Tedn'Alice@notellin.com wrote in
news:2gj3v397oiqt3htqohpptsm9nbg3d016vf@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:56:51 GMT, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:27:28 -0700, Ronin wrote
>>(in article <47f1728c.8813991@127.0.0.1>):
>>
>>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:13:31 GMT, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now that British Summertime is upon you, I can only imagine the
>>>> explosion of
>>>> flowers dotting the landscape of Mother England. I see you
>>>> venturing down the pathway amongst the hedgerows partaking of the
>>>> delightful smells of flowers, the chirping of the returning birds
>>>> as you wend your way to the beach hut. Godspeed.
>>>
>>>> Speaking of explosions things seem to be dying down in this very
>>>> little corner of the universe, although Ronin's post did little to
>>>> illuminate for me his motivation to advocate (virtually) the
>>>> reporting of Drew. I'm as much
>>>> in the dark as ever.
>>>
>>>> Ronin's appeal to The Merciful One notwithstanding, the public
>>>> flaying of Drew did not seem particularly merciful.
>>>
>>> There is no *appeal* to The Merciful One: The Merciful One will
>>> do as He will; the Faithful can only *submit* to His will and to
>>> His judgment, without hesitation and without complaint.
>>>
>>>> But, there is probably much more to the story than meets the eye.
>>>> There always is.
>>>
>>>> Hushy missives await.
>>>
>>> "Drew" has been a Dead Man Walking from no later than the time he
>>> posted his "da_scrumpet" series here on the 10th instant, though
>>> this did not become apparent until his cross-posting to Vanilla,
>>> ten days later, gave cause to examine his message headers, which
>>> revealed that he was posting through his ISP, and the Crimes Code
>>> of his land, whose broad definitions made what he was posting
>>> "child pornography materials", and their posting, per se, an
>>> offence punishable by ten years' imprisonment.
>>>
>>> Taking it as given that the Australian Federal Police have all
>>> his posts, there remains only the question of why he remains at
>>> liberty. There are, in the end, only three possibilities:
>>>
>>> they are not aware of him;
>>>
>>> they are aware of him, but the quantity and quality of
>>> his offences have not, so far, passed some threshold
>>> for overt action;
>>>
>>> they are aware of him, and will take him down and hang
>>> him up -- but not just yet.
>>>
>>> (In regard to this last, one possibility is that his truly
>>> mind-boggling recklessness suggests that one trawling for
>>> bigger fish might with considerable profit intercept his
>>> Internet and voice communications.)
>>>
>>> Nothing whatsoever can be done to prevent his destruction, if
>>> this third scenario is in play.
>>>
>>> The first case seems rather unlikely.
>>>
>>> The middle possibility, however, would allow of at least some
>>> chance of averting disaster, but only if he should undertake a
>>> substantial modification of his behaviour -- to which his text
>>> posts suggest he might be persuaded only with... shall we say,
>>> *some difficulty*.
>>>
>>> The short of it is that the course of action most likely to
>>> persuade him was to set forth, in detail, the gravity of the
>>> situation in which he has placed himself, how he did so, and
>>> the particulars of how what he has done can be used against
>>> him.
>>>
>>> A perfectly valid argument against following this course is
>>> that someone previously unacquainted with these particulars,
>>> and bearing "Drew" either generic or specific ill-will, might
>>> use their instruction to absolutely and positively eliminate
>>> the possibility that he is unknown to the AFP.
>>>
>>> The reply to this argument is brutally simple: should "Drew"
>>> continue to do as he has done, he will certainly be destroyed;
>>> if he mends his ways, he may -- possibly -- not be destroyed.
>>>
>>> For a Grownup, this is a no-brainer: since doing *anything*
>>> might make the situation worse, do nothing. (ie, *I* could
>>> be blamed if something went wrong; and it isn't *my* problem,
>>> anyway.)
>>>
>>> For an Adult, this is also -- perversely -- a no-brainer: if
>>> only one thing *might* avert an otherwise certain disaster,
>>> do it, even if it might only hasten the disaster. (ie, *I*
>>> will, in effect, cause an actually avertable disaster if I
>>> do not attempt to avert it; and it is *my* problem, because
>>> no-one else is going to do anything about it.)
>>>
>>> And so I did as I did; perhaps -- whether because of, or in
>>> spite of, what I did -- "Drew" will remain at liberty a year
>>> hence; or perhaps not.
>>>
>>> Insh'Allah.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ronin
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for the response to my puzzlement. I can follow your train of
>>thought. I wasn't speaking of you particularly when I lamented the
>>rather heavy-handed treatment to which Drew has been subjected. But
>>as I said earlier I don't have all the facts by any means.
>>
>>Since I don't follow these things as closely as I might, I am still a
>>bit at sea with regard to Drew's alleged offenses other than he seems
>>to have posted some material to one group where it was not welcome.
>>
>>The extent of his offense (were his posts merely those of nude boys or
>>were they of the really explicit variety commonly grouped in the
>>vernacular as 'hard core') is not known to me and I have no opinion
>>about it. I am sympathetic to those group members who want to keep
>>unwanted attention from the group.
>>
>>The police shall do what they shall do and I doubt anything anyone
>>here does has much influence over that. But their resources are not
>>limitless and I suspect they use them where they think they will get
>>the most 'bang for their buck' either in publicity value or
>>apprehending people. If the postings were not particularly offensive
>>and just reproductions of existing material then I should think they
>>would be fairly well down the list of attention-getting posts. That
>>is conjecture on my part.
>>
>>In the press the authorities have expressed their priorities as being
>>to arrest those who produce such material, and to apprehend users of
>>the material who work directly with children. Of course, they will
>>take action on whatever falls in their lap via a credit card sting
>>operation or somesuch.
>>
>>
>>Presumably Mr. Drew (no newbie I gather) knew all this before he
>>posted.
>>
>> If it hasn't occurred to him that posting nude boys or more explicit
>>material (if that was the case) may get him some unwanted police
>>attention, he has some basic survival issues that have to do with his
>>cognitive prowess. I wouldn't know since I don't know him at all.
>>
>> It is also possible to fool around with headers and they are almost
>>completely modifiable. I recently demonstrated this in a post in
>>another group. Perhaps he is more clever than he might seem at first
>>blush and is, in fact, well hidden. I seem to remember posts
>>emanating from an Australian address that almost certainly came from
>>the U. S.
>>
>>How is it that you are certain that his post originated from his ISP?
>>If he hasn't been posting through his ISP and has been spoofing, then
>>your analysis would seem to unravel.
>>
>>
> The images of question, to a great extent, were pulled from a very
> public and, I believe, Russian or Ukranian, picture sharing website.
> They have been public for years.
>>
> "I have an exciting career as a busboy!"
>
Does that make them legal, idiot?
|
|