My Letter to the Pacific Legal Foundation...

[Heidi Graw]

***@pacificlegal.org

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to know if your organization has a code of conduct for
attorneys in your employment when they are participating in Usenet
discussion groups.

Usenet is publically accessible to anyone with a computer and an Internet
connection. From time to time, professionals will engage in discussions
with the general public. Some will use their real names, and quite often
the businesses they are affiliated with will have a web-site presence where
these professionals are listed as members of the staff. The general public
can very easily connect the person posting to a discussion group with the
business or organization they are affiliated with.

Sometimes, these people will post into discussion groups during lunch hours
or sometime later while they are at home. It is not unusual to see a
professional who is known to work at a particular place to make some rather
inappropriate and derogatory comments on Usenet. If these discussions
become heated enough, these comments by professionals can degenerate into
something extremely disgusting and vile. These comments do not reflect well
on the organization that these people represent.

A member of the public is then left to wonder how such a person with such a
poor attitude and lack of propriety can be employed in a particular business
or organization. When these professionals, in this case an attorney, cannot
demonstrate appropriate restraint and decorum in keeping with their
profession, surely this must be of concern to the organization which is
trying to solicite funding and potential clientele which help to keep the
organization functional.

At what point does one's professionalism end? Is there a distinction to be
drawn between behaving professionally at work during one's work hours and
abandoning that behavior while yet participating in a world-wide and very
public forum? In most cases, this is not just participation in one forum,
but many. I am not refering to an instant where the professional lets loose
in the privacy of his home where there is only his family and perhaps where
only he lives alone. I am refering to a public forum, a public area, that
any and all members of the public have access to.

At this time, I do not wish to identify the particular attorney in question.
I would prefer to keep this matter as a general concern. Postings that are
written into Usenet are archived by Google newsgroups. It might be
appropriate to discuss among yourselves your own web-site presence, the
staff list, and the manner in which staff conduct themselves while posting
into a public forum on or off-time. If staff, such as attorneys, wish to
vent on Usenet, they may be well advised to use an alias instead.

If you wish further information, I am prepared to provide it to you.

Sincerely yours,


Heidi Graw
33237 Dewdney Trk Rd
Mission, BC,
Canada
V2V 6X7
[phone]

[Ceddie]

Jacta alea est!

C

[rorik]

Post by Ceddie
Jacta alea est!

More like anserem assum est. What a sick, self-destructive little
girl. Against all probability, the quality of people who are attracted
Rydberg keeps getting lower.

[l***@ix.netcom.com]

Post by Heidi Graw
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to know if your organization has a code of conduct for
attorneys in your employment when they are participating in Usenet
discussion groups.

Wow. What a whiny, wretched little bitch you are. You have lost what
tattered little shreds of weakened respect I may have had for you.

You're *worthless,* Heidi. Scum. Feral dogs are of greater utility
*and* honor than you are.

Is this really the sort of reputation you want for yourself? Guess
what, it's what you've earned.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com

Post by Heidi Graw
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to know if your organization has a code of conduct for
attorneys in your employment when they are participating in Usenet
discussion groups.

Wow. What a whiny, wretched little bitch you are. You have lost what
tattered little shreds of weakened respect I may have had for you.

It's not often that I complain to a corporation about their employee's
behavior. I drew the line at Rorik's vile and disgusting poem. I do not
have to accept it. There are consequences when someone goes over the line.

As it was, I did not venomously attack Sharon. Yet, Rorik insists I did. I
collected all the posts that had been exchanged between he and I. It very
clearly indicates that Rorik *overreacted* to whatever I wrote. That poem
of his was the final straw.

And as for the internet being some sort of fantasy playground. There are
*real* people living in the *real* world participating in Usenet. I expect
people to use some discretion as to the depths of depravation they may wish
to engage in. Most ISP's have a code of conduct that they expect their
customers to observe. Some ISP's are more tolerant than others.

I also do not believe the way Rorik behaves on Usenet reflects well on the
corporation he represents. He's supposed to be that professional.
Professionals are held up to a higher standard. Do a name search just using
Rorik's name and *instantly* his name is tied to that corporation which
wishes to solicite funding from the public. Plus, such a corporation also
looks for clients.

When the general public sees Rorik's posts and are curious to know more
about him, they will very easily find out he is a lawyer employed at PLF.
Some people may believe Rorik's vile behavior is a suitable trait for an
attorney to demonstrate. Others may believe differently.

As it is, I still believe professionals ought to conduct themselves
professionally no matter where they are. I may only be a bookkeeper, but my
duties do not end when I've closed up my books for the day. The code of
confidentiality demands I behave accordingly even while I'm sleeping! As
for other professionals that are within my social circle...none...absolutely
none behave disrespectfully outside of their offices. They realize that how
they act outside office hours affects their careers. This is all part and
parcel of being that professional.

If I had a company of my own and a member of the public complained about an
employee's behavior off-hours, I'd be firing such an employee. Today's job
market is too competitive to allow an employee to indirectly smear and bring
dishonour to any corporate business, small or large. If people know an ass
is employed somewhere, what is the likelihood that those people will
patronize that business? I sure as heck don't.

So, let this be a warning...if you're a professional who wishes to use
Usenet to vent, rage and otherwise behave in a degenerate manner, use an
alias. Make sure you're not easily connected to a business which has a
website presence.

I'm not putting up with this crap anymore. Rorik's behavior helped me to
define that line. Rorik's behavior also helped me to establish a course of
action that I will take in future regarding *anyone* who falls into
degenerate behaviors and claims to be that professional and who is easily
connected to a business, an institution, an agency...whatever...

Heidi

[Lilith]

Heidi Graw wrote:

<snip>

Post by Heidi Graw
If I had a company of my own and a member of the public complained about an
employee's behavior off-hours, I'd be firing such an employee.

erm... going by *hearsay*?
What about "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"?

In any event, I do believe that's illegal.
I *think* they'd be able to take it to Labour Relations, in which case
you'd probably have to prove that their behaviour broke the law and/or
harmed your business for the firing to be justified. Gods help your bank
account if there isn't realistic documentation of harm incurred.

You can't have it all ways just because that's the way you (currently)
want it, Heidi.

<snip>

L.

Post by Heidi Graw
Heidi

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Lilith
<snip>

Post by Heidi Graw
If I had a company of my own and a member of the public complained about
an employee's behavior off-hours, I'd be firing such an employee.

Lilith wroteL erm... going by *hearsay*?

No, actual posts written on Usenet to use as evidence.

Most corporations also have a way to deal with complaints. There's an
appeals process that takes place. Normally, a corporation may put a
"notice" in the employee's file. Collect three complaints and one may get a
few days suspension. If the abuse continues, the employee can indeed be
fired. Most businesses have some way of dealing with complaints they
receive from the public. They're keenly sensitive to bad publicity as
competition is rather fierce. They don't like it to be known there may be a
bad employee out there who can potentially affect their business in a
negative way.

As it is, before I sent my letter to the PLF, I discussed this with my
husband. I showed him the flow of the conversation...the he said, she
said...with that final poem to cap it all off. My husband supports my
decision. He believes I'm doing the right thing. He agrees with me that I
do not have to accept Rorik's abuse. My husband is also a professional in
his field. He's very consciencious in what manner his own behavior outside
of work hours may reflect on the business in which he is employed...be that
out in the community or on-line. And since he is also in a leadership
position, he would be very interested to learn about any employee who may
adversely affect business.

Heidi

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith
<snip>

Post by Heidi Graw
If I had a company of my own and a member of the public complained about
an employee's behavior off-hours, I'd be firing such an employee.

Lilith wroteL erm... going by *hearsay*?

No, actual posts written on Usenet to use as evidence.

LOL!
That's not what you *said* though, Heidi, you said *a* member of the
public complained... you're saying now then, that you'd first search the
'net and judge for yourself, and if the "member of the public" was
over-reacting - in your opinion - you'd keep the employee?
That puts a pretty fine line on what's "acceptable behaviour", Heidi,
and may not actually fall within the letter of the law.

And besides, you've already stated ad nauseum that basing an opinion of
someone's behaviour by their usenet postings is *not* good enough. I
think you called it "baseless accusations"?
Don't they have to be tried and convicted *first*, before they're
actually guilty?

The bit you've snipped - the employee would have a strong case for
wrongful dismissal (or whatever it's called) unless you *proved* it
harmed your business or was illegal.
You've ignored that, Heidi.

<snip>

L.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
If I had a company of my own and a member of the public complained about
an employee's behavior off-hours, I'd be firing such an employee.

erm... going by *hearsay*?

No, actual posts written on Usenet to use as evidence.

LOL!
That's not what you *said* though, Heidi, you said *a* member of the
public complained... you're saying now then, that you'd first search the
'net and judge for yourself, and if the "member of the public" was
over-reacting - in your opinion - you'd keep the employee?

I also mentioned that corporations do have policies and guidelines as to how
to deal with complaints about their employees. They're not just going to
accept anything that someone says about an employee.

And, if as an employer, I received a complaint about an employee, I would
indeed investigate the incident. If the complaint arose from Internet
abuse, I'd be using that as part of the evidence. If the complaint arose
through a dispute outside in the community I'd be listening to the one
registering the complaint, plus I'd be interrogating the employee against
whom this claim was made. Then I'd decide what sort of action to take. I
may just drop it, or I may act on it, I may just give that employee a
warning...it depends solely on the information I gather up by interviewing
anyone who was directly involved and/or any witnesses, if any.

Post by Lilith
That puts a pretty fine line on what's "acceptable behaviour", Heidi, and
may not actually fall within the letter of the law.

It depends on what is being said, the circumstances that gave rise to
it...any number of things.

Post by Lilith
And besides, you've already stated ad nauseum that basing an opinion of
someone's behaviour by their usenet postings is *not* good enough. I think
you called it "baseless accusations"?

Depends of what was being written on Usenet.

Post by Lilith
Don't they have to be tried and convicted *first*, before they're actually
guilty?

Yep.

Post by Lilith
The bit you've snipped - the employee would have a strong case for
wrongful dismissal (or whatever it's called) unless you *proved* it harmed
your business or was illegal.

If a complaint arose that I judged severe enough given the evidence I
believe to be just cause, and I end up firing that employee, and if that
employee felt it was a wrongful dismissal, such a person can indeed be heard
by the Labour Relations Board. The case can then be tried there. If the
Board figures it was wrongful dismissal...then fine..I'd have to accept
that.

Heidi

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
If I had a company of my own and a member of the public complained about
an employee's behavior off-hours, I'd be firing such an employee.

erm... going by *hearsay*?

No, actual posts written on Usenet to use as evidence.

LOL!
That's not what you *said* though, Heidi, you said *a* member of the
public complained... you're saying now then, that you'd first search the
'net and judge for yourself, and if the "member of the public" was
over-reacting - in your opinion - you'd keep the employee?

I also mentioned that corporations do have policies and guidelines as to how
to deal with complaints about their employees. They're not just going to
accept anything that someone says about an employee.
And, if as an employer, I received a complaint about an employee, I would
indeed investigate the incident. If the complaint arose from Internet
abuse, I'd be using that as part of the evidence. If the complaint arose
through a dispute outside in the community I'd be listening to the one
registering the complaint, plus I'd be interrogating the employee against
whom this claim was made. Then I'd decide what sort of action to take. I
may just drop it, or I may act on it, I may just give that employee a
warning...it depends solely on the information I gather up by interviewing
anyone who was directly involved and/or any witnesses, if any.

Well, that's a sight better thought out than "If I had a company of my
own and a member of the public complained about an employee's behaviour
off-hours, I'd be firing such an employee."
I must say that "indirectly smearing" is a very ephemeral description to
pin down *legally* though.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith
That puts a pretty fine line on what's "acceptable behaviour", Heidi, and
may not actually fall within the letter of the law.

It depends on what is being said, the circumstances that gave rise to
it...any number of things.

Of course it does, that's the point. And, indeed, it *must* jive with
your position on "legally liable", which you've already stated... what
you've *said* is, no one is guilty of anything until they've been tried
and convicted.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith
And besides, you've already stated ad nauseum that basing an opinion of
someone's behaviour by their usenet postings is *not* good enough. I think
you called it "baseless accusations"?

Depends of what was being written on Usenet.

LOL!
No, Heidi, you're on record as saying that someone owning the statement
"Looking for a young cabin boy, must meet these physical requirements"
(paraphrased)*can't* have that held up as even *questionable* until or
unless they've been convicted of paedophilia.
You cannot then go and say that "this person swore on the internet and
called people bad names, I'm going to fire him".

Either people can make their own judgement calls, or they cannot.
Which is it?

For the record, I say they can and should... but then, that's always
been my position. ;)

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith
Don't they have to be tried and convicted *first*, before they're actually
guilty?

Yep.

And this is Rorik's trial, is it?
I see.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith
The bit you've snipped - the employee would have a strong case for
wrongful dismissal (or whatever it's called) unless you *proved* it harmed
your business or was illegal.

If a complaint arose that I judged severe enough given the evidence I
believe to be just cause, and I end up firing that employee, and if that
employee felt it was a wrongful dismissal, such a person can indeed be heard
by the Labour Relations Board. The case can then be tried there. If the
Board figures it was wrongful dismissal...then fine..I'd have to accept
that.

Yes, yes you would. Because Labour Relations is pretty clear about what
is "just cause", and even if you *thought* their behaviour might cause
your business harm, you'd have to prove it as having done so. And either
way, you will be a lot lighter in pocket.

L.

Post by Heidi Graw
Heidi

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

(snip)

Post by Lilith
No, Heidi, you're on record as saying that someone owning the statement
"Looking for a young cabin boy, must meet these physical requirements"

Hmmm...how old the cabin boy? 16, 17, 18? Or was this poster refering to 6
and 7 year old?

You can't claim pedophelia when you don't even know the age group that was
being solicited.

Post by Lilith
You cannot then go and say that "this person swore on the internet and
called people bad names, I'm going to fire him".

If a person behaves like a degenerate out in public, I don't see why an
employer should have to put up with it, especialy when the public is aware
which business such a person is affiliated with. There are a number of
options available that employers can use.

One option is for employers to actually write up a code of conduct. Those
are actually quite popular in a number of workplaces. Break that code too
many times, and an employer may just fire such a person. What I've
introduced was the Internet and how that might affect business if employees
are known to behave the degenerates on the Internet and where such employees
are known to be employed at.

So, what might happen if an employee breaks the company's code of conduct
all too many times? Will the Board rule those codes too unreasonable? I
think this could be put to the test.

Heidi

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)
(snip)

Post by Lilith
No, Heidi, you're on record as saying that someone owning the statement
"Looking for a young cabin boy, must meet these physical requirements"

Hmmm...how old the cabin boy? 16, 17, 18? Or was this poster refering to 6
and 7 year old?
You can't claim pedophelia when you don't even know the age group that was
being solicited.

snippety snip snip go Heidi's scissors... still hasn't figured out a bit
that it doesn't change what she was actually *asked*.
<grin>
Let me fix that for you;
...you're on record as saying that someone owning the statement "Looking
for a young cabin boy, must meet these physical requirements"
(paraphrased) *can't* have that held up as even *questionable*...

There now, that puts it back into proper context... you were saying, Heidi?

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith
You cannot then go and say that "this person swore on the internet and
called people bad names, I'm going to fire him".

Oh! Better fix this one too!
I followed that sentence with;
Either people can make their own judgement calls, or they cannot.
Which is it?

Context, Heidi, you want your cake and Rorik's too - and Eric's, and
Scott's... you want it *all*!


<snip the public service smarm>
It's just a big ol' attempt at excusing yourself, Heidi.
Your motivation was plain as day before you posted the letter.
If you'd wanted to know what the CoC for PLF was, you could have asked
that... you didn't.
You wrote a whole shit-load of innuendo and finger pointing, and want
everyone - including them - to think that you're only interested in
"public interest".

Go ahead, pull the other one!
;)
L.

Post by Heidi Graw
Heidi

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Lilith
snippety snip snip go Heidi's scissors... still hasn't figured out a bit
that it doesn't change what she was actually *asked*.
<grin>
Let me fix that for you;
...you're on record as saying that someone owning the statement "Looking
for a young cabin boy, must meet these physical requirements"
(paraphrased) *can't* have that held up as even *questionable*...
There now, that puts it back into proper context... you were saying, Heidi?

You did mention you're just paraphrasing. You haven't actually posted what
was *really* said.

(snip)

Post by Lilith
It's just a big ol' attempt at excusing yourself, Heidi.
Your motivation was plain as day before you posted the letter.
If you'd wanted to know what the CoC for PLF was, you could have asked
that... you didn't.

Yes, I did.

Post by Lilith
You wrote a whole shit-load of innuendo and finger pointing,

Whose name did I bring up in that letter that I sent to the PLF?

Post by Lilith
and want everyone - including them - to think that you're only interested
in "public interest".

No, not just public interest, employer interest, too. And I mentioned I
wished to keep this within a *general* context.

Post by Lilith
Go ahead, pull the other one!
;)
L.

You got it. ;-)

Heidi

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Heidi Graw
No, not just public interest, employer interest, too. And I mentioned I
wished to keep this within a *general* context.

Guess what: instead of being in a "general context," you've managed to
make this all About Heidi. And you're finding that most of those on ARA
who have taken a stance have pointed out that they think what you did
was dishonorable.

Happy?

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Lilith
snippety snip snip go Heidi's scissors... still hasn't figured out a bit
that it doesn't change what she was actually *asked*.
<grin>
Let me fix that for you;
...you're on record as saying that someone owning the statement "Looking
for a young cabin boy, must meet these physical requirements"
(paraphrased) *can't* have that held up as even *questionable*...
There now, that puts it back into proper context... you were saying, Heidi?

You did mention you're just paraphrasing. You haven't actually posted what
was *really* said.

LOL!
It's usenet history Heidi.

snip snip go Heidi's scissors...

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Lilith
It's just a big ol' attempt at excusing yourself, Heidi.
Your motivation was plain as day before you posted the letter.
If you'd wanted to know what the CoC for PLF was, you could have asked
that... you didn't.

Yes, I did.

LOL!
Along with how much else?
Pardon me - you *did* ask if they had one - then went on to explain what
usenet was and how people, inferring a specific attorney in *their*
operation, abuse others there.
I will rephrase that; You did not *simply* ask for their CoC.

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith
You wrote a whole shit-load of innuendo and finger pointing,

Whose name did I bring up in that letter that I sent to the PLF?

Post by Lilith
and want everyone - including them - to think that you're only interested
in "public interest".

No, not just public interest, employer interest, too. And I mentioned I
wished to keep this within a *general* context.

Yes, but you lied.
;)
Your sentence
quote/
"When these professionals, in this case an attorney, cannot demonstrate
appropriate restraint and decorum in keeping with their profession,
surely this must be of concern to the organization which is trying to
solicite funding and potential clientele which help to keep the
organization functional."
/quote
gives up the lie, even if the rest of your lecture didn't.
;)

I wonder if you're so used to being given benefit of the doubt, that you
really think people fall for stuff like this.
<shrug>

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith
Go ahead, pull the other one!
;)
L.

You got it. ;-)

... but you don't.
;)

L.

Post by Heidi Graw
Heidi

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
No, not just public interest, employer interest, too. And I mentioned I
wished to keep this within a *general* context.

Yes, but you lied.
;)
Your sentence
quote/
"When these professionals, in this case an attorney, cannot demonstrate
appropriate restraint and decorum in keeping with their profession, surely
this must be of concern to the organization which is trying to solicite
funding and potential clientele which help to keep the organization
functional."
/quote
gives up the lie, even if the rest of your lecture didn't.
;)

Lilith, Rorik is not the only attorney there. They have quite a few and
they're located all over the place. I sent my letter to their head office.
They've got other offices, too.

So, again, I made no mention of which lawyer and no mention of what office
he may be operating out of.

Heidi

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
No, not just public interest, employer interest, too. And I mentioned I
wished to keep this within a *general* context.

Yes, but you lied.
;)
Your sentence
quote/
"When these professionals, in this case an attorney, cannot demonstrate
appropriate restraint and decorum in keeping with their profession, surely
this must be of concern to the organization which is trying to solicite
funding and potential clientele which help to keep the organization
functional."
/quote
gives up the lie, even if the rest of your lecture didn't.
;)

Lilith, Rorik is not the only attorney there. They have quite a few and
they're located all over the place. I sent my letter to their head office.
They've got other offices, too.
So, again, I made no mention of which lawyer and no mention of what office
he may be operating out of.
Heidi

Jaysus Murphey, Heidi!
How in Hel's half acre d'you figure they're going to read that letter
and *believe* you're speaking "in general", when you keep straying into
specific "let's say"?
<shakes head>
You can *say* whatever you want, that doesn't make anyone else believe
it. Especially when you leave a trail of *other* crap lying around all
over usenet.

I should just shut up now and let you hang yourself... but I really
doubt you're listening anyhow.
Rorik's right, you need help.

L.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

I should just shut up now and let you hang yourself... but I really doubt
you're listening anyhow.
Rorik's right, you need help.

Lilith, I'm going to tell you something that I did years ago. I was
looking for a lawyer. I needed advice on how to protect my land from the
government grabbing it outright without offering me compensation.

First place I looked was the Internet. I came across a lawyer who sounded
he may be just the ticket to hire for this particular concern of mine. I
had his name and then I did a Google search. I wanted to find out where
else on the 'net he may have been. I wanted to know what sort of other
interests he may have and how he generally conducted himself. I didn't find
his name mentioned elsewhere. If he was on the 'net elsewhere participating
in discussion groups then he must have used an alias. The only thing then I
had available to me was what was on that one specific site. So, I spent
time reading about some of the cases he was involved in.

I phoned him up, got the advice I needed. Paid $750.00, formed a
neighbourhood action committee and went gangbusters and won, not just my
case but on behalf of a bunch of other people, too. And this without
dragging the issue into court. Some ended up with some rather sweet deals.
I got what I wanted. I'm also finding out that if I were to put my property
up for sale, it will end up in a bidding war that will have me receiving
more money that what I might actually ask for. ;-)

I did the same with the lawyer I currently have in my hire. I know his name
and I googled on the 'net. Finding nothing else and nothing that would
cause me concern about his character, I hired him.

How many other people are doing the same when they're looking to hire
someone? One would be a fool not to do that google search to try and find
out all one can.

Heidi

[Doug Frisk]

Post by Heidi Graw
I'm not putting up with this crap anymore. Rorik's behavior helped me to
define that line. Rorik's behavior also helped me to establish a course
of action that I will take in future regarding *anyone* who falls into
degenerate behaviors and claims to be that professional and who is easily
connected to a business, an institution, an agency...whatever...

So you're threatening to send letters to the employers of everyone you don't
like?

Heidi, when you sober up, or get off the drugs, or get back on your meds,
whatever is the problem here, you are going to regret your actions these
past few days. Is it meth? I've seen it turn normal people into raving
paranoid lunatics.

I had you in the Steven Hatton killfile until you posted this. You are too
dangerous to ignore. You seriously need help.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Doug Frisk

Post by Heidi Graw
I'm not putting up with this crap anymore. Rorik's behavior helped me to
define that line. Rorik's behavior also helped me to establish a course
of action that I will take in future regarding *anyone* who falls into
degenerate behaviors and claims to be that professional and who is easily
connected to a business, an institution, an agency...whatever...

So you're threatening to send letters to the employers of everyone you
don't like?

No. I will, however, report abuse to the people who I believe are the
appropiate ones to notify about this abuse.

Heidi

[Doug Frisk]

Post by Heidi Graw
No. I will, however, report abuse to the people who I believe are the
appropiate ones to notify about this abuse.

Care to explain how trying to get someone's employer to discipline or fire
them is the appropriate response to a post you don't like?

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Doug Frisk

Post by Heidi Graw
No. I will, however, report abuse to the people who I believe are the
appropiate ones to notify about this abuse.

Care to explain how trying to get someone's employer to discipline or fire
them is the appropriate response to a post you don't like?

It's not my place to tell an employer to reprimand or fire an employee.
What these employers do with any complaints they receive, I will leave up to
them. It's their business after all, isn't it?

Heidi

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Doug Frisk

Post by Heidi Graw
No. I will, however, report abuse to the people who I believe are the
appropiate ones to notify about this abuse.

Care to explain how trying to get someone's employer to discipline or fire
them is the appropriate response to a post you don't like?

It's not my place to tell an employer to reprimand or fire an employee.
What these employers do with any complaints they receive, I will leave up to
them. It's their business after all, isn't it?
Heidi

heheh... nice hedge there, Heidi.
But he said "trying to get", which you were clearly doing, going by the
wording of the letter and your previous posted thoughts on prospective
"letters".
;)

L.

[William P. Reaves]

Care to explain how trying to get someone's employer to discipline or fire them is the appropriate response to a post you don't like?

What's the difference between that and contacting someone's ISP? As
Rorik did.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by William P. Reaves

Post by Doug Frisk
Care to explain how trying to get someone's employer to discipline or fire
them is the appropriate response to a >>post you don't like?

What's the difference between that and contacting someone's ISP? As
Rorik did.

<chuckle> Details, please, William. What were the circumstances around
Rorik reporting someone to his/her Internet Service Provider?

Heidi

[Lilith]

Post by William P. Reaves

Care to explain how trying to get someone's employer to discipline or fire them is the appropriate response to a post you don't like?

What's the difference between that and contacting someone's ISP? As
Rorik did.

Are you that thick, really?
hint: an ISP gives you access to posting.


L.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by William P. Reaves
What's the difference between that and contacting someone's ISP? As
Rorik did.

Lilith wrote: Are you that thick, really?
hint: an ISP gives you access to posting.

Lilith, my ISP is Shaw Cable. I pay a monthly fee for that Internet access.
Anyone on the Internet can report my activities to Shaw Cable. Shaw can
then determine whether or not my activities are in keeping with their Terms
of Service Agreement. If they judge that I've violated this agreement, then
they can terminate my Internet access.

If they do that, it means I would have to find another Internet Service
Provider.

A corporation does not have to provide me with service. They can pick and
choose their customers.

I notice Telus is providing you with Internet access. You may want to read
their Terms of Service Agreement. If they dont' like what you're doing on
the 'net, they can cut off your service.

Heidi

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by William P. Reaves
What's the difference between that and contacting someone's ISP? As
Rorik did.

Lilith wrote: Are you that thick, really?
hint: an ISP gives you access to posting.

Lilith, my ISP is Shaw Cable. I pay a monthly fee for that Internet access.
Anyone on the Internet can report my activities to Shaw Cable. Shaw can
then determine whether or not my activities are in keeping with their Terms
of Service Agreement. If they judge that I've violated this agreement, then
they can terminate my Internet access.
If they do that, it means I would have to find another Internet Service
Provider.
A corporation does not have to provide me with service. They can pick and
choose their customers.
I notice Telus is providing you with Internet access. You may want to read
their Terms of Service Agreement. If they dont' like what you're doing on
the 'net, they can cut off your service.
Heidi

ummm... yes... and the *difference* between notifying an ISP about a
usenet complaint and notifying an employer about a usenet complaint is....
<drum roll>
?
?
... could it possibly be that one provides you access to *usenet* and
the other does not?

Oh, shoot!
I gave away the answer!
:p~


L.

ps - Your ISP doesn't *have to* provide you with service either... they
do it because you're... a customer. ;)

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Lilith
ummm... yes... and the *difference* between notifying an ISP about a
usenet complaint and notifying an employer about a usenet complaint is....
<drum roll>
?
?
... could it possibly be that one provides you access to *usenet* and the
other does not?

Uhm...Lilith...most employers provide Internet access to their employees.
Some corporations buy their own Internet access from a different server for
a monthly fee that their employees can use. Some corporations act as their
own server...they actually own their own equipment to provide that Internet
access. So, corporations which are their own ISP will probably have their
own TOS agreements that their employees are to abide by.

Individuals can also buy their own equipment to be their own ISP and may
even allow others such as neighbours and friends to access the 'net that
way.

Heidi

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Lilith
ummm... yes... and the *difference* between notifying an ISP about a
usenet complaint and notifying an employer about a usenet complaint is....
<drum roll>
?
?
... could it possibly be that one provides you access to *usenet* and the
other does not?

Uhm...Lilith...most employers provide Internet access to their employees.
Some corporations buy their own Internet access from a different server for
a monthly fee that their employees can use. Some corporations act as their
own server...they actually own their own equipment to provide that Internet
access. So, corporations which are their own ISP will probably have their
own TOS agreements that their employees are to abide by.
Individuals can also buy their own equipment to be their own ISP and may
even allow others such as neighbours and friends to access the 'net that
way.
Heidi

ummm... Heidi... that's evading the question.
Question;

What's the difference between that [trying to get someone's employer to
discipline or fire them] and contacting someone's ISP?

Keep it in context, Heidi!
... sounds like a broken record, don't it.
;)

Ironically, you in your letter *specified* "during lunch hours
or sometime later while they are at home" - just to cover your bases,
I'm sure!
;)


L.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Lilith
ummm... Heidi... that's evading the question.
Question;
What's the difference between that [trying to get someone's employer to
discipline or fire them] and contacting someone's ISP?

Ah...but my letter is not requesting that one particular employee be
reprimanded or fired. You seem to keep forgetting this. Read the letter
again and take time to really think about what *it* says. The main thrust
is for a PLF and other businesses to consider the impact that the Internet
has when businesses have that Internet presense and have a list naming staff
members, and having employees using their real names behaving in some rather
degenerate ways on the Internet. This is like having employees being rude
to potential customers while "at work"...the line is fuzzy. The impact of
the Internet has that effect. What is home and office has become blurred
because of the ease with which one's real name can be easily connected with
that business which is also on line. The letter is basically a mind
excercise that PLF can use, not only for themselves, but for whatever other
legal issues they may come across.

Post by Lilith
Keep it in context, Heidi!
... sounds like a broken record, don't it.
;)

I'm going to tell you something else which you may want to consider. You
know I enjoy an Internet presense. I use my real name. Anything and
everything I post is archived in Google. I've been approached numerous
times by members in my community to run for public office...I've been asked
to run for a seat on Municipal Council. I've been asked to run for School
Board Trustee. A small political party has also asked me to join them.

Then I think about our rabid media hounds that we have here in BC. If I
took public office, they'd be doing their damndest to dig up whatever they
could to discredit me. They could take anything and everything I've ever
written archived in Google and use that information out of context as their
way of slamming me. I'd end up spending all of my time trying to defend
whatever I wrote. I'd have Pro-Lifers digging up my Pro-Choice articles.
I'd have the Religious Right digging around to find my Asatru posts. Anyone
with any kind of cause can probably find something on Usenet to use against
me.

By using my real name, I've had to forgo public office. That's a
consequence I've had to face because I chose to hold myself responsible for
my words and by being honest about my identity.

When I first started participating in Usenet, I had know idea that I might
be encouraged by a lot of people to become that public person. Thinking
back, I should have used an alias. However, given I made that choice, I
simply have to live with it. I'm not going to beat myself up over this
issue.

Post by Lilith
Ironically, you in your letter *specified* "during lunch hours
or sometime later while they are at home" - just to cover your bases, I'm
sure!
;)

Yes, I usually think before I write. I've made some mistakes, but "c'est la
vie." ;-)

Heidi

[Sabine Baer]

On 2006-05-11, Heidi Graw wrote:

[...]

Post by Heidi Graw
No. I will, however, report abuse to the people who I believe are
the appropiate ones to notify about this abuse.

If You would be so kind an would take a look at the headers every
posting has above the 'body' You will find an adress signed
'complaints to :' or something like this. You could have sent Your
complaint to the this adress given in rorik's posting, then that would
have been an action which someone could call usenet-like.

But instead You used an action to (if I see it correctly) damage the
private, civil, official reputation of another netizen.

You not only rode an attack on Your personal enemy but to this NG and
usenet in general.

These are only my 0,02 EUR but I'm very astonished at what You've
done.

Sabine

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Sabine Baer
These are only my 0,02 EUR but I'm very astonished at what You've
done.
Sabine

Sabine, you know who is being talked about. That office clerk who received
that e-mail does not. The request also included that I wished this to
remain a *general* issue. I'm not targetting anyone specifically.

Heidi

[Sabine Baer]

On 2006-05-12, Heidi Graw wrote:

[...]

Post by Heidi Graw
Sabine, you know who is being talked about. That office clerk who
received that e-mail does not. The request also included that I
wished this to remain a *general* issue. I'm not targetting anyone
specifically.

Sorry but I think You can tell that to Your grandma...

Du schmeisst ein bisschen mit Dreck und versuchst, Dir dabei Deine
Finger nicht schmutzig zu machen. Du hast aber in Wirklichkeit tief in
die Scheisse gegriffen.

In meinen Augen hast Du (ich betone nochmal, _falls_ ich das richtig
verstanden habe, ich habe auch nicht den geamten Thread gelesen) eine
Grenze ueberschritten, die Dich im Usenet zu einer Person macht, mit
der man nichts zu tun haben will.

Wer weiss denn schon, wessen Arbeitgeber Du noch ausfindig machst,
wenn Dir jemandes Postings nicht passen?

Sabine

[Sabine Baer]

On 2006-05-12, Heidi Graw wrote:

[...]

Post by Heidi Graw
Sabine, you know who is being talked about. That office clerk who
received that e-mail does not. The request also included that I
wished this to remain a *general* issue. I'm not targetting anyone
specifically.

Sorry but I think You can tell that to Your grandma...

Du schmeisst ein bisschen mit Dreck und versuchst, Dir dabei Deine
Finger nicht schmutzig zu machen. Du hast aber in Wirklichkeit tief in
die Scheisse gegriffen.
[You're bashing dreck trying to keep Your fingers pure but You grabbed
deeply into the sh...]

In meinen Augen hast Du (ich betone nochmal, _falls_ ich das richtig
verstanden habe, ich habe auch nicht den geamten Thread gelesen) eine
Grenze ueberschritten, die Dich im Usenet zu einer Person macht, mit
der man nichts zu tun haben will.
[You have passed a borderline which makes You a person one doesn't
want to communicate]

Wer weiss denn schon, wessen Arbeitgeber Du noch ausfindig machst,
wenn Dir jemandes Postings nicht passen?
[Who knows whose employer You will serch for if his postings don't
enjoy You?]

Sabine

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Sabine Baer
[You're bashing dreck trying to keep Your fingers pure but You grabbed
deeply into the sh...]

Yep, I was knee-deep in Rorik's shit. I'm digging myself out.

Post by Sabine Baer
[You have passed a borderline which makes You a person one doesn't
want to communicate]

The mistake I made was to let everyone *here* know what I sent off.

Post by Sabine Baer
[Who knows whose employer You will serch for if his postings don't
enjoy You?]

How do you know this is not already happening on the 'net? If people know
your name and they know you're listed on a staff list for a business that is
on-line, *anyone* can be reporting that person for Internet abuse. How an
employer chooses to deal with these issues is a matter of corporate policy.
They may or may not have a code of conduct for their employees who have
access to the Internet. If they don't, they might think about creating one.

As it is, I've done a small sampling of some business owners that I know.
I posed the question to them that if they had a web-site listing their staff
and if they found a staff member using their real names abusing people on
the 'net, they would indeed be very interested in knowing that. In fact,
one of my small business owners has decided that he'll check up to see how
his own employees who are listed as staff on his web-site are conducting
themselves. If he finds their not behaving the way he thinks is appropriate
for his business, he'll be talking to them about it. But he did say he
wouldn't fire any of them. He said he'd just tell them to clean up their
act or use an alias. This is the same sentiment my own husband has. In
fact, he'll be bringing this issue up at his next staff meeting.

Heidi

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Sabine Baer
These are only my 0,02 EUR but I'm very astonished at what You've
done.
Sabine

Sabine, you know who is being talked about. That office clerk who received
that e-mail does not.

Yeah, and about 15 seconds on Google, and *that's* over with.

[Doug Frisk]

Post by Heidi Graw
At this time, I do not wish to identify the particular attorney in question.
I would prefer to keep this matter as a general concern. Postings that are
written into Usenet are archived by Google newsgroups. It might be
appropriate to discuss among yourselves your own web-site presence, the
staff list, and the manner in which staff conduct themselves while posting
into a public forum on or off-time.

You are beneath contempt. Rorik has not posted here mentioning who he works
for. That's you and your equally sick friend Reaves who bring that in.

Perhaps I should send your recent posts defending pedophilia to your local
schools. Totally in a spirit of public safety of course.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Doug Frisk
You are beneath contempt. Rorik has not posted here mentioning who he
works for.

Anyone interested in learning about anyone who uses a real name of Usenet
can, within seconds, find out whether or not that person has an Internet
presence elsewhere. As it is, Rorik's name popped up on a staff list at
PLF. He also mentioned often enough he's a lawyer.

This is a risk anyone takes when they post into Usenet. If I want to learn
more about a person, all anyone needs to do is a quick Google search and
bingo...whatever is on-line shows up!

Post by Doug Frisk
Perhaps I should send your recent posts defending pedophilia to your local
schools. Totally in a spirit of public safety of course.

By all means, if you can actually find a post in which I'm defending and
supporting pedophilia, but all means collect those posts and send them.

Heidi

[Noodles Jefferson]

Post by Heidi Graw
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to know if your organization has a code of conduct for
attorneys in your employment when they are participating in Usenet
discussion groups.

Is this more...

a. Amazing- that so much garbage would result from a trivial dispute
over Rydberg, caused by Rydbergites who can't accept differing views?
b. Dishonorable- that someone would be so low as to go after someone's
private life because her feelings were hurt, after she took part in an
attack on a family member because a differing view was expressed?
c. Hilarious- that anyone would write such nonsense?
d. Dangerous- because each time these things are ratcheted up another
notch, one has to wonder where it will stop?
e. Foolish- because each new attack, each blind escalation, simply
makes matters worse?

[Doug Frisk]

Post by Noodles Jefferson

Post by Heidi Graw
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to know if your organization has a code of conduct for
attorneys in your employment when they are participating in Usenet
discussion groups.

Is this more...
a. Amazing- that so much garbage would result from a trivial dispute
over Rydberg, caused by Rydbergites who can't accept differing views?
b. Dishonorable- that someone would be so low as to go after someone's
private life because her feelings were hurt, after she took part in an
attack on a family member because a differing view was expressed?
c. Hilarious- that anyone would write such nonsense?
d. Dangerous- because each time these things are ratcheted up another
notch, one has to wonder where it will stop?
e. Foolish- because each new attack, each blind escalation, simply
makes matters worse?

It's not C, this stopped being funny a while ago.

I'll go with A.

[l***@ix.netcom.com]

Post by Noodles Jefferson

Post by Heidi Graw
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to know if your organization has a code of conduct for
attorneys in your employment when they are participating in Usenet
discussion groups.

Is this more...
a. Amazing- that so much garbage would result from a trivial dispute
over Rydberg, caused by Rydbergites who can't accept differing views?
b. Dishonorable- that someone would be so low as to go after someone's
private life because her feelings were hurt, after she took part in an
attack on a family member because a differing view was expressed?
c. Hilarious- that anyone would write such nonsense?
d. Dangerous- because each time these things are ratcheted up another
notch, one has to wonder where it will stop?
e. Foolish- because each new attack, each blind escalation, simply
makes matters worse?

"B" obviously has to be near or at the top, with "D" and "A" jockeying
for second.

[Attuarii]

Post by Noodles Jefferson
Is this more...
a. Amazing- that so much garbage would result from a trivial dispute
over Rydberg, caused by Rydbergites who can't accept differing views?
b. Dishonorable- that someone would be so low as to go after someone's
private life because her feelings were hurt, after she took part in an
attack on a family member because a differing view was expressed?
c. Hilarious- that anyone would write such nonsense?
d. Dangerous- because each time these things are ratcheted up another
notch, one has to wonder where it will stop?
e. Foolish- because each new attack, each blind escalation, simply
makes matters worse?

f. "There's battle lines being drawn/Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong"

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by Noodles Jefferson

Post by Heidi Graw
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to know if your organization has a code of conduct for
attorneys in your employment when they are participating in Usenet
discussion groups.

Is this more...
a. Amazing- that so much garbage would result from a trivial dispute
over Rydberg, caused by Rydbergites who can't accept differing views?
b. Dishonorable- that someone would be so low as to go after someone's
private life because her feelings were hurt, after she took part in an
attack on a family member because a differing view was expressed?
c. Hilarious- that anyone would write such nonsense?
d. Dangerous- because each time these things are ratcheted up another
notch, one has to wonder where it will stop?
e. Foolish- because each new attack, each blind escalation, simply
makes matters worse?

IIRC Rorik upped the ante with his contacting the FBI over Reaves.
This is part of the escalation.
IMO neither that nor Heidi's actions are creditable and I'd be sorely
tempted to ban both parties if this was moderated.

However, at some point on ARA we will need to discuss such banning
criteria. OTOH we do not want to abrogate the rights of a person to
seek redress in law for what is done on SRA/ARA.

Doug - would you care to start such a thread to discuss how such a
situation should be handled?

FFF
Dirk

[Sabine Baer]

On 2006-05-12, ***@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

Post by d***@gmail.com
IIRC Rorik upped the ante with his contacting the FBI over Reaves.

Could You please give a MsgID, I did not see such a posting, I don't
read all oft hem and ist meight be difficult to find to me.
If it is comprable, well, then there is no good at all too.

Sabine

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Sabine Baer
[...]

Post by d***@gmail.com
IIRC Rorik upped the ante with his contacting the FBI over Reaves.

Could You please give a MsgID, I did not see such a posting, I don't
read all oft hem and ist meight be difficult to find to me.
If it is comprable, well, then there is no good at all too.
Sabine

This is what William posted about what Rorik did:
*********
RS Radford, Pacific Legal Foundation, wrote:


From: rorik - view profile
Date: Mon, May 8 2006 7:34 am
Email: "rorik" <***@yolo.com>
Groups: alt.religion.asatru
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


As usual, it is impossioble to tell whether your ignorant blather is
motivated primarily by stupidity or by malice. In either case, your
repeated, ongoing attacks and slurs on my wife constitute stalking. I
have made two sets of copies of your posts and sent one to your ISP,
asking that your account be closed. I have sent the other copy to the
FBI, asking that you be arrested. Life could finally get interesting
there in the trailer park.

Reply Rate this post: Text for clearing space

*****

Rorik demanded that William ISP disconnect him. He also demanded the FBI
arrest William.

Heidi

Post by Sabine Baer
--
Allerdings war seit den letzten Sparmassnahmen das Essen so schlecht
geworden, dass sogar die Depressiven sich empoerten.
(Batya Gur)

[Sabine Baer]

On 2006-05-12, Heidi Graw wrote:

[...]

Post by Heidi Graw
*********
From: rorik - view profile
Date: Mon, May 8 2006 7:34 am
Groups: alt.religion.asatru
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

What is that? I really don't understand.
If it is a usenet posting to ara, then it should have a MsgID.
Then one can find it on the server.

[...]

Post by Heidi Graw
Rorik demanded that William ISP disconnect him.

Which is an appropriate manner in usenet. Might be not a very noble
one, but for that purpose Complaint-To: adresses are for.

Post by Heidi Graw
He also demanded the FBI arrest William.

Thats silly.
Uh, but wait a minute - in the US it might be a custom to arrest
people without a judge. I don't know.

You think then FBI and/or companies should regulate usenet? Do you
really want usenet to be destroyed?

You and might be 'rorik' (is that a Name?) have taken a step thereto.
How sad...

Heiss geliebt im ganzen Land
ist und bleibt der Denunziant

I can't translate this, but You will know ist.

Sabine

[rorik]

Post by Sabine Baer
Thats silly.
Uh, but wait a minute - in the US it might be a custom to arrest
people without a judge. I don't know.
You think then FBI and/or companies should regulate usenet? Do you
really want usenet to be destroyed?

For the record, Sabine, Reaves responded to my criticism of Rydberg by
posting personal information concerning my wife (who has never had a
Usenet presence of any sort), which he followed up with a series of
malicious and insulting attacks on her (in which Heidi gleefully
joined). The United States recently toughened its laws on stalking,
i.e., moving from Internet contacts to real-life harassment. I
reported Reaves' repeated attacks on my wife, which had no connection
to any legitimate Usenet activity, to determine if his stalking
violates federal law. I believe this is a completely different *type*
of reaction than digging up personal information on posters with whom
one disagrees, and harassing them through their place of employment.

Post by Sabine Baer
You and might be 'rorik' (is that a Name?) have taken a step thereto.
How sad...

Again for the record, Heidi recently said Usenet posters should protect
themselves from personal, off-line attacks by people like her by
posting under aliases. All of my posts to this group have been under
such an alias. These two deranged individuals scoured the Internet to
determine my off-line identity (as well as my wife's.) Since then,
they have been reposting my material with the alias stripped away.

regards,
rorik

[Sabine Baer]

On 2006-05-12, rorik wrote:

[...]

Well, I asked for the MsgId of your posting, but thanks to all, I've
got it myself - it's
Message-ID: <***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

I can't find a "RS Radford, Pacific Legal Foundation" therein, so this
must be found via other ways, out of usenet.

[...]

Post by rorik
The United States recently toughened its laws on stalking,
i.e., moving from Internet contacts to real-life harassment.

Well (IANAL but I know US law is _very_ different of continental law),
if that is the matter of fact and there is some evidence of fulfilling
that matter of fact by someone, then it may be prosecuted in rthat way
the law holds open.
I don't know if 'asking for arresting someone' ist a legal term in the
US, it seems a little overkill to me and will be the decision of a
judje, not the police (except in state of danger), but again, thats a
strange legal system to me.

[...]

Post by rorik

Post by Sabine Baer
You and might be 'rorik' (is that a Name?) have taken a step thereto.
How sad...

Again for the record, Heidi recently said Usenet posters should
protect themselves from personal, off-line attacks by people like
her by posting under aliases. All of my posts to this group have
been under such an alias.

I do not agree to that proposition, I myself prefer the recommendation
as it is given in de.* to write the Real Name. But that's another
discussion.

Post by rorik
These two deranged individuals scoured the Internet to determine my
off-line identity (as well as my wife's.) Since then, they have
been reposting my material with the alias stripped away.

Yes, I've seen it now.
Your posting is
Message-ID: <***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

the 'Quotations' are in
Message-ID: <***@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <6cY8g.153815$***@pd7tw3no>

One could name it not only 'stripping away' but forgery in some sense.
The text is correct, bu no 'RS Radford, Pacific Legal Foundation'
wrote.

The whole thing is very disgusting.

Sabine

[Ceddie]

Post by Sabine Baer
You and might be 'rorik' (is that a Name?) have taken a step thereto.
How sad...

Rorik is a name with a glorious past. It means "famous ruler", related
to hróður (fame) and ríkur (rich, powerful). From Wikipedia:

Riurik is the Slavic rendering of the same Germanic name as the modern
English Roderick, or Spanish and Portuguese Rodrigo. In old Germanic
languages it had forms such as Hrodric (Old High German) and Hroðricus
(Old English). In Old Norse, Hrœrekr (Norway, Iceland) and Hrørikr
or Rørik (Denmark, Sweden), from which Riurik is derived. The name
also appears in Beowulf as Hreðrik.

In Iceland the form "Rúrik" is still in use.

C

[Sabine Baer]

On 2006-05-12, Ceddie wrote:

[Rorik the name]

Thank You, I really didn't know that. I am not very well educated it
seems ;-\
It might be that there is a german name 'Roderich' as well, but I
don't know anyone with this name.

Sabine

[Ceddie]

Post by Sabine Baer

Post by Sabine Baer
It might be that there is a german name 'Roderich' as well, but I

don't know anyone with this name.

Roderich, Rodrich and Röderich are all german names, not so common
though. Since the original began with an H, I would have expected
something like Hrodrich or Hroderich, and Hrodrich actually exists -
but I don´t know if it is till in use in Germany. C.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Sabine Baer
You think then FBI and/or companies should regulate usenet?

They already do.

Post by Sabine Baer
Do you
really want usenet to be destroyed?

You mean like allowing people "freedom to abuse others?" Hmmmm.... I don't
know of anyplace where that is allowed. No matter where one is, people are
free to file an abuse claim...be it on the Internet, the workplace, at home,
or elsewhere in the community.

Post by Sabine Baer
You and might be 'rorik' (is that a Name?) have taken a step thereto.
How sad...

Nope, just making use of the appeals processes that are made available for
*anyone* to use.
If one appeal process doesn't work, try another, and another if need be. If
an appeals process doesn't exist, ask if one can be created.

The thing is that what you believe is an abuse may be different from what I
think is abuse. We may even differ on how to deal with abuses. Fortunately
for us all, there are appeals processes in place where these sorts of things
can be judged and acted upon.

Heidi

[William P. Reaves]

Could You please give a MsgID, I did not see such a posting, I don't read all oft hem and ist meight be difficult to find to me. If it is comprable, well, then there is no good at all too.

RS Radford, Pacific Legal Foundation, wrote:

From: rorik - view profile
Date: Mon, May 8 2006 7:34 am
Email: "rorik" <***@yolo.com>
Groups: alt.religion.asatru
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


As usual, it is impossioble to tell whether your ignorant blather is
motivated primarily by stupidity or by malice. In either case, your
repeated, ongoing attacks and slurs on my wife constitute stalking. I
have made two sets of copies of your posts and sent one to your ISP,
asking that your account be closed. I have sent the other copy to the
FBI, asking that you be arrested. Life could finally get interesting
there in the trailer park.


Reply Rate this post: Text for clearing space

[William P. Reaves]

Could You please give a MsgID, I did not see such a posting, I don't read all oft hem and ist meight be difficult to find to me. If it is comprable, well, then there is no good at all too.

RS Radford, Pacific Legal Foundation, wrote:

From: rorik - view profile
Date: Mon, May 8 2006 7:34 am
Email: "rorik" <***@yolo.com>
Groups: alt.religion.asatru
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


As usual, it is impossioble to tell whether your ignorant blather is
motivated primarily by stupidity or by malice. In either case, your
repeated, ongoing attacks and slurs on my wife constitute stalking. I
have made two sets of copies of your posts and sent one to your ISP,
asking that your account be closed. I have sent the other copy to the
FBI, asking that you be arrested. Life could finally get interesting
there in the trailer park.


Reply Rate this post: Text for clearing space

[Ceddie]

Post by d***@gmail.com
IIRC Rorik upped the ante with his contacting the FBI over Reaves.
This is part of the escalation.
IMO neither that nor Heidi's actions are creditable and I'd be sorely
tempted to ban both parties if this was moderated.

Did he contact the FBI? I think it was a joke. Might as well have
contacted the UN or the CIA or MI5. C

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by d***@gmail.com
IIRC Rorik upped the ante with his contacting the FBI over Reaves.
This is part of the escalation.

No kidding. Rorik went right for the jugular.

Post by d***@gmail.com
IMO neither that nor Heidi's actions are creditable and I'd be sorely
tempted to ban both parties if this was moderated.

Not to worry, Dirk. The next time an employee using his/her real name
targets me with abusive and vile language, and if I find such a person
listed on an on-line staff directory I will be sure not to post into a
newsgroup that I've sent off a letter. My letters, however, will be
non-specific, not targetting any individual, but rather I will be asking the
corporation and/or organization to review their Internet policy with their
employees. If they haven't got one in place, maybe they'll think about
creating one.

That's all.

Heidi

[rorik]

I would ask someone to repost this, Heidi, but you seem to have no
trouble "peeking" around the killfile you supposedly put me in, so I'll
speak to you directly.

I sincerely hope that you had a long discussion with your husband and
son before embarking on this course, because the real-life consequences
of your actions will fall on them as heavily as on yourself. You have
made it plain that you feel nothing but hatred and contempt for my
family, although you have never met them, and they are actually rather
admirable people. I have never met your family either, but I have
never harbored the faintest animosity toward them, and I have publicly
supported you as you have dealt with the various family-life hurdles
you've described in this forum. That's why I'm sorry you've chosen to
put them at risk, and hope you gave them the opportunity to decide for
themselves whether that was a risk they wanted to share with you.

Usenet, at least for some, is a virtual playground -- a fantasyland
where we can play make-believe games, form "alliances" of
us-against-them, call people names, and basically act out whatever
roles we want to assume. If you want to pretend, for example, that an
uneducated, unpublished fry cook is a great scholar, you're perfectly
free to do so here. If you want to make believe that the lore says men
were created by dwarfs, or Snow White, or the Wicker Witch, Usenet is
the place to do it. But no matter how deeply we get caught up in the
fantasy, we have to always remember that it's not the real world.
Fantasy is fun. The real world is quite often hard and unforgiving.

You've enjoyed calling me names for a long, long time, for reasons
known only to you. I've always found it puzzling but not something
that bothered me, as long as you kept it part of your Usenet fantasy
world. Today you decided to take your fantasies out of Usenet and into
the real world. And the way you decided to do that was to harass a
lawyer. Could that have seemed like a smart thing to do, even at the
time?

I have thought more than once that it would be pleasant to have a
summer home in British Columbia, but I never really expected someone to
offer me theirs. You *do* own your home don't you, Heidi? Of course,
I can find out for myself with a quick asset trace. What I'm
suggesting, Heidi, is that if you *didn't* already have that talk with
your husband and son, you should do so now. Do they agree with you
that it's worth risking all those legal bills just so you can make
a.r.a. safe for second-hand 19th century nonsense? Frankly, I doubt
they will see it that way.

What I would really like to see from you, Heidi, is some sort of
confirmation that you've started regular therapy sessions with a mental
health professional. I'm very serious about that. I would like to see
that confirmation here, within 30 days. If you post that information,
and I can confirm it, nothing more will come of this.

regards,
rorik

Heidi Graw wrote:
<harassing offline communication snipped>

[Ceddie]

Post by rorik
I would ask someone to repost this, Heidi, but you seem to have no
trouble "peeking" around the killfile you supposedly put me in, so I'll
speak to you directly.
I sincerely hope that you had a long discussion with your husband and
son before embarking on this course, because the real-life consequences
of your actions will fall on them as heavily as on yourself. You have
made it plain that you feel nothing but hatred and contempt for my
family, although you have never met them, and they are actually rather
admirable people. I have never met your family either, but I have
never harbored the faintest animosity toward them, and I have publicly
supported you as you have dealt with the various family-life hurdles
you've described in this forum. That's why I'm sorry you've chosen to
put them at risk, and hope you gave them the opportunity to decide for
themselves whether that was a risk they wanted to share with you.
Usenet, at least for some, is a virtual playground -- a fantasyland
where we can play make-believe games, form "alliances" of
us-against-them, call people names, and basically act out whatever
roles we want to assume. If you want to pretend, for example, that an
uneducated, unpublished fry cook is a great scholar, you're perfectly
free to do so here. If you want to make believe that the lore says men
were created by dwarfs, or Snow White, or the Wicker Witch, Usenet is
the place to do it. But no matter how deeply we get caught up in the
fantasy, we have to always remember that it's not the real world.
Fantasy is fun. The real world is quite often hard and unforgiving.
You've enjoyed calling me names for a long, long time, for reasons
known only to you. I've always found it puzzling but not something
that bothered me, as long as you kept it part of your Usenet fantasy
world. Today you decided to take your fantasies out of Usenet and into
the real world. And the way you decided to do that was to harass a
lawyer. Could that have seemed like a smart thing to do, even at the
time?
I have thought more than once that it would be pleasant to have a
summer home in British Columbia, but I never really expected someone to
offer me theirs. You *do* own your home don't you, Heidi? Of course,
I can find out for myself with a quick asset trace. What I'm
suggesting, Heidi, is that if you *didn't* already have that talk with
your husband and son, you should do so now. Do they agree with you
that it's worth risking all those legal bills just so you can make
a.r.a. safe for second-hand 19th century nonsense? Frankly, I doubt
they will see it that way.
What I would really like to see from you, Heidi, is some sort of
confirmation that you've started regular therapy sessions with a mental
health professional. I'm very serious about that. I would like to see
that confirmation here, within 30 days. If you post that information,
and I can confirm it, nothing more will come of this.
regards,
rorik
<harassing offline communication snipped>

It was a long and boring story, to begin with, which no professional
writer would have been proud of. I must admit that in my view Rorik
somehow elevated the storyline, when he began pouring poetry into it,
and it was a lesson of a lifetime to see how poetry changed everything
instantly. The various threads with reaves / rorik / heidi were all
profusely poisoned with tasteless, verbal abuse, and Roriks poetry
wasn´t in any way different. His poetic abuse was no worse than what
Heidi and Reaves managed to present in prose. But poetry it was, and we
all saw how enormously more powerful it was than the prose. A deep and
profound silence spread over the battlefield.

It is not a fitting end to a minor story like this to have Rorik
reprimanded by his boss (if he isn´t the boss himself) and it´s not
nice for Heidi to lose her house either. My suggestion is that Heidi,
who is a talented poetess, write a poem about Rorik (somewhat like the
excellent "Thunder In My Eyes"), and that´ll be the end of this
story and we can begin discussing other, more interesting topics.

I really think you should do this Heidi. You should vent your anger -
or better, your fury - and you are capable to do just that in your
poetry. My gut feeling is that you judge Christianity far too hard in
your poems, but of course you can´t judge Rorik hard enough, so just
go for it!

CPP

[l***@ix.netcom.com]

Post by Ceddie
it´s not
nice for Heidi to lose her house either.

No, but it might be justice. Justice often isn't nice, and actions tend
to have consequences. Bitching at each other here on Usenet is all
kinds of fun, but taking it into the "real world," as Rorik correctly
points out, is a whole different matter.

My suggestion is that Heidi,

Post by Ceddie
who is a talented poetess, write a poem about Rorik (somewhat like the
excellent "Thunder In My Eyes"), and that´ll be the end of this
story ...

If she in fact did send such a letter with the intent of strangling
Roriks speech, it *won't* be the end of the story no matter what
poetical pap she pours out. If *I* cost *you* your livelihood, would a
nice poem make up for it?

Post by Ceddie
and we can begin discussing other, more interesting topics.

Here's one:

What should Rorik do with Heidi house? Options include, but are not
limitted to:
1) Summer home
2) Tear it down, plant trees
3) Convert it into the Museum Of Leftist Intolerance
4) Burn it to ash
5) Turn it into a Hof of some type
6) Use it as a garbage dump
7) Carefully disassemble it, and use the lumber to form "HA-HA!" in
letters big enough to be seen clearly by Earth-observing satellites
8) Strip mine
9) Sell it to the local Christians for them to consecrate into a new
church
10) ???

Discuss.

[Heidi Graw]

<***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:***@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
(snip)

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com
If she in fact did send such a letter

I sent it.

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com
with the intent of strangling
Roriks speech,

I'm not strangling his speech. He can still voice his opinion. He doesn't,
however, need to do it in such a vile and disgusting manner. I will not put
up with abusive, hateful and disgusting language.

Heidi

[l***@ix.netcom.com]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com
If she in fact did send such a letter

I sent it.

So where are you planning to live next? Do you have a beat up old
mobile home all picked out?

[Doug Frisk]

Post by Heidi Graw
I'm not strangling his speech. He can still voice his opinion.

As long as you don't disagree right?

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Doug Frisk

Post by Heidi Graw
I'm not strangling his speech. He can still voice his opinion.

As long as you don't disagree right?

To give you an example:

Appropriate:

Poster A: I think Rydberg has some valuable things to say.

Poster B: I disagree. Rydberg's writings have been discredited <blah,
blah, blah...

Abusive:

Poster A: I think Rydberg has some valuable things to say.

Poster B: You f*cking jerk. Rydberg is a loony.

All I'm asking that instead of Poster B responding in an abusive way, he
could choose to voice a differing opinion in a more civil manner. Civility
does not mean shutting down a person's speech...the right to offer a
different view point about any given subject matter.

Heidi

[Doug Frisk]

Post by Doug Frisk

Post by Heidi Graw
I'm not strangling his speech. He can still voice his opinion.

As long as you don't disagree right?

<blather snipped>

As I said, as long as you don't disagree.

[William P. Reaves]

Hej Doug,

Post by Doug Frisk
As long as you don't disagree right?

you have disagreed about many things and no one has gone after you. Why
the paranoia?

[William P. Reaves]

Hej Doug,

Post by Doug Frisk
As long as you don't disagree right?

you have disagreed about many things and no one has gone after you. Why
the paranoia?

[Heidi Graw]

Post by William P. Reaves

Post by William P. Reaves
Hej Doug,
As long as you don't disagree right?

you have disagreed about many things and no one has gone after you. Why
the paranoia?

I think what the fear is that the letter I wrote to the PLF might open up a
discussion regarding employee conduct over the Internet. An on-line
business owner might end up creating corporate policies governing employee
conduct when they are on-line on or off duty. From the employee's
perspective this may be viewed as an employer's attempt to regulate an
employee's off-duty behavior. However, looking at it from the employer's
point of view, they may very well be concerned about how that employee
represents the corporation and whether or not such conduct will affect their
business dealings in either a negative or positive way.

If anything, I hope this will bring attention to a problem that employers
might want to concern themselves about. It might encourage discussions
between employers and employees and in what manner they may want to deal
with Internet abuse.

I've put the bug into the ear of the PLF as a *general* concern. I'll leave
it up to them as to how they may wish to deal with this issue, if at all.

Heidi

[Doug Frisk]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by William P. Reaves

Post by William P. Reaves
Hej Doug,
As long as you don't disagree right?

you have disagreed about many things and no one has gone after you. Why
the paranoia?

I think what the fear is that the letter I wrote to the PLF might open up
a discussion regarding employee conduct over the Internet.

No, the concern Heidi is that some drugged up harpy might start harassing
our employers or friends because in her addled mind she's perceived some
slight.

It's called stalking.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Doug Frisk
It's called stalking.

Look up the dictionary definition of stalking. Then look up what it means
in the legal sense.

Asking a corporation whether or not they have a code of conduct for their
employees regarding Internet use does not fall into the catagory of
stalking. Pointing out to a corporation how Internet abuse by their
employees can potentially affect their business activities also does not
constitute stalking. And asking them to discuss this issue about Internet
use among themselves is not a form of stalking either.

Heidi

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Doug Frisk
It's called stalking.

Look up the dictionary definition of stalking. Then look up what it means
in the legal sense.
Asking a corporation whether or not they have a code of conduct for their
employees regarding Internet use does not fall into the catagory of
stalking. Pointing out to a corporation how Internet abuse by their
employees can potentially affect their business activities also does not
constitute stalking. And asking them to discuss this issue about Internet
use among themselves is not a form of stalking either.
Heidi

Pretty obvious what the intent was though Heidi, especially when your
intent was on record prior (and post) to sending the letter.
It's all "evidence", Heidi... not just the letter.

L.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Lilith
Pretty obvious what the intent was though Heidi, especially when your
intent was on record prior (and post) to sending the letter.
It's all "evidence", Heidi... not just the letter.

...and what was actually sent to the PLF was something of a very general
nature. If they wish to persue it into more depths, they can do that. It's
not something I requested, though.

As for my prior post, the intent was to gain advice for a next possible
course of action. I think I made it pretty clear that I hadn't made up my
mind about sending a much detailed and pointed letter.

As it was, I chose to go a more generalized route. I think it was the
appropiate next step to take.

Heidi

[William P. Reaves]

Doug Frisk,

Wasn't it just last Sunday that you said:

"That's it Heidi, I'm done with you. You are unwilling to look beyond
your
nose. Go fuck yourself."

So leave her alone already.

[Doug Frisk]

Post by William P. Reaves
Doug Frisk,
"That's it Heidi, I'm done with you. You are unwilling to look beyond
your
nose. Go fuck yourself."
So leave her alone already.

That was (as I've already posted) before she went from loon to dangerous
loon.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Ceddie

Post by rorik
What I would really like to see from you, Heidi, is some sort of
confirmation that you've started regular therapy sessions with a mental
health professional. I'm very serious about that. I would like to see
that confirmation here, within 30 days. If you post that information,
and I can confirm it, nothing more will come of this.

My suggestion is that Heidi,
who is a talented poetess, write a poem about Rorik (somewhat like the
excellent "Thunder In My Eyes"), and that´ll be the end of this
story and we can begin discussing other, more interesting topics.

I would be perfectly satisfied to receive Heidi's confirmation that she
has begun regular therapy, in the form of a verse. So long as the
verse includes sufficient detail that it can be verified.

regards,
rorik

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Ceddie
It is not a fitting end to a minor story

Ceddie, you don't get to define for me what is minor or major. That poem
was vile and disgusting. I will not tolerate it. It's major...and it's
also incredibly unprofessional and potentially harmful when and if PLF seeks
public funding and/or clientele. They cannot afford to have an abusive and
victriolic employee running around all over Usenet demonstrating to anyone
and everyone with access to Internet to see just what sort of degenerate
they have in their employee.

I'm not putting up with this anymore.

Heidi

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Heidi Graw
I'm not putting up with this anymore.

Enjoy your day in court then. Much of the time you posted
it was nice to have you around. When you're homeless
remember that public libraries have access paid for with
tax money.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Doug Freyburger

Post by Heidi Graw
I'm not putting up with this anymore.

Enjoy your day in court then. Much of the time you posted
it was nice to have you around. When you're homeless
remember that public libraries have access paid for with
tax money.

Scare tactics don't work on me, especially when I know I'm right.

Besides, my e-mail to the PLF will actually give them some food for thought
around corporate policy issues regarding employee conduct in/or outside of
work hours, given the Internet is a public arena, corporations are on line
as are their employees. If anything, it may give them something to think
about. I also told them that I wished to keep this as a *general* concern
and to treat it as such. I made no specific claims against Rorik. He
hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Heidi

[l***@ix.netcom.com]

Post by Doug Freyburger

Post by Heidi Graw
I'm not putting up with this anymore.

Enjoy your day in court then. Much of the time you posted
it was nice to have you around. When you're homeless
remember that public libraries have access paid for with
tax money.

A number of libraries have been known to kick out stinky,
crazy-talking/screaming-to-themselves street creatures. Heidi thus may
not have much time left to issue an abject apology before she's made
homeless (undoubtedly divorced as well, with her children taken from
her) and stinky... and we can see the crazy right out in the open
*now*.

The only real issue I see for Rorik is the difficulty in cross-border
legal disputes. That could throw a monkeywrench into the process of
seeing to it that Heidi gets what's so clearly due.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com
The only real issue I see for Rorik is the difficulty in cross-border
legal disputes. That could throw a monkeywrench into the process of
seeing to it that Heidi gets what's so clearly due.

...and just what might that be? My letter only asked whether or not the PLF
had a code of conduct for the employees if and when they participate on
Usenet on or off duty. I outlined for them in what manner an abusive
employee might affect business. I did not mention Rorik by name. I asked
them to treat this as a *general* concern.

Is the PLF going to sue me for bringing to their attention a concern I have
about employee conduct over the Internet? LOL... o.k...

Imo, such a policy would be something that all on-line business owners
should mull over in their minds.

Heidi

[rorik]

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com
The only real issue I see for Rorik is the difficulty in cross-border
legal disputes. That could throw a monkeywrench into the process of
seeing to it that Heidi gets what's so clearly due.

Believe me, that is no problem at all.

regards,
rorik

[l***@ix.netcom.com]

Post by rorik

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com
The only real issue I see for Rorik is the difficulty in cross-border
legal disputes. That could throw a monkeywrench into the process of
seeing to it that Heidi gets what's so clearly due.

Believe me, that is no problem at all.

Good to hear.

So, what are your thoughts regarding the usage of the property?
Apparently it's market value was reduced a bit when the neighbor
chopped down some trees, but I still think the idea of a Museum Of
Leftist Intolerance has a nice ring to it.

[rorik]

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com

Post by rorik

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com
The only real issue I see for Rorik is the difficulty in cross-border
legal disputes. That could throw a monkeywrench into the process of
seeing to it that Heidi gets what's so clearly due.

Believe me, that is no problem at all.

Good to hear.
So, what are your thoughts regarding the usage of the property?
Apparently it's market value was reduced a bit when the neighbor
chopped down some trees, but I still think the idea of a Museum Of
Leftist Intolerance has a nice ring to it.

I was quite surprised to see it appraised at $441,000. Maybe Heidi has
enough money in the bank to think she can pay all the legal expenses
and still hang on to the homestead. I could really care less. I've
told her what's going to happen, and I've told her the only way she can
prevent it from happening. Her clock's running now.

regards,
rorik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by rorik

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com

Post by rorik

Post by l***@ix.netcom.com
The only real issue I see for Rorik is the difficulty in cross-border
legal disputes. That could throw a monkeywrench into the process of
seeing to it that Heidi gets what's so clearly due.

Believe me, that is no problem at all.

Good to hear.
So, what are your thoughts regarding the usage of the property?
Apparently it's market value was reduced a bit when the neighbor
chopped down some trees, but I still think the idea of a Museum Of
Leftist Intolerance has a nice ring to it.

I was quite surprised to see it appraised at $441,000.

Not quite sure what to make of that. My hovel in California sold for
right at that amount, and it was pitiful and annoying. My five acres of
farmland with big-ass house solds for substantially less than that. What
BC forest land sells for... I dunno.

Post by rorik
Maybe Heidi has
enough money in the bank to think she can pay all the legal expenses
and still hang on to the homestead. I could really care less. I've
told her what's going to happen, and I've told her the only way she can
prevent it from happening. Her clock's running now.

Hey, heidi: don't piss off lawyers. Personally I find the lawyering
profession distasteful, largely for what it has done to the legal and
health care systems; but I know enough to not stalk or harass lawyers.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Scott Lowther
Hey, heidi: don't piss off lawyers.

<chuckle> I've got my own pitbull lawyer on a leash. Just the other day he
asked me if he should play softball or hardball. I told him, "Play
hardball." ;-)

Post by Scott Lowther
Personally I find the lawyering profession distasteful, largely for what it
has done to the legal and health care systems; but I know enough to not
stalk or harass lawyers.

Well...ya...if indeed one were stalking or harassing a lawyer.

Heidi

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Scott Lowther
Hey, heidi: don't piss off lawyers.

<chuckle> I've got my own pitbull lawyer on a leash. Just the other day he
asked me if he should play softball or hardball. I told him, "Play
hardball." ;-)

How much does he charge you? More to the point, how much did this
shyster charge you when he told you that sending that letter was a good
idea?

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Scott Lowther
Personally I find the lawyering profession distasteful, largely for what it
has done to the legal and health care systems; but I know enough to not
stalk or harass lawyers.

Well...ya...if indeed one were stalking or harassing a lawyer.

You are.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Heidi Graw
<chuckle> I've got my own pitbull lawyer on a leash. Just the other day
he asked me if he should play softball or hardball. I told him, "Play
hardball." ;-)

How much does he charge you? More to the point, how much did this shyster
charge you when he told you that sending that letter was a good idea?

This was in regards to an unrelated issue. Remember my having mentioned my
northern neighbour clear-cutting approximately 10,000 square feet of my
property? We've since then collected whatever reports various professionals
had written to assess the affected area. Our lawyer looked over the
information and he has sent out a letter to the perpetrator. This may end
up in the Supreme Court if the guy refuses to comply with the demands as
laid out. However, it's pretty much an open and shut case.

We're going for costs to cover the price of the assessments, the price of
lumber taken, restoration costs, legal costs, plus punitive damages. The
punitive damages may or may not be accepted by the judge...it depends...

I'll keep you informed about any progress and any eventual outcome.

Heidi

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Heidi Graw
<chuckle> I've got my own pitbull lawyer on a leash. Just the other day
he asked me if he should play softball or hardball. I told him, "Play
hardball." ;-)

How much does he charge you? More to the point, how much did this shyster
charge you when he told you that sending that letter was a good idea?

This was in regards to an unrelated issue.

You didn't answer the question. What did he charge you when you went to
him and asked him if it was a good idea to send a letter to Roriks
employers?

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Heidi Graw

How much does he charge you? More to the point, how much did this shyster
charge you when he told you that sending that letter was a good idea?

This was in regards to an unrelated issue.

You didn't answer the question. What did he charge you when you went to
him and asked him if it was a good idea to send a letter to Roriks
employers?

I didn't seek his advice beforehand, because I know it wasn't necessary. As
for any action Rorik chooses to take against me, I'll deal with that matter
when it comes up, if it comes up at all.

Heidi

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Heidi Graw
(snip)

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Heidi Graw

How much does he charge you? More to the point, how much did this shyster
charge you when he told you that sending that letter was a good idea?

This was in regards to an unrelated issue.

You didn't answer the question. What did he charge you when you went to
him and asked him if it was a good idea to send a letter to Roriks
employers?

I didn't seek his advice beforehand,...

Not much point in having him on retainer, then.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Scott Lowther
Not much point in having him on retainer, then.

Rorik is already doing all the work for me to set up my defence for the beef
he has against me. He's doing this pro-bono. ;-)

Heidi

[Attuarii]

Heidi Graw wrote:
[...]

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Loading Image...

IMO, the man is an arse. Almost always the best strategy for dealing with
such a person is to leave his conduct to speak for itself.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Attuarii
[...]
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/MFS_01.jpg
IMO, the man is an arse. Almost always the best strategy for dealing with
such a person is to leave his conduct to speak for itself.

Steven, I know what you mean. But that poem I will not allow to stand
without some sort of consequences to the poster who writes really vile and
disgusting stuff, especially if it is aimed at me. Rorik overreacted to
whatever mild things I may have said. I don't mind a bit of back and forth
quibbling that involves milder sorts of insults. However, once those
degenerate in to *clearly disgusting*...that's where I draw the line.

Rorik is still free to voice an opinion. If he has other views in mind
about a particular subject matter, he can certainly do that. However, what
I will not accept is abusive and denerate language.

So, now that everyone is aware of this...they can take it under
advisement...when responding to me...think before you write. Will this
writing cause her to feel offense? Is this writing too degenerate and vile?

I will impose consequences as I see fit...be that ignore, killfile or
reporting the abuse.

Heidi

[Attuarii]

Heidi Graw wrote:
[...]
See pages 27 and 139.
http://www.targetitmarketing.com/ebooks/pdfs/how-to-win-friends.pdf

They don't apply exactly to this situation, but the general notions are
relevant here.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Attuarii
[...]
See pages 27 and 139.
http://www.targetitmarketing.com/ebooks/pdfs/how-to-win-friends.pdf
They don't apply exactly to this situation, but the general notions are
relevant here.

Steven, I have lots of friends...on-line and off-line. ;-)

As for Rorik, I've learned long long long ago that he is not the kind of
person I would like to have within my friendship circle. I do, however,
expect a degree of civility if we are to discuss things between ourselves.
One thing I will not accept is *abuse.* That poem was abusive and I don't
have to accept it.

Heidi

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Attuarii
[...]
See pages 27 and 139.
http://www.targetitmarketing.com/ebooks/pdfs/how-to-win-friends.pdf
They don't apply exactly to this situation, but the general notions are
relevant here.

Steven, I have lots of friends...on-line and off-line. ;-)
As for Rorik, I've learned long long long ago that he is not the kind of
person I would like to have within my friendship circle. I do, however,
expect a degree of civility if we are to discuss things between ourselves.
One thing I will not accept is *abuse.* That poem was abusive and I don't
have to accept it.
Heidi

Then take him to court, Heidi.
Have him charged.
It *has* to be declared by the courts to be real guilt, as you've
clearly said.

L.

[Heidi Graw]

(snip)

Post by Lilith
Then take him to court, Heidi.
Have him charged.
It *has* to be declared by the courts to be real guilt, as you've clearly
said.
L.

Lilith, I try not to use the avenue of last resort as my first resort.
There are steps that I follow. I take these steps one at a time to achieve
the results I want to see. I've been an advocate for about 35 years. The
first advocacy I did was when I was a teenager. I won that case. And from
then on I took on a series of other advocacy projects. Anything and
everything I ever advocated for was successful. I'm kinda proud of my track
record. ;-)

Take care,
Heidi

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Heidi Graw
I've been an advocate for about 35 years. The
first advocacy I did was when I was a teenager. I won that case. And from
then on I took on a series of other advocacy projects. Anything and
everything I ever advocated for was successful.

Everything ends. Track records. Home ownership. Marriages. Custody of
children. Everything.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Scott Lowther

I've been an advocate for about 35 years. The first advocacy I did was
when I was a teenager. I won that case. And from then on I took on a
series of other advocacy projects. Anything and everything I ever
advocated for was successful.

Everything ends. Track records. Home ownership. Marriages. Custody of
children. Everything.

....and I could end up dying of a heart attack tomorrow! Then you can
celebrate! ;-)

Heidi

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Heidi Graw
....and I could end up dying of a heart attack tomorrow! Then you can
celebrate! ;-)

Your actions have assured that a number would. Happy?