Scum driver in the dock for attacking woman

On 06/01/2016 21:47, Alycidon wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 17:48:40 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

No one, me included, was bothered when the full addresses of two of my London residences were posted on this forum.

Don't forget poor Guy.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.rec.cycling/all$20my$20details/uk.rec.cycling/Sh4IXZw5zr8/rHX7XTG0rTcJ

On Cycling Planet, two wrongs always make a right, do they?

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:05:15 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 06/01/2016 21:47, Alycidon wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 17:48:40 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

No one, me included, was bothered when the full addresses of two of my London residences were posted on this forum.

Don't forget poor Guy.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.rec.cycling/all$20my$20details/uk.rec.cycling/Sh4IXZw5zr8/rHX7XTG0rTcJ

On Cycling Planet, two wrongs always make a right, do they?

Who says there is anything wrong with posting the name and address of someone on trial for dangerous driving, when that same information has already been in the newspaper, and is freely available on the Internet.

On 06/01/2016 22:15, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:05:15 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 06/01/2016 21:47, Alycidon wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 17:48:40 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

No one, me included, was bothered when the full addresses of two of my London residences were posted on this forum.

Don't forget poor Guy.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.rec.cycling/all$20my$20details/uk.rec.cycling/Sh4IXZw5zr8/rHX7XTG0rTcJ

On Cycling Planet, two wrongs always make a right, do they?

Who says there is anything wrong with posting the name and address of someone on trial for dangerous driving, when that same information has already been in the newspaper, and is freely available on the Internet.

I do, just as much as I say there is something wrong with posting your
details (and something wrong - seriously wrong - with anyone who can't
see anything wrong with posting another person's personal information on
the internet).

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:47:37 -0800, Alycidon wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 17:48:40 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

No one, me included, was bothered when the full addresses of two of my
London residences were posted on this forum.

Don't forget poor Guy.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.rec.cycling/all$20my
$20details/uk.rec.cycling/Sh4IXZw5zr8/rHX7XTG0rTcJ

Chapman is different. He is a pompus arrogant old liar - who conspired
with his cycling chums to anonymously (so he thought) abuse other usenet
posters, lied about his web pages, ignored court orders on the release of
personal information, and carried on a campaign aimed at destroying the
reputation of those who disagreed with him. He deserved everything Nuxx
Bar and I did to him.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:15:40 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:


snip

Who says there is anything wrong with posting the name and address of someone on trial for dangerous driving, when that same information has already been in the newspaper,

You are lying Crispin. His *address* was not printed in the newspaper at all.

You had to go out of the way to find out what was his full address including
postcode by searching the internet and then posting the full address in a
newsgroup.

Why did you do that?

I am sure that you have a very good reason for doing it : please share that
reason with us.

I mean he didn't even own a Vietnamese Restaurant, so you weren't just
advertising it for him for his own benefit.

Don't be shy : why did you do it?

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 02:04:56 -0000 (UTC), Judith wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:47:37 -0800, Alycidon wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 17:48:40 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

No one, me included, was bothered when the full addresses of two of my
London residences were posted on this forum.

Don't forget poor Guy.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.rec.cycling/all$20my
$20details/uk.rec.cycling/Sh4IXZw5zr8/rHX7XTG0rTcJ

Chapman is different. He is a pompus arrogant old liar - who conspired
with his cycling chums to anonymously (so he thought) abuse other usenet
posters, lied about his web pages, ignored court orders on the release of
personal information, and carried on a campaign aimed at destroying the
reputation of those who disagreed with him. He deserved everything Nuxx
Bar and I did to him.


Why thank you : Judith

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 2:07:37 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:47:37 -0800, Alycidon wrote:

Don't forget poor Guy.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.rec.cycling/all$20my
$20details/uk.rec.cycling/Sh4IXZw5zr8/rHX7XTG0rTcJ

Chapman is different. He is a pompus arrogant old liar - who conspired
with his cycling chums to anonymously (so he thought) abuse other usenet
posters, lied about his web pages, ignored court orders on the release of
personal information, and carried on a campaign aimed at destroying the
reputation of those who disagreed with him. He deserved everything Nuxx
Bar and I did to him.

And how is that worse than the allegation against Dennis Baker of 71 Pembury Avenue, KT4 8BU?

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 7:43:37 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:15:40 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:


snip

Who says there is anything wrong with posting the name and address of someone on trial for dangerous driving, when that same information has already been in the newspaper,

You are lying Crispin. His *address* was not printed in the newspaper at all.

Yes it was - or as good as. All I did was plug the address information from the newspaper into a web search, and up popped Baker's full postal address.

You had to go out of the way to find out what was his full address including
postcode by searching the internet and then posting the full address in a
newsgroup.

Why did you do that?

I am sure that you have a very good reason for doing it : please share that
reason with us.

I mean he didn't even own a Vietnamese Restaurant, so you weren't just
advertising it for him for his own benefit.

Don't be shy : why did you do it?

Oh dear! Once again I seem to have inadvertently upset you. I am so sorry that you are so sensitive to things I post. It is entirely unintentional, honest.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 01:00:52 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 7:43:37 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:15:40 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:


snip

Who says there is anything wrong with posting the name and address of someone on trial for dangerous driving, when that same information has already been in the newspaper,

You are lying Crispin. His *address* was not printed in the newspaper at all.

Yes it was - or as good as. All I did was plug the address information from the newspaper into a web search, and up popped Baker's full postal address.


His address was *not* printed. And it does not "pop up" at all - it was
probably one of a hundred addresses which you then had to trawl through in
order to find the correct one. You are really very sad.

You are the person who went to the trouble to seek out his address and
publicise it.

Why did you do that?


Don't be shy : why did you do it?

Oh dear! Once again I seem to have inadvertently upset you. I am so sorry that you are so sensitive to things I post. It is entirely unintentional, honest.

I can assure you that you have not upset me.

You make a fool of yourself (yet again) - and I show what any idiot and a liar
you are and you think that you have upset me?

Not at all - it is just such a joy to point out what a truly sad person you
are.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:56:27 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:

snip


And how is that worse than the allegation against Dennis Baker of ********************?

I think you may be ill.

Please can you explain your personal reason for continuing to publish this
person's full address details?

After all - you must have a very good reason. Can you not just share it with
us?

I wonder if anyone will contact Mr Baker and point out your publicising of his
address details - and where *you* live?

I guess if he decides to take legal action (if he is advised to of course) -
then he will need to know your own details - so perhaps there will be a Good
Samaritan here.