not much else I have the computer expertise to do.
413
posted on
05/09/2005 7:44:50 AM PDT
by
RebelBanker
(To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!)
To: mhking
Ok, so this guy is in Virginia. Does he have a pal in Georgia that will sign on with a different name and post the same filth? Then where to, Maine? California? Texas?
These are childlike people who are getting a thrill. And too many here are giving it to them.
They are children. They need punished. If you want to send them to their room without dinner, then don't feed them.
414
posted on
05/09/2005 7:45:57 AM PDT
by
joesbucks
(Daniel 3)
To: paul_fromatlanta
First time? You've only been here since Saturday. Busy fella in 48 hours.
415
posted on
05/09/2005 7:46:11 AM PDT
by
poobear
To: sageb1
One of the two men in that picture is the perp, the other is his father.
416
posted on
05/09/2005 7:46:18 AM PDT
by
Petronski
(Pope Benedict XVI: A German Shepherd on the Throne of Peter)
To: gridlock
Perhaps the ultimate is a combination of the consensus and trusted user systems.
Perhaps registered users could have a "Trust Factor" value attached to the registration that is developed based on how long one has been a member, how many posts they have made, and perhaps the community assigned "Quality Vote" I discussed in the previous post.
Ones with a higher "Trust Factor" would have greater weight in the "Quality Vote" process.
This allows for the site owner to assign a super-high trust factor to certain chosen users. Perhaps those users can nearly ZOT-lite an offensive poster with one vote.
To: sageb1
Does someone else want to check the image url I posted to verify? I don't want to.
418
posted on
05/09/2005 7:47:45 AM PDT
by
sageb1
To: Petronski
Looks like this is someone's personal storage with his email account maybe?
419
posted on
05/09/2005 7:49:19 AM PDT
by
sageb1
To: RushCrush
If you've missed his postings then you're one of the lucky ones. This morning I was scrolling down a thread when out of nowhere there came his obscene photo. To say I was shocked is putting it lightly. It's very jarring to see something like that on FR.
This may sound silly but on tv they are able to track down people like this so maybe FR can get him tracked. This pervert needs to be turned over to the police.
420
posted on
05/09/2005 7:49:27 AM PDT
by
Shannon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 1,401-1,415 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson