GrodsCorp

GrodsNibbles

Friday 28 September 2007, 8:49 am

The Editor

Categories: Australia Decides '07, Blogosphere, GrodsNibbles, Reminiscing

Tags: campaign, CyberStalking, IainHall, memories, Music, SamuelGordon-Stewart, SkySportsNews

1) Samuel Gordon-Stewart, Independent
Independent candidate for Fraser, Samuel Gordon-Stewart, has launched his campaign with a press release and the unveiling of his campaign website. Some of Samuel’s policy positions include:

* The nationalisation of education and health, with plans to move government funding from the private sector to the public sector, and provide bulk billed health and dental services in as many areas as possible. Samuel is also committed to ensuring the ACT education system, particularly the college system, is used as the basis for the national education system.
* Bold new initiatives to stave off drought and replenish the farming sector, and therefore make the economy better, and improve the standard of living for regional areas.
* The acceptance that Climate Change is a mostly natural phenomenon, and that we need to plan around the natural climate cycle.
* Economically sustainable targets for the reduction of pollution, and the introduction of renewable energy to improve the air quality, and therefore our standard of living.
* A majority government owned national fibre-to-the-node high speed broadband network, and the urgent provision of broadband services to all areas of the nation that do not currently have them.
* Oppose the Tralee development in favour of a Googong development to prevent excess aircraft noise over Canberra.
* A speeding up of the rollout of digital radio, and government assistance to ensure that no broadcasters are adversely affected by the change.

2) Stalker turns stalked
Iain; Hall, the internet’s most illiterate blogger, has threatened another blogger with police action over alleged “cyberstalking”. Of course, anyone who’s been following the actions of Iain (Nice;person) Hall since his early days in the blogosphere will laugh heartily at the irony of this development.

3) Ahhh, memories
Do you know how sounds can summon powerful memories? Well I found this video on the YouTubes the other day. It’s the opening titles from the UK Sky TV’s Sky Sports News. I was freelancing as a director at that channel between 2000 and 2002, and I had to listen to those opening titles a dozen times a shift. Took me back is all I’m saying.

59 Comments

Samuel Gordon-Stewart (Friday 28 September 2007, 10:09 am) #

For those of you who think my drought policy is similar to Lachlan Connor’s…you are right.

I have had a similar view to Lachlan’s policy for quite a while, and I have adopted some of his views on the subject as they make a bit more sense than my original thoughts.
Bruce (Friday 28 September 2007, 2:36 pm) #

Well let’s face it. Bourbon Boy with his threat to contact Iain’s wife is stalking him, although he hasn’t committed black mail as Iain alleges.

I fall short of schadenfreude on this one, but the utter hypocrisy of Iain on this one itself, his suffering aside, is still utterly funny.

The best thing Iain is going to achieve by going to the police is getting himself a rap over the knuckles and that’s only if they choose to investigate. I say to Iain; go for it.

And Bourbon Boy, you are probably reading this and you know what I think of most of your torturing of Iain. My position has been consistent on this.

Don’t take it as endorsement, it’s not, but if you ever do get contacted by the QLD police, point them to the correspondence between Iain and “Monster Truck”. I’m going to post the full exchange on my blog in the near future.

I’m sure that the police will be more even handed and act in a more informed manner if they know all the details.
Bridgit Gread (Friday 28 September 2007, 6:38 pm) #

And I still have the full text of my blog, the article intended to ‘expose’ me that Iain wrote and posted on Gary Gravett’s blog, logs of numerous threatening and insulting comments, and a couple of nasty e-mails sent to me by Iain;Hall. If you are contacted by the police, BB, please do let me know and I will forward them to anyone interested.
Bourbon Boy (Friday 28 September 2007, 7:48 pm) #

Bruce I have two points, first I would never contact Iains wife because I dont know her and really I dont give enough of a shit, I just wanted to see how he might react….. and what do you know he is crying fowl. And the reason for that is that his wife DOESNT KNOW what he writes on his blogs and he is frightened of her finding out…..

We have learnt a valuable lesson about Iain;Hall career on the Net today. For the past 2yrs he has spent his time exposing peoples identities, putting their pics on his blog, threatening to tell their employers, trying to get them sacked, saying they are incompetent at there job (look at Grods’ testiominals page for an example), publishing photoshopped pics, etc. etc. And you know what? He is shit scared of his wife finding out.
Bourbon Boy (Friday 28 September 2007, 7:49 pm) #

P.S. Bruce and Bridget, thanks for the offer but I already have most of that stuff anyway..
The Happy Revolutionary (Saturday 29 September 2007, 2:50 pm) #

Hall’s threats seem rather extravagant. I don’t see how police can prosecute anything in relation to ‘implicit’ threats - they need the how, where and what of any allegation, and melodramatic claims about ‘blackmail’ do not constitute grounds for criminal proceedings.
Hall would also struggle to demonstrate that any criminal laws have been broken in relation to stalking. His supposed stalker lives in another state, and does enter into direct correspondence with Hall.
Hall could try for an intervention order, but even then, his grounds are pretty flimsy, and I’m not sure that such an order would be legally possible (not to mention useful) across state boundaries.
Finally, Hall’s own behaviour (exposing Jeremy’s details all over the blogosphere, threatening the employment of bloggers with whom he disagrees) probably come closer to illegal behaviour than anything Bourbon Boy has done. If Hall has sought advice from lawyers or police, I’d be amazed if they said anything other than ‘grow up’.
Bruce (Saturday 29 September 2007, 11:26 pm) #

If BB was in a jurisdiction that had stalking provisions in its criminal code as in Vic or QLD, he’d have a case. No doubts about it.

The only doubt is about which jurisdiction BB is in (which wouldn’t be too hard for Iain to find out if he knew what he was doing). BB is probably lucky that Iain doesn’t live in Victoria, because their cyberstalking provisions consider guilty those in other jurisdictions that target Victorians (who are in Victoria at the time of the offense).

Iain has to worry about that last one.
Bridgit Gread (Sunday 30 September 2007, 2:01 am) #

I doubt that what BB is doing could be considered “stalking” because he’s writing on a blog rather than contacting Iain;Hall directly. There would be more of a case for defamation, I think, though it would probably still lose.

Initially I was mildly amused by their to-and-fro but now it’s getting rather boring. A year ago we knew that Hall was a semi-literate egomaniac and BB was puzzlingly obsessed with him - and nothing has changed. I’d rather they met halfway and fought it out with handbags at dawn, instead of jamming up the Internet with their bitch-fight.
Bruce (Sunday 30 September 2007, 2:20 pm) #

I doubt that what BB is doing could be considered “stalking” because he’s writing on a blog rather than contacting Iain;Hall directly. There would be more of a case for defamation, I think, though it would probably still lose.

Flat out wrong. Direct contact is not necessary at all. You just need to leave messages where people can find them; in the case of cyberstalking this includes publishing web pages about persons.

Take Emma Ogilvie from the Australian Institute of Criminology on the topic.

…Stalkers can more comprehensively use the Internet in order to slander and endanger their victims. In such cases, the cyberstalking takes on a public rather than a private, dimension.

Perhaps the most disturbing example of this merging of the cyber world with the physical world involved a young male who hunted down a female ex-classmate, who, he believed, had humiliated him as highschool. The young man maintained a website… dedicated to describing the girl, providing updates on her…*

The victim needn’t even know.

Take the relevant section of The Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria) - Sect 21A as an example.

(1) A person must not stalk another person.

Penalty: Level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

(2) A person (the offender) stalks another person (the victim) if the offender
engages in a course of conduct which includes any of the following…

(ba) publishing on the Internet** or by an e-mail or other electronic
communication to any person a statement or other material-

(i) relating to the victim or any other person; or

(ii) purporting to relate to, or to originate from, the victim or any other
person…

(3) For the purposes of this section an offender also has the intention to
cause physical or mental harm to the victim or to arouse apprehension or fear
in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person if…

(b) the offender in all the particular circumstances ought to have
understood that engaging in a course of conduct of that kind would be
likely to cause such harm or arouse such apprehension or fear and it
actually did have that result.

(6) It is immaterial that some or all of the course of conduct constituting an
offence against sub-section (1) occurred outside Victoria, so long as the
victim was in Victoria at the time at which that conduct occurred.

It’s pretty much the same deal in QLD. Trust me, I checked when Iain got all obsessive over me himself.

Initially I was mildly amused by their to-and-fro but now it’s getting rather boring. A year ago we knew that Hall was a semi-literate egomaniac and BB was puzzlingly obsessed with him - and nothing has changed. I’d rather they met halfway and fought it out with handbags at dawn, instead of jamming up the Internet with their bitch-fight.

Stalker vs Stalker. Perhaps they should be swinging binoculars against each other instead of hand bags.

* My emphasis. Notice that neither the guy in the example nor BB (nor Iain for that matter when he’s up to the same tricks), make genuine attempts at criticising public opinion/social commentary/ideas as does Jeremy at Bolt Watch.

** Again my emphasis.
The Happy Revolutionary (Tuesday 2 October 2007, 12:50 pm) #

Hall’s up to is old tricks, inundating me with emails, and denying that he’s engaged in any stalkerish behaviour. I’ve written a riposte here.

Oh well. As they say, you can’t put lippy on a turd.
Bruce (Wednesday 3 October 2007, 12:45 am) #

And as per requests from more than a couple of people over the past year, here’s a big turd Iain tried to put lippy on last year.

I wonder if I’ll get any spurious legal threats to go with the lippy…

In any case, it’s a pretty serious turd.
Iain Hall (Wednesday 3 October 2007, 5:05 pm) #

http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2006/06/20/it-never-ceases-to-amaze-me-just-how-keen-the-fellow-travellers-are-to-try-for-the-gotcha/

For the full correspondence, rather than the edited version offered by Herr Everett.
Cheers
The Happy Revolutionary (Wednesday 3 October 2007, 5:56 pm) #

The ‘gotcha’? The same ‘gotcha’ that comes from the Big Book of Andrew Bolt Catchphrases?
Bruce (Wednesday 3 October 2007, 7:20 pm) #

Iain,

I made no distortion of the content at my blog, I’ve posted the extra emails you talk about (which weren’t pertinent) AND I’ve linked to your dissembling. The reason in the past that I didn’t link to your silly little exercise in denial, is because on the same little wasps nest of blogs, you were at the time trying to “out” Jeremy.

Now that Jeremy’s ID is a moot point, heck, I’m glad that you’ve opened up “your side of the story”, because quite frankly, it’s obvious absurdity only lends credence to my assertion that you are misleading people (and yourself). Keep it up smart guy! LOL*

Reverse Psychology PR Hint: Don’t credit your readers as being as credulous as you are of your own rubbish.

Bruce

P.S. What have you got against Germans Herr Iain?
P.S.S. This is funny. I didn’t fully appreciate the laughter I’d been missing out on.
* Oops. I LOLd.
Iain Hall (Thursday 4 October 2007, 6:19 am) #

Bruce
You still omit an email that MTL sent me, and to add those emails as a comment rather than as an edit to the post does rather undermine any consistent context. This is a best disengenious or at worst an example of your dishonesty. Likewise you make no concession, as you should, that you cannot verify either the age or the actual existence of MTL as real person.
It remains the case that my compilation of the correspondence is both more accurate and more exhaustive.
Bruce (Thursday 4 October 2007, 10:30 am) #

Blah, blah, blah….
Iain Hall (Thursday 4 October 2007, 2:02 pm) #

What a cop out Bruce
LOL
The Editor (Thursday 4 October 2007, 2:05 pm) #

LOL, WTF, BTW, COB, BBQ, NSFW, BRB
Bridgit Gread (Thursday 4 October 2007, 5:05 pm) #

Flat out wrong. Direct contact is not necessary at all. You just need to leave messages where people can find them; in the case of cyberstalking this includes publishing web pages about persons.

If that’s the case then there are one hell of a lot of stalkers out there on the Interwebtubes, Bruce. To my mind blogging exclusively about someone is certainly mega-weird, however if it doesn’t spill over into that person’s private life, then it’s not stalking. Posting things by mail to third parties, seeking information about people from third parties, e-mailing employers, contacting the media, etc. would certainly constitute stalking because it moves debate or conflict from virtual realms into real life.

You are most welcome to hold a different opinion but I don’t think the legislative examples you cite are at all convincing.
Bridgit Gread (Thursday 4 October 2007, 5:08 pm) #

Likewise you make no concession, as you should, that you cannot verify either the age or the actual existence of MTL as real person.

That’s right Iain … and maybe Bourbon Boy is not a real person either. He could be an experimental anti-Iain bot, a joint CIA-NASA-ASIO initiative.
The Happy Revolutionary (Thursday 4 October 2007, 5:32 pm) #

That’s right Iain … and maybe Bourbon Boy is not a real person either. He could be an experimental anti-Iain bot, a joint CIA-NASA-ASIO initiative.

Finally - our tax dollars spent on something that actually benefits people…
Bruce (Thursday 4 October 2007, 5:41 pm) #

Well Bridgit, perhaps I should have placed a greater emphasis on 3 and 3(b). You are most welcome to hold a different (and wrong) opinion but I don’t think your lack of a legislative example is at all convincing. ;-)
Bridgit Gread (Thursday 4 October 2007, 6:08 pm) #

You’re the one making outlandish statements about what charge(s) is viable and what isn’t. We’re talking about the law and I don’t need to produce legislation to show that an indictment is unworkable. It’s your case to prove, not mine.

I’m no lawyer but I know enough about the law to realise that according to the act you have cited here, unless you could produce specific evidence that BB had specifically threatened Hall or vice versa, any charge would be unsustainable. That fact that each party has been giving as good as they’re receiving is mitigation. If either attempted to make a formal complaint, chances are they’d be told to grow up and stop wasting police time, and rightly so.
Bruce (Thursday 4 October 2007, 7:48 pm) #

You are fixating too much of threats, Bridgit. Reasonable grounds for mental harm is all that is required. Threats aren’t needed at all.

…or to arouse apprehension or fear
in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person if…

(b) the offender in all the particular circumstances ought to have understood that engaging in a course of conduct of that kind would be likely to cause such harm or arouse such apprehension or fear and it actually did have that result.

It’s reasonable to assume this is true and it need not have intent on BB’s part (it’s an “or” not an “and” at the beginning.) Teasing poems and so forth with Iain’s home address mentioned easily qualify, as does the photo of what was allegedly one of Iain’s kid’s schools (even if it wasn’t one of their schools).

In fact (back on threats briefly) this latter act is reasonably assumed a threat. How else would you interpret what BB was trying to say other than “I’m watching (or intend to watch) your kids”?

There is no part of this that is outlandish to assume is potentially mentally harmful. Rather, stating that they aren’t seems outlandish to me. To be honest, I question the empathy of anyone who can’t see serious potential for causing mental harm here.

For contrast, it’s entirely different from what’s been posted here at Grods (or at Random Brainwave) which has been satirical, which is entirely reasonable to assume that Iain ought to be able to take in his strides. The same is true of people criticising Iain’s behavior and pontification.

BB isn’t doing this though. At least not exclusively.

If either attempted to make a formal complaint, chances are they’d be told to grow up and stop wasting police time, and rightly so.

Oh I agree on this point. When a couple of drunks beat each other up in a bar fight, the two of them don’t usually press assault charges against each other (although they may both be up for crimes against the general public) and are advised against it, either tactfully by friends (if they have any) and so on, or by the Police who don’t want to waste tax payer’s money (which in Iain’s case I guess would compound the sin of his Noddy car).

I think the revisionism and misinformation involved in the BBvsIH stoush probably also renders a lot of their testimony and “electronic” (ie potentially edited) evidence rather incredible. It’s not as strong as say people witnessing to drunks go at it.

Indeed, I didn’t mean to infer otherwise which I would have hoped was an obvious inference made when I suggested that BB cite examples of Hall’s tomfoolery in the (entirely) hypothetical circumstance of Hall bringing action against him. Iain doesn’t have the capacity to undertake a serious complaint about being wronged, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t been wronged.

Ironically perhaps, Iain Hall has made himself Iain Hall’s worst victim and possibly his family as well. Indeed, if BB genuinely poses a risk to Iain’s family, then Iain is increasing that risk as well through his crying wolf all the time.

It’s tragic, but it seems true that Iain cares more about gainsay and ego than he does about his family’s safety. If he genuinely wants to take things up with the police to protect his family, he should be altering his behavior, amending his past wrongs so as to increase his credibility and thus facilitate his family’s safety.

If he seriously views BB (and Fang) as a threat to his family, why isn’t he doing this? Either he doesn’t view them as a threat to his family, or he does and frankly he’s a negligent father/husband.

I’m no lawyer…

I don’t claim to be a lawyer myself either, but I have been lead through and informed of the procedures by the police on more than one occasion (in SA). I’ve been stalked by 2-3 people, from a young bogan lady from Elizabeth in 97-98, to a couple of suspects in the unresolved case of weird phone calls and missing underwear in 2001.

Of those suspected of / warned off for stalking, none made threats to me nor did they pose a reasonable threat to my life (rather just to my sleep and to my underwear hanging on the line). I didn’t suffer mental harm either, rather just a nuisance and the 1997-98 case was a girl with a rather strong crush and poor social skills, but with no intent to threaten me.

This didn’t stop the police considering these to be acts of stalking even though eventually no charges were made.
Bruce (Thursday 4 October 2007, 8:04 pm) #

Oh drat… I said I wasn’t going to criticise BB again. * Shakes fist at Bridget *
Bridgit Gread (Thursday 4 October 2007, 8:18 pm) #

Too many keystrokes expended on this already so I’ll say again, there can only be stalking where there’s a threat, either real or implied. I don’t believe BB has ever threatened Iain;Hall or the ;Halls, despite Iain furiously scrambling to suggest he has. I’ve never seen any pics of schools on his blog nor can I find any now. But that is not to say that BB hasn’t behaved like a fruitcake. Or that Iain;Hall wouldn’t reciprocate in kind, if Google could help him do so. They’re as nutty as each other.
Iain Hall (Friday 5 October 2007, 9:03 am) #

I hate to admit finding something to agree with Bruce about

Teasing poems and so forth with Iain’s home address mentioned easily qualify, as does the photo of what was allegedly one of Iain’s kid’s schools (even if it wasn’t one of their schools).
In fact (back on threats briefly) this latter act is reasonably assumed a threat. How else would you interpret what BB was trying to say other than “I’m watching (or intend to watch) your kids”?

Damn right these are threats and they rightly outrage me.

For contrast, it’s entirely different from what’s been posted here at Grods (or at Random Brainwave) which has been satirical, which is entirely reasonable to assume that Iain ought to be able to take in his strides. The same is true of people criticising Iain’s behavior and pontification.

The above-mentioned stuff does come close to the line some times, but when any support is given by the authors of these two sites to the activities of BB it is hardly surprising that I put them into the same category as my resident troll.

BB isn’t doing this though. At least not exclusively.

Damn straight he is not doing that .

Indeed, I didn’t mean to infer otherwise which I would have hoped was an obvious inference made when I suggested that BB cite examples of Hall’s tomfoolery in the (entirely) hypothetical circumstance of Hall bringing action against him. Iain doesn’t have the capacity to undertake a serious complaint about being wronged, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t been wronged.

My capacity to sustain a complaint is greater than you think Bruce.

Ironically perhaps, Iain Hall has made himself Iain Hall’s worst victim and possibly his family as well. Indeed, if BB genuinely poses a risk to Iain’s family, then Iain is increasing that risk as well through his crying wolf all the time.

Crying wolf???!!! B B has been harassing me for two years and this is the first time that I have suggested that I may well make a complaint.

It’s tragic, but it seems true that Iain cares more about gainsay and ego than he does about his family’s safety. If he genuinely wants to take things up with the police to protect his family, he should be altering his behavior, amending his past wrongs so as to increase his credibility and thus facilitate his family’s safety.

In the event that you had not noticed I changed my blogging platform to WordPress this year and I have changed the focus of my writing as well. Strangely you, Sear and others that I loosely describe as the fellow travelers have never been content to now leave me be have you? As for “amending my past wrongs” what do you expect? An act of contrition? Sheesh You are off with the fairies.

If he seriously views BB (and Fang) as a threat to his family, why isn’t he doing this? Either he doesn’t view them as a threat to his family, or he does and frankly he’s a negligent father/husband.

What crap you sprout Bruce.
BB as has made threats to the safety of my family and as for fang; he has made explicit threats of violence. Experience has shown me that nothing that I do or offer to do has ever had any effect on their behaviour and yet you have the nerve to suggest that my making some act of contrition will have an effect now. I don’t care to know your address but it must be in cloud cuckoo land. Likewise as you are still a single man I doubt that you have any idea what being a good husband or father means.
I have said this before but it is worth saying it again. If you know a wild beast bites then it is very unwise to continue poking it with a stick. You lot have been collectively and individually been poking me with sticks long after I decided to move on from the whole “Mr. Lefty is Jeremy Sear” stuff. Yet whenever I tire of just quietly taking it and strike back, you all scream in mock outrage what a villain I am for doing so. I suggest that if you want me to ignore you into the future that perhaps you should all stop trying to provoke me.
Bridgit Gread (Friday 5 October 2007, 1:31 pm) #

Iain, you never “moved on” - you just whacked a locked door on the worst of your output and rebadged your online persona from Flame warrior;! to Legitimate Blogger-Man (who sometimes morphs back into Flame Warrior;!)

People might feel sorry for you when you start feeling sorry for the people you’ve shafted or attempted to shaft. Which, to be honest, will never happen.
The Happy Revolutionary (Friday 5 October 2007, 2:00 pm) #

If you know a wild beast bites then it is very unwise to continue poking it with a stick. You lot have been collectively and individually been poking me with sticks long after I decided to move on from the whole “Mr. Lefty is Jeremy Sear” stuff. Yet whenever I tire of just quietly taking it and strike back, you all scream in mock outrage what a villain I am for doing so. I suggest that if you want me to ignore you into the future that perhaps you should all stop trying to provoke me.

You are ‘provoked’ only because other people bitch-slap you and your silly bogan arguments all around the blogosphere. You then focus relentlessly on your perceived bete noir (whether me, Miss Politics, Sear, Bruce, or, today, Mark L).
As for your other comments - most ‘wild beasts’ I can think of don’t attack others with a piece of warm lettuce…
Iain Hall (Friday 5 October 2007, 5:58 pm) #

Bridgit
I don’t need or even want anyone’s pity I just want you lot to stop whining about battles past, especially as some of you lot acted far less honourably than I ever did.
But whom exactly should I feel sorry for?
You? By your own accounting of our personal conflicts you claim victory and I won’t ever apologise to a self-confessed liar such as yourself
Jeremy? Well he gave as good as he got and I was never the author of the revelation of his identity, because he had done that himself when he wrote his first blog (Melbourne Lefty)
Janine? A female version of BB but not quite as smart, definitely NOTHING for me to feel sorry about there.
Everett? I will concede a draw of sorts and no need for me to feel sorry for him.
Mikey likewise a draw and a peace treaty that is being respected by booth sides no need to be sorry there.
Vicky Kasatis? I was never nasty about her and at worst she appears ambivalent about me.
Scott? Well he seems determined to continue snipping at me no matter what I say or do. I have nothing to apologise for or feel bad about on his account
Can you see a pattern here Bridgit? You think that I need to feel sorry about all of these now very old news events?
But your own action in archiving your own blog suggests that you have long realised the time has well and truly come to put all of these battles into the past and leave them there.(which is why my archive is now likewise private)
You see I am quite willing to offer all of you a quid pro Quo on exactly the same terms that I agreed with Mikey, namely if any of you lot cease bad mouthing me all over the place I will do like wise for you.

Hap
You are very much a Johnny come lately when it comes to these matters and frankly you don’t know what you are talking about at all (rather like most of the topics that you mouth off about actually) Nor do you have any commitment to really knowing the truth as your rejection of my offer to open my archive to you demonstrates. So you do your self no credit at all squawking like a carrion crow as you do here.
That you cite my referencing Mark L in today’s post shows that you just don’t get how blogging can work, as the post today was inspired by both our conversation and the news item I quote which was very neatly right on the bone of contention in our previous debate and it is in no sense any kind of personal attack on him at all.
Bridgit Gread (Friday 5 October 2007, 8:35 pm) #

Iain, you stalked people with the intent of causing damage or disruption to their private or professional lives. Stalking is not nice. Now you are in complete and utter denial. Iain, you are a scumbag.
Bloody hell. I have to resurrect fang again (Friday 5 October 2007, 10:59 pm) #

Iain, Iain, Iain. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

“as for fang; he has made explicit threats of violence.”

More to the point Iain. Fang made reference to sexual violence by way of ocular penetration if you tried your stalking bullshit on him.

Luckily for you Congress has legislated the Skull Fucking Bill of 2007 that makes skull fucking a criminal offence.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/live_from_congress_the_skull

This, however, didn’t stop you from emailing fang on the 2nd of October with some lame attempt to upset him by giving a link to AA and casting all sorts of aspersions about fang.

Are you tempting fate Iain? Is that why you have painted your helmet the same red as your Noddy car mudguards and have taken to wearing goggles: to protect your eyes and ears from an erect penis?

Iain you are an A grade fuckwit. You address a post to Mark L claiming he said something he didn’t and then concede the point in your retort. Maybe you should have read his original comment in the first place then you wouldn’t have disgraced yourself again.

Anyway you don’t seem to care about how you come across. You only care about the pathetic amount of hits and comments your cesspit of a blog gets.

Everyone is wise to you Hall.

Oh and fang is dead. Hence the third person. Don’t bother emailing him again.
Iain Hall (Saturday 6 October 2007, 5:37 am) #

Bridgit
As ever you teeter on the edge of being reasonable and then realising what you are doing you retreat post haste.

I doubt that what BB is doing could be considered “stalking” because he’s writing on a blog rather than contacting Iain;Hall directly. There would be more of a case for defamation, I think, though it would probably still lose.

Initially I was mildly amused by their to-and-fro but now it’s getting rather boring. A year ago we knew that Hall was a semi-literate egomaniac and BB was puzzlingly obsessed with him - and nothing has changed. I’d rather they met halfway and fought it out with handbags at dawn, instead of jamming up the Internet with their bitch-fight.
.

Earlier in this thread you were very keen to down play what BB has been doing even suggesting that his actions are not “stalking” now in your latest comment you do one of your famous 180’s. Nothing I ever did was as bad as his actions of late, there were never any explicit or implicit threats to anyone’s children from me, Everett whines the loudest but I have done him no harm, Jeremy seeks to blame me for all of his woes but really he started that fight by trying to bully me at my embryonic blog, th worst thing I ever did was believe your own web of lies, something that you still crow about and that I regret. But that was then and this is now and it is time to move on.

The bullshit artist Formerly known as Fang
In some ways you are more pathetic than BB, he at least has not spent money to propagate his lies about me as you have. I take some pride in the fact that for all of the time that you were trying to “pretend to be my friend “ that I treated you well even when , in retrospect it is clear that you were constantly seeking top trip me up so that you could then pull the mother of all “gotcha’s”. No wonder you had to invent a little hissy fit when your dreams of a successful scam failed in their entirety.
I won’t deny that I sent you a link to a search for AA but it was not to “tease you” it was because you clearly need some help. You twice, in blog comments, claimed to be drunk when you created you most recent hate sites so it is entirely consistent to conclude that you have a problem with the bottle.
If we look back at all of your various incarnations on the web, Computer socks, ransack, Ian Haul, and of late your posting as “Iain Hall” at BB’s blog It reveals a very serious obsession with me that I can’t really comprehend and that I find oh so worthy of pity. You are playing too a pretty small audience and no one here has any respect for you for your efforts and my friends (of a more sensible political orientation) will just see you as a pernicious wanker.
Oh and thank you for reiterating your rather colourfully worded but clear threats of violence it rather proves my contention that I have been more sinned against than a sinner myself in these matters as I have long claimed.
Cheers
Iain
Bloody hell. I have to resurrect fang again (Saturday 6 October 2007, 8:15 am) #

Good morning to the bearded wonder,

Congratulations for using the word “pernicious” again Iain. Your delusions are outstanding. You remember “Computer Socks” hey! Cool. That was years ago. Yes, I was taking the piss out of you even during the Web 1 days.

I am obsessed with you Iain. I love you. I want to make passionate man love to you. You’re hot. Are you up for it? You do have a lot of spare time on your hands.

What hissy fit are you talking about? The one where we had sex and I didn’t cuddle you afterwards?

If you are so worried about explicit threats made to you, why did you continue to email “fang” with some pathetic attempt to bait him?

The only bullshit artist around here is you sonny jim.

You will always lose Hall. Always.
Bloody hell. I have to resurrect fang again (Saturday 6 October 2007, 8:23 am) #

Oh and:

“In some ways you are more pathetic than BB, he at least has not spent money to propagate his lies about me as you have”

What are you talking about Iain? What $$$ spending? Again you make claims sans evidence. LIAR!

“no one here has any respect for you for your efforts and my friends (of a more sensible political orientation) will just see you as a pernicious wanker.”

Ouch that hurts. I don’t need an audience Haul. Your friends? You mean Kg and Mk the white supremacist losers? You have no friends Iain. You have no job. You have no life. You paint your helmet the same colour as your Noddy car mudguards. You can’t spell. You don’t make sense. You are a proven liar. You stalk people on the net. You threaten people IRL. Your blog is the laughing stock of the intertubes.

Bye. Bye.
Bridgit Gread (Saturday 6 October 2007, 11:27 am) #

As ever you teeter on the edge of being reasonable and then realising what you are doing you retreat post haste.

It’s still a lot closer than you ever come to reasonableness.

…there were never any explicit or implicit threats to anyone’s children from me

You keep saying this but I have never seen him threaten your children. Frankly, I think you are making this up.

Jeremy seeks to blame me for all of his woes but really he started that fight by trying to bully me at my embryonic blog

Historical revisionism. It was you, oxymoronically titled “niceperson”, who was originally banned from Boltwatch as far back as 2005, for criticising the comments policy, threatening to ‘out’ its owner and promising all kinds of retribution. That was the start of your anti-Sear campaign; you didn’t even have a blog then.

Anyway we’ve been over this a hundred times before. You are still a scumbag.
Iain Hall (Saturday 6 October 2007, 2:50 pm) #

Bridgit
I tire of your endlessly insisting that I was banned from BoltWatch for violating its comment policy, as the quotes below demonstrate I was banned for refusing to write my blog to Jeremy’s specifications. As I have always claimed.
Oh, and while your blog continues to attempt to identify me, none of your comments will be accepted at BoltWatch, because your name links to your blog. You can immediately rectify this by removing the posts and comments that attempt to identify me. (Jeremy Sear 20- 12-2005)
and also
As I have said previously, you were only banned from BoltWatch because of your blog being used in an attempt to identify me. I will welcome you back to BoltWatch if you amend your blog so that it doesn’t do this. (Jeremy Sear 22-12- 2005)
My first blog post was published on Nov 15 2005 and the stoush with Jeremy did not begin until December 17 2005. so your claims that I did not have a blog when this stuff kicked off are also wrong.
But as I keep saying it is you lot who won’t let this stuff go. And I’ll leave it there for now.
Cheers
Iain
Bridgit Gread (Saturday 6 October 2007, 3:51 pm) #

You’re lying, Iain. Quick tip: if you want to reinvent your past, try it with someone who wasn’t actually around at the time. You set up that blog because you’d been extricated from Boltwatch for your usual crap. Don’t try this bollocks about how Mr-Lefty-came-to-my-blog-and-said-blah-blah when the reverse was actually true.

The origins of Blogger sites can’t be openly traced, however you claim here that your blog was created in mid-November 2005. Tres strange, because in this Grods post of December 11th (http://www.grods.com/post/487/) you don’t include the URL in your ID - which is so unlike you, being so desperate for hits and all.

I’m upgrading “scumbag” to “lying scumbag”.
Bruce (Saturday 6 October 2007, 5:41 pm) #

I recall his blog being around in November Bridgit. He is still being misleading of course.

As you can clearly see from the quote, Iain was banned for linking to the blog containing the content, not for what Iain chose to put on the blog. Iain also tried this line of deceitful rhetoric on me when I banned him for linking to the content, claiming that I was trying to manipulate his content.

I didn’t want to support his stalking campaign with traffic from my blog (which he was never entitled to to begin with). I gather the same is true for Jeremy, being the target and all.

If I recall correctly, Iain’s content went from the generic childish faux-rejoinder site that it was (in November to Early December), to a flat out stalker site (”outing” Jeremy) just prior to Iain being banned (in December).
Bridgit Gread (Saturday 6 October 2007, 6:15 pm) #

That’s not the way I recall it, Bruce, and the 2005 Grods post mentioned above bears this out. In any case, when he was banned is not so relevant as why.

Fortunately for Iain he can play these silly games because his carry-on forced Jeremy to change to Haloscan, resulting in the loss of all comments, plus he’s locked the door to his original blog.
Iain Hall (Sunday 7 October 2007, 5:43 am) #

Bridgit
I have absolutely no reason to lie about the details here, and given your history of telling porkies yourself it is more than a bit rich for you to be so all high and mighty about truthfulness a genuine pot calling the kettle black situation if you ask me. Even Bruce supports my time line here and he has no reason to do me any favours at all. So how about you showing that you can be a big girl and admitting that I am right about this detail of our shared blogging history?
.
Marmite & Tab Cola (Sunday 7 October 2007, 9:21 am) #

No one supports your line Iain Hall. Don’t delude yourself.

Funny how you ban The Editor from your “blog” but continue to post at his.

You are a liar and a gimp.
Bridgit Gread (Sunday 7 October 2007, 12:30 pm) #

Stamp your feet all you like, the evidence has been provided. You posting somewhere without linking back to your blog is about as likely as John Howard running through Martin Place in a g-string.

P.S. Marmite is correct - both The Ed and I are banned from your pit of shame. Which keeps me up nights, I can tell you.
The Editor (Sunday 7 October 2007, 12:31 pm) #

John Howard running through Martin Place in a g-string

Bridgit, that image will keep me up nights.
The Editor (Sunday 7 October 2007, 1:06 pm) #

It seems that “pernicious” is the new semicolon over at Iain; Hall’s pit-of-shame. Do a Google search.
Iain Hall (Sunday 7 October 2007, 1:38 pm) #

Bridgit
The one here that is doing some foot stamping here is you (along with some rather desperate spin doctoring. I made a point of checking the posts in my blog for the correct dates by the way. I also checked very carefully the dates of those email quotes as well. That you try to suggest that my proving that your often-repeated claims about me being banned from Boltwatch are definitively wrong is irrelevant is typical of your disingenuous nature.
I’ll make you and Scott exactly the same offer. Give me an undertaking (that you actually keep) to meet the terms of my comments policy and you can comment at my blog but you were both banned because you failed to do that in the first place so you can forgive me for not having much faith in either of you actually being able to do that..
Marmite & Tab Cola
another incarnation of Fang/ ransack/ computersocks I guess, the insults are consistant with his previous stuff, sigh
Bridgit Gread (Sunday 7 October 2007, 2:37 pm) #

I’ll make you and Scott exactly the same offer. Give me an undertaking (that you actually keep) to meet the terms of my comments policy and you can comment at my blog

*Considers offer…*

Naaaah. You getting, like, soooo may hits already.
Iain Hall (Sunday 7 October 2007, 4:37 pm) #

Naaaah. You getting, like, soooo may hits already.

Well I think I’ll top 100,000 before Christmas, even with out your comments… LOL
Bridgit Gread (Sunday 7 October 2007, 4:49 pm) #

A car wreck on a freeway during peak hour will attract similar numbers, for similar reasons. I’m more interested in whether you’ll top 500,000 grammatical errors before Christmas.
The Happy Revolutionary (Monday 8 October 2007, 3:03 pm) #

A car wreck on a freeway during peak hour will attract similar numbers, for similar reasons. I’m more interested in whether you’ll top 500,000 grammatical errors before Christmas.

Apparently, NASA are working on a sitemeter powerful enough to keep up with all the errant semi-colons…

Iain, what’s with all the censorship given that you post freely on everyone else’s blog, according to this article:

http://www.iainhall.com/
Iain Hall (Monday 8 October 2007, 5:42 pm) #

Hap
Show me one blog belonging to a person banned (or moderated) at my blog where I post comments that violate the comments policy there. Just one will do. Anyone can comment at my blog if they are willing to keep to the terms of my comments policy, even You.(although I still don’t trust you enough to take you off moderation).
Why am I surprised that you support the Bullshit artist formally known as Fang’s paid hate site? It is the fact that he is willing to pay for the web hosting there that makes him rather sadder than even BB.
The Editor (Monday 8 October 2007, 6:13 pm) #

Another hit on Iain; Hall’s Pernicious-o-meter.
Marmite & Tab Cola (Monday 8 October 2007, 9:36 pm) #

Yes Editor. There seems to be a proliferation of pernicious puns getting around on Iain’s ongoing opinion piece that documents how he thinks and feels about the events that he see happening in the world. Pernicious bastard.

Prepare for Iain to stop using the word ‘pernicious’ when he works out how to use a thesaurus.

Good work on the ‘Pernicious-o-meter’.
Marmite & Tab Cola (Monday 8 October 2007, 9:37 pm) #

Iain, I am not fang or computer socks. I am posting from a different IP so how can I be?

Unless this an astute double bluff by “fang” to confuse you even more.
Mikey (Monday 8 October 2007, 10:05 pm) #

Advice for people out in webland.

Someone gave this advice to me, I forget who, but it was good advice.

Ignore him. Let him blog away in his own corner of cyberland. It’s big enough for all of us. Karma has its own way of rectifying things.
Iain Hall (Tuesday 9 October 2007, 5:53 am) #

Ignore him. Let him blog away in his own corner of cyberland. It’s big enough for all of us. Karma has its own way of rectifying things.

Exactly Mikey :0)
If you lot ignore me I will return the favor.
fang is dead (Tuesday 9 October 2007, 9:07 am) #

“Why am I surprised that you support the Bullshit artist formally known as Fang’s paid hate site? It is the fact that he is willing to pay for the web hosting there that makes him rather sadder than even BB.”

A fact is it Iain. Do you have proof to back up your claim?

So when are you going to publish your retraction. In between your giant photos of fries, DVD and reprinting whole slabs of the work of others?

You don’t know who owns that site Iain. Not even I am privy to that info. You think fang was “ransack” and “Iain Hall”. Again you are mistaken.

Why don’t you get back to what you do worst. Offering one or two lines of your pernicious thoughts under an article you have stolen from somehwere. Failing that, just put a large hot linked photo up instead. People won’t know the difference.
Iain Hall (Tuesday 9 October 2007, 10:18 am) #

The bullshit artist formally known as Fang.

Blind Freddy could recognise your rhetorical style when you were pretending to be me at BB’s blog, and the fact that the dramaytica page so quickly changed to include your latest hissy fit is a bit of a give away on that front.
Need I go on?
Your own bloging is far worse than mine ever is, even on a very bad day. How many times was it that all you could post was a list of search terms used to find your page? How many variations on “Mo was a kiddie fiddler” did you manage to cobble together? Hmm you have such an illustrious blogging CV don’t you?
Grow up and get a life, preferably one that does not include me.
The ghost of fang (Tuesday 9 October 2007, 10:33 am) #

That’s great detective work there Iain. At least I can spell bloging (sic).

I wish that site was mine. It is the best page on the net. Yes you do need to go on because your attempt to join the dots is amusing.

“Hmm you have such an illustrious blogging CV don’t you? Grow up and get a life, preferably one that does not include me.”

Sheezes. I don’t need a blogging CV Haul. I have a real one. Do you?

Maybe you should follow your own advice Iain. Then kill yourself. Some how (sic) I don’t think that you are going to be missed that much at all…but one thing that is certain is that you do seem rather desperate for some afirmation (sic); which is a bit sad.Keep taking the pills and overdose; life isn’t worth living even for sad unemployed loosers (sic) like yourself.