Closing of the Virtual Shindig Room due to illegal activity
POSTED BY: SHADOWcaptain
UPDATED: Thursday, December 31, 2009 15:02
VIEWED: 13378
PAGE 2 of 2
Unfortunately, much as I would *like* to say PirateNews is off his nut about this one, his wackiness extends only to exaggeration and trying to connect it all as one vast conspiracy, which it ain't - sadly the essential facts he is basing from are indeed true.
Yes, there was a cabal involving Franklin, who did use Boystown as a victim pool, and some of those victims "collected" more in various fashions, which is likely what happened to Johnny Gosch.
And yes, the "midnight tours" of young men/boys of the white house is true, complete with documentation, and as a result of that mess a civil judgement was rendered against Franklin for the crime, that document is available upon request, and one of the co-defendants died under very bizarre circumstances shortly after a book on the matter was released, also a matter of record.
As for whether "Talon News" (a fake news shill organisation for the Bush administration) operator Jeff Gannon is in fact Gosch or not, that is unknown because when his actions were exposed he quite wisely went into hiding - however immediately after that mess went public authorities rounded up and questioned photographer Russel "Rusty" E Nelson, who when released also immediately went into hiding after making a few comments that seemed to implicate Hunter S Thompson as an additional acomplice and precipitated Thompsons suicide soon after.
Given that Thompson was investigating a certain type of film at the time in hopes of bagging a $100,000.00 bounty for proof that such existed, it's quite likely he may have gotten sucked into that mess deeper than he would have liked in it's pursuit, but I doubt anyone will ever know for sure.
But the Boystown-Bush Administration-Gannon fiasco isn't related to Skull and Bones and only at best tenatively related to anything dealing with Bohemian Grove only because it was a secure, private venue for the actions of a few of it's members - Russels testimony puts Thompson and a few others on-site, and is corroborated by that of Bonnacai and Boner, with the testimony of Owen being most credible, placing them in company in a number of other venues.
And that's all imma go into about it, as I am fond of saying there's things in the world so awful that just the knowing of em can hurt you, pyschologically damage you - which is IMHO, a lot of what's "wrong" with PirateNews, or at least the root cause of it, and as such reccommend against investigating that matter any further for that very reason.
As far as what happened to the chatroom in question, one major problem with enforcing against online predators is both how immoral people deliberately bait the clumsy sledgehammer of enforcement by trolling links, which is what seemed to have happened here - but there's also the problem of the enforcement authorities themselves trolling said links, and busting folk who click them, thus leading to a nasty combination of SWATting and RickRoll, where jerks can mislead folk to clicking those links by misrepresenting them quite easily.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html?tag=mncol
http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20080320/click-a-link-go-to-jail/
You can just imagine the problems such a thing can have for a site or chatroom, and much like the white power/neo nazi problem, it seems that federal involvement using them as sting operations is in truth all that is keeping online predator collectives afloat because otherwise decent folk get them shut down before they even get off the ground, and only the intervention of the feds to hold em open as bait prevents that from happening - also conveniently causing the panic and outcry for more enforcement which leads to larger budgets, don't you know.
So, while PirateNews is perhaps, not all there upstairs, he's not completely off his nut when addressing this issue, he just does so in an exaggerated, overblown tabloid fashion due to a combination of his own mental issues and the obvious fact that if he becomes too credible it might be worth someones time to make him shut up.
There is also, while not so common at this
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHADOWcaptain:
Unfortunately some 'Anti-Browncoats' used it to post illegal material, so it got closed - as it should.
Private rooms/password protection/required registration = your friends when using chatzy.
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I never went ther, but i had planned to, and now it's all gone!!! WHo ever did this will pay, the 'anti-browncoats', they will pay. I mean who puts that crap on this site, it's not a site for that shit, and i'm about ready to gag just thinking about it. I hope whoever did this get's caught, and punished to the full extent of the law, the sick wierdo.
"Mom, he has her chip. He has her."
John Connor,"Born To Run", TSCC EP 2x22
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originality posted by:PHOENIXROSE
Private rooms/password protection/required registration = your friends when using chatzy.
The room was created for all browncoats to join the link was available to anyone at FFF.net.NO password necessary.
Just a little FYI.
...Also, I can kill you with my brain.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:Quote:
Originally posted by SHADOWcaptain:
Unfortunately some 'Anti-Browncoats' used it to post illegal material, so it got closed - as it should.
Private rooms/password protection/required registration = your friends when using chatzy.
Phoenixrose, you mentioned
"Private rooms/password protection/required registration = your friends when using chatzy."
A) it wasn't a private room, it was public.
B) it wasn't password protected
C) it wasn't 'registration required'
D) = My friends? There were a couple of people that went there that don't fit that description, even one that would use my alias.
You may be thinking of another room.
I do have one that is still active for TRANQUILITY
members that is private.
If anything where to ever happen in that room I would know immediately and would take the same actions.
This is a serious issue that I think people should take more seriously.
http://www.chatzy.com/421594713298 - TRANQUILITYS LEVEL 5 [SECURE CHANNEL]
Crew Ident Cards:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=21&t=36030
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's always a tricky balance between keeping out the ruffians and getting so closed off no one comes, if registration is perhaps too much a hurdle (and usually it's not) then perhaps a template of 3-5 questions only a browncoat could answer would be effective in keeping the bots out - it's not like the show fandom doesn't have a LOT of trivia to work with!
Not familiar with Chatzy however, I was ever more on the IRC end of things, but that was a long while ago and I don't think I've ever visted FFF's chat there, although come to think of it, might be worth a looksee, that.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um, yes, I figured that the room was neither private nor password protected, nor required registration with chatzy to enter it, hence how the 'anti-Browncoats' could get in a bugger it all up, with no possibility of being banned by the room's owner before things got out of hand. Which is why such features are your friends when you are using chatzy. I was suggesting that, if you wish to set up another room and avoid this problem in the future it should be A) private, B) password protected, and C) require registration so that offending members can be banned from the room by anyone who has access to the admin password. I was once a very regular chatzy user and I was trying to help. But, if you'd prefer to think I'm not taking things seriously, then what-the-smeg-ever. [/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, PhoenixRose - I didn't mean to give that impression, I always value your opinion and input, doll.
I just know jack damn all about Chatzy so I didn't know if it even had those features, as well as having a little experience with other chat services including IRC where the folks running the place decided to misuse the registration info to carry personal vendettas out offline, something that is more common than it ought to be and turns some folk off the whole idea, you understand ?
That was Peacefulhaven, mind you - which given some mutual interest, you might have heard about that fiasco, especially since I went pretty berserk on the admins about it, and made very sure the users knew about it cause I felt they had a right to know.
Anyhows, us being Browncoats, I'm sure we can find a way to surmount the problem, cause we got a thing for doin the impossible, right ? 
If there's a faq or something for Chatzy, imma look it up when I have time, so I have a better clue what we're talkin about here.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were speaking figuratively.
Also it just seemed that the child porn topic was being changed to chat room etiquette, that's why I mentioned 'not taking things seriously'.
http://www.chatzy.com/421594713298 - TRANQUILITYS LEVEL 5 [SECURE CHANNEL]
Crew Ident Cards:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=21&t=36030
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How to Protect Your Rights on Facebook
Uh-oh, you might wanna think twice before posting those party pictures on Facebook:
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student Adam Bauer has nearly 400 friends on Facebook. He got an offer for a new one about a month ago. “She was a good-looking girl. I usually don’t accept friends I don’t know, but I randomly accepted this one for some reason,” the 19-year-old said.
He thinks that led to his invitation to come down to the La Crosse police station, where an officer laid out photos from Facebook of Bauer holding a beer — and then ticketed him for underage drinking.
…
He was among at least eight people who said Wednesday they had been cited for underage drinking based on photos on social networking sites. [LaCrosse-Tribune]
First things first, there's certainly nothing good to be said about these sorts of law-enforcement tactics. Police always have better things to do than roam the Internet looking for pictures of naughty college kids and there's no excuse for invading people's privacy to make a couple petty arrests. The very notion of officers assuming fake identities on Facebook is just inherently repugnant and serves only to destroy their relationship with the very people they're supposed to be protecting.
That said, it's also worth keeping in mind that you have a 5th Amendment right not to post incriminating pictures of yourself on Facebook. It's just an unfortunate reality that police do creep around on the web an awful lot for no particularly good reason and you never know where their prying eyes might land.
http://flexyourrights.org/node/258
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME