Justice Watch "JW Exclusive Ram Pics II" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... JW Exclusive Ram Pics II, JR, 19:53:04, 8/09/2001 Started thread II, JR, 19:54:34, 8/09/2001, (#1) Photographing Property, Dunvegan, 20:06:04, 8/09/2001, (#2) Dunvegan, Tricia, 20:35:03, 8/09/2001, (#3) I don't think it's harrassment, sadiesue, 20:35:46, 8/09/2001, (#4) If the shoe was on the other foot..., Sabrina, 20:44:09, 8/09/2001, (#5) Aurora, Cutter, 20:46:11, 8/09/2001, (#6) Dun, Aurora, 20:51:10, 8/09/2001, (#7) Cutter..., Aurora, 20:53:52, 8/09/2001, (#8) Sabrina, Aurora, 20:55:53, 8/09/2001, (#9) Cutter, JR, 20:59:46, 8/09/2001, (#10) Aurora, Cutter, Thor, 22:13:08, 8/09/2001, (#11) Cutter...is the, Show Me, 05:03:07, 8/10/2001, (#12) Oh woe, MrsBrady, 05:10:25, 8/10/2001, (#13) Pics, doScubie, 08:06:28, 8/10/2001, (#14) Aurora, et al..., Diwi, 09:13:44, 8/10/2001, (#15) pictures, Kelly, 10:17:58, 8/10/2001, (#17) Bravo, Diwi!, Florida, 10:14:34, 8/10/2001, (#16) Florida, Diwi, 10:59:04, 8/10/2001, (#18) The Status of Publication of the Charlevoix Ramsey..., Dunvegan, 11:22:49, 8/10/2001, (#19) You go Dun!, arvada, 11:33:46, 8/10/2001, (#20) hip, hip hooray, Kelly, 11:44:10, 8/10/2001, (#21) Dun, JR, 11:58:20, 8/10/2001, (#22) Diwi, Nedthan Johns, 12:28:29, 8/10/2001, (#23) Heck Dunvegan, Nedthan Johns, 12:32:32, 8/10/2001, (#24) Ned.., Aurora, 19:53:06, 8/10/2001, (#31) Ned, Diwi, 12:48:47, 8/10/2001, (#25) Diwi, Ned, Thor, 14:24:11, 8/10/2001, (#26) Boy thanks Thor, Nedthan Johns, 15:46:16, 8/10/2001, (#27) Wow, Ayeka, 16:52:59, 8/10/2001, (#28) Diwi, Mini, 16:58:02, 8/10/2001, (#29) Dun, Aurora, 19:46:22, 8/10/2001, (#30) Aurora, JR, 22:10:27, 8/10/2001, (#32) Diwi..., dustii, 05:15:43, 8/11/2001, (#33) Okay, being patient in Pennsylvania, MrsBrady, 06:45:24, 8/11/2001, (#34) WTG Aurora, Jeanilou, 15:24:08, 8/12/2001, (#35) ................................................................... "JW Exclusive Ram Pics II" Posted by JR on 19:53:04 8/09/2001 95. "...Moab...Hello nice to meet you..." Posted by DAWN on 17:50:49 8/09/2001 ...This is totally outrageous....CAN we do something about this...???? dawn [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Well-done, Aurora!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 19:03:39 8/09/2001 You certainly hit a nerve with John-Boy and Phatsy with your candid camera shots of them schmoozing and yucking it up in Charlevoix, days before the birthday of their murdered child. It was a grand coup,and it really has their knickers in a knot when they have to send Lin Wood and the whole spin team into attack mode. Next time, sell the photos directly to the tabs. They will know what to do with them. And they won't back down and kowtow to the Woody or his murderous clients. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "Here's Some Legal Information Regarding..." Posted by Dunvegan on 19:44:40 8/09/2001 ...hyperlinking to documents/text/images: From LinkLaw: http://www.ldrc.com/cyber2.html#CopyrightInfringement 1.The law recognizes a presumptive right to make reference links, (e.g., URLs, plain hypertext links.) 2.Self-proclaimed restrictions against linking are probably not effective or enforceable, (e.g., asking someone to not link to your site is no remedy.) 3.The strongest unilateral action one could take would be a technological barrier to linking to one's site (e.g., pasword-protecting, or link blocking and breaking technologies.) The photographs were posted to a publically-accessible Internet address (entering the address into a web browser takes you to the site automatically.) The only way you can control exactly who has access to online photographs is via authorization technology, such as password-protection, or anti-copying/anti-linking utilities. Legal recourse is somewhat cloudy...but is clarifying as time goes on. The trend in the courts is towards more latitude in allowing the use of hyperlinks. Most courts are contradicting early rulings that upheld the position that the unauthorized use of hyperlinks could be considered some form of trespass. Since hyperlinking is one of the most fundemental technologies of the Internet, it is more and more often considered draconian for the courts to disallow hyperlinking, or to even attempt to curb the use of hyperlinks, in any way. There are some limited exceptions, such as cases involving contributory infringement claims, et. al. Copyright law doesn't come into play in this particular instance. Copying this post to another site, without my express permission, is actionable. Publishing a URL to this post is not. The World Wide Web is still the Wild, Wild West...this area of law is not yet completely codified, but the trajectory of rulings suggest that the best way to limit access to your intellectual property is to make certain that it cannot be directly linked to and viewed via a URL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "Lurker/All" Posted by Aurora on 19:44:26 8/09/2001 Who said...I backed down? I didn't take any money for those pics. I posted them to share my vacation day with you. Let's just say a broken link fixes someone elses site ..for the present. Stay tuned..it isn't over~ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "Aurora" Posted by JR on 19:51:35 8/09/2001 You can post pictures on a Yahoo site and limit who can view them either by password (unfortunately yours) or by adding in email addresses. Of course Dun would have to assure you that none of those who posted their email addresses on the "Staying in touch thread" is the "problem." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] Carion [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Started thread II" Posted by JR on 19:54:34 8/09/2001 Since this seems to be a hot topic and the other one is too long for our webbies. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Photographing Property" Posted by Dunvegan on 20:09:43 8/09/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:09:43, 8/09/2001 From PDM Online; PDN Guide to Models and Property Releases http://www.pdn-pix.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html Photographing Property There are few, if any, state statutes, common laws or court rulings that explicitly govern how images of private property may be exploited, says attorney Nancy Wolff. Privacy rights are vested only in people, not buildings or property. And courts have uniformly held that the use of a photograph of a person's property does not constitute invasion of privacy justifying recovery.... Of course, property owners cannot prevent the publication of pictures of their property for newsworthy reasons, or extract licensing fees in those cases. Edited to fix URL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Dunvegan" Posted by Tricia on 20:35:03 8/09/2001 Do you realize how much of the steam you are taking out of good ol' boy linwoodforbrains threats? Hey I bet the Ramseys are just starting to realize they have a very formidable foe in the new owner JW. Somebody who won't back down when they start spinning and threatening. You go Dun. This is going to be so fun to watch the Ramsey spin themselves into a jail cell. Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "I don't think it's harrassment" Posted by sadiesue on 20:40:09 8/09/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:40:09, 8/09/2001 Someone, (Jameson?) said that saying the word "murderer" out loud was harrassment. Why is it then, that Patsy was the only one who turned around upon hearing the word? Like a dog hearing a whistle, her head spun around. If she felt harrassed, she had every opportunity to do something about it right there and then. Instead she chose to be quiet and shoot Aurora a "look". She blew her chance to play the harrassment card right then, when she heard the word. too bad, so sad, of course, this is just my opinion, and I got a million of 'em. And I would only call it stalking if Aurora went there SPECIFICALLY to follow the Rams. Seeing them by chance does not seem at all like stalking, and that's what happened. So she snapped a few pics, big whig, I'd bet she wasn't the first one or the last. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "If the shoe was on the other foot..." Posted by Sabrina on 20:44:09 8/09/2001 Or whatever that saying is, if one of the littleheads saw Steve Thomas or LHP at an outing how much do you want to bet they would do the same thing..... Aurora,you were hardly stalking or harassing. You were at a public event that they happened to attend. Now if you followed them home, and looked in their windows, and followed them where ever they went for several days....that MIGHT be called stalking. And uttering one word is not harassing. What the webmistress over there has done to some people like sending instant messages, etc. is true harassment. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Aurora" Posted by Cutter on 20:46:11 8/09/2001 My dear girl, you need to play the game a little better ;) Jamskank can't post your actual photos, or you can email hir server and have hir booted again for copywrite violation. She can only link to your site. If you don't want Jamskank linking to your photos, then you simply need to throw in a few photos that she doesn't want people looking at. Have you got the "JamsNude" photo? Or how about the ChiaJams? (a personal fav of mine - LOL) If not, I'll be happy to send them to you ;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Dun" Posted by Aurora on 20:51:10 8/09/2001 A picture of the house they are now living in and selling is pictured on Realtor.com as I posted in a previous thread. Taking a picture of a house that is for sale is no big deal. The other house ..Summerhill... they don't even own anymore. Wouldn't they have been ticked if I had set up an appointment with the realtor and toured it and took inside shots? A stalker...would even have gone through their closets..etc. *LOL* Had I known they were going to be there... I would have gotten a WIDE angle lens for Patsy's butt alone. *LOL* A telephoto lens would have worked for the crowd shot..eh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Cutter..." Posted by Aurora on 20:53:52 8/09/2001 You are so BAD. Hey...I don't stoop down to her level but thanks..anyhow. *LOL* [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Sabrina" Posted by Aurora on 20:57:43 8/09/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:57:43, 8/09/2001 I would LOVE to run into Steve Thomas. I would shake his hand and ask him to pose for a picture. He is my justice icon...you might say. Edited to add... He would also get a very nice hug! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Cutter" Posted by JR on 20:59:46 8/09/2001 Dang it! You owe me a new keyboard again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Aurora, Cutter" Posted by Thor on 22:13:08 8/09/2001 LOL Aurora, love the description of that camera for the buttocks. Although, to be fair, that type would need to be had for a picture of my buttocks. (Jams, see, I can be fair, my butt may be just as big & I'm admitting it) Cutter, OMG where are these pictures you are referring to? I would love to see the ChiChi Chia Jams. I am fairly new to these boards and have not seen these to which you refer. I need another laugh. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Cutter...is the" Posted by Show Me on 05:03:07 8/10/2001 naked pic of jammies the one of hir 'shower vision?' [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Oh woe" Posted by MrsBrady on 05:10:25 8/10/2001 I tried all the hyperlinks on the first thread (like 90 postings!) and haven't seen Aurora's pix yet...are they still on the internet anywhere? (Sorry to ask such a dumb question) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Pics" Posted by doScubie on 08:06:28 8/10/2001 If they are innocent, then why are they worried about having their picture taken? Idiots. Just more proof of their guilt, to me. Paranoid. And the killa' turns around when her name is called. Bet she regrets that now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Aurora, et al..." Posted by Diwi on 09:13:44 8/10/2001 I strongly believe the Ramseys are innocent, but haven't let that cloud my views on reality. What you did by taking pictures from a distance, at a public event, is NOT any form of "stalking." If you yelled out "murderer," I would consider that a form of "harrassment," but it seems as if it was just a momentary lapse of reason and it also seems no real harm was done. If you had vigorously chased after them, screaming your head off, then I'd have a different view. But basically, I do not think you did anything to warrant all the fuss being made in other quarters about this. A CLEAR case of cyber stalking AND harm done has just made me quit the other place as a registered member. The evidence of such is still there if anyone's interested in seeing it before it's just deleted or censored. Compared to that Aurora, I would consider what you did to be trivial. Next time, how about snapping some pix of Jennifer Love Hewitt or Nicole Kidman for lonely guy Diwi? :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Diwi ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "pictures" Posted by Kelly on 10:17:58 8/10/2001 Can't wait for you to see them Mrs Brady, and hear your take on them! I'm so glad to hear that nobody's backing down to the Ramseys. So, the photos put them into a spin, eh? LOL! Since when did Patsy not like to be photoed? For forty years Patsy was a ham-no pun intended-for photos. She posed for many as I recall. Remember the old game "Will the real so and so please stand up"? I can't recall the name of the show but now we have a case of "Will the real murderer turn around"! So True, So True! WAY TO GO AURORA! It seems you should get the reward money for getting killa Patsy to confess. Yea for Aurora! Saying "murderer" was the best thing you could of done. GOTCHA PATSY!! YOU'RE GOOD FOR IT! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Bravo, Diwi!" Posted by Florida on 10:14:34 8/10/2001 I agree with your assessment of what happened over there. She arrogantly dismissed your thought that she owed this poor guy an apology for what happened. There is something very wrong with a person who will not admit they are wrong and cannot apologize when they harm someone. Regardless of how we feel on the Rams guilt vs. innocence, dragging innocent people into this and destroying them is wrong and I admire you for standing up and saying so. On another front...she has thread going this AM where she says that if something the Ramsey's say is proven wrong they are only "mistaken" and not "lying". Of course, if Steve Thomas or anyone else made a "mistake" it would be a "BIG LIE". She is the most transparent person I've ever run across on the internet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Florida" Posted by Diwi on 10:59:04 8/10/2001 Some things in life are just SO self-evident that it's hard to put them into words. I tried. I know I am long-winded at times (and like Steve Martin, hey, I'm a rambling kinda guy), but it's just truly amazing that people, no matter how strongly they believe something or how devoted to a cause they are, can't just admit they were WRONG about something, and move on. Instead, now yet another weird "myth" has been formed, that Aurora is somehow a "stalker," when there is NO evidence whatsoever that she caused the Rams ANY harm. On the other hand, these same mythmakers rationalize and engage in almost, dare I use the "F" word again, fascist adherence to the belief that they've done nothing wrong, even when you present EVIDENCE that they have. Something very weird in this. I'll have to think more about it. In psychological terms, is this "projection?" i.e., from Merriam-Webster's dictionary: "the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety." Holy smokes, why can't some people just admit they are WRONG about something? Why this fanatic holding on to such transparent self-denial? I mean, if I'm ever wrong about something, I just admit it, apologize, and move on. What's with these people? The ironic thing is, and what makes me angry, is that they do so much more harm to the Ramseys than good, and like I said, I believe they are innocent. Really pisses me off royally. Maybe it all boils down to the old "kettle calling the pot black," but in this case, that "kettle" to me is a very ugly and dark one, and from what I can smell, is full of rotting fish. Sorry to go metaphorical on all of ya...I'll shut up for now (applause, cheers). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Diwi ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "The Status of Publication of the Charlevoix Ramsey..." Posted by Dunvegan on 11:49:04 8/10/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:49:04, 8/10/2001 For reasons of copyright and other legal protections, the Ramsey Charlevoix photographs are, for a short time, off-line...pending putting in place protections that will preserve the integrity and copyright of these photos. I feel that these photos are newsworthy pictures of public figures. There is no legal basis of contesting their publication. From Photo District News Online http://www.pdn-pix.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html Since privacy and publicity laws can clash with the First Amendment right of free speech, most states have carved out a "newsworthiness" or editorial exception. That gives magazines, newspapers, book publishers and electronic media the right to use photographs of people without permission in connection with articles or stories that are matters of public interest. (This exception, by the way, allows the paparazzi to market photos of celebrities to magazines and newspapers without permission). Furthermore, in the matter of the right to take photographs of public figures, in a public place, for publication: Invasion of privacy If a photograph reveals a private fact that the subject would not have revealed to the public himself, this can also be considered an invasion of privacy. Sexual affairs, sexual orientation, private debts, criminal records, certain diseases, psychological problems and the like usually fall into this category. Exceptions to this include instances in which these facts are part of a public record--such as court proceedings, legislative or executive records. Another exception happens when the disclosed fact is both newsworthy and truthful. Therefore, a photograph revealing a truthful private fact would not be judged to be an invasion of privacy if the subject is a public figure, since this sort of disclosure would be considered newsworthy by the average person.... Furthermore, courts have ruled that photographs taken in a public place of private matters do not constitute an invasion of privacy. Thus, photos of a murder victim's grieving family taken out on the street cannot be considered invasion of privacy, nor can photos of a married man and his mistress, if they were photographed in public. I'd like to now point you to the words of both John and Patsy Ramsey, spoken in a globally-transmitted streaming audio interview during the Newseum program "Inside Media" last year. Both John and Patsy say here to a broadcast audience that they are indeed "public figures": JOHN RAMSEY: "So...are we considered a public figure by the courts? Probably...absolutely, yes. And I think that was probably...you know...we became that when we did our little CNN interview, in the beginning.... "Really. I mean...how do you...how do you communicate today? It's gotta be through the media. "Well, as soon as you do that...you're a public figure, therefore...uh...you have no..." PATSY RAMSEY: "You're exempt from..." JOHN RAMSEY: "...fundamentally no rights...protection under the libel/slander laws...." -- John and Patsy Ramsey, in the live Newseum Internet interview of October 12, 2000 Aurora has been gracious enough to grant Justice Watch, an electronic media publication, limited copyright permission to display her newsworthy photographs. To defend this copyright, I have asked Aurora to retain in private her photographs until I have installed a secure anti-link, anti-theft software area for viewing said photographs, which shall protect and defend our US copyright. All other rights, beyond this JW not-for-profit use, remain adherent to Aurora. As soon as we have in place the necessary protections, you again will be able to view the Ramsey Charlevoix photos online. I'm hoping this will be sometime this weekend, or early next week. Oh, and Mrs. Brady...could you please e-mail me? Edited to cite John Ramsey in the first paragraph of the above Newseum "Inside Media" quote. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "You go Dun!" Posted by arvada on 11:33:46 8/10/2001 Thanks so much! And thanks to Aurora too for standing up for her rights. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "hip, hip hooray" Posted by Kelly on 11:44:10 8/10/2001 Thanks Dunvegan for all your help with this. (APPLAUSE) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Dun" Posted by JR on 11:58:20 8/10/2001 I think what you are doing to protect Aurora's rights is fantastic. The sad thing is, there are folks who would not hesitate to steal these and sell them to the rags. Sadder yet is what has been said at the Swamp about Aurora. I hope Aurora that you copy and save everything they say over there. If you don't know how, simply select it all, select copy from your Edit menu and then Paste the selection into a word file or blank email and send it to yourself to have a time/date stamp. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Diwi" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:28:29 8/10/2001 A CLEAR case of cyber stalking AND harm done has just made me quit the other place as a registered member. The evidence of such is still there if anyone's interested in seeing it before it's just deleted or censored. Compared to that Aurora, I would consider what you did to be trivial. Next time, how about snapping some pix of Jennifer Love Hewitt or Nicole Kidman for lonely guy Diwi? Nedd: I always pegged you a woman! Welcome to the mens club here at JW. It's just little ole me and Ellique here. What sort of stalking are you talking about at Jameson site? A case that was clearly cyber stalking? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Heck Dunvegan" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 12:32:32 8/10/2001 You really now your chit. I see NOTHING wrong with the photos either. I still happen to think the Ramsey's are innocent. But Aurora has done nothing wrong here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Ned.." Posted by Aurora on 20:56:09 8/10/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:56:09, 8/10/2001 Althou you are misguided where Rams guilt is concerned.. I respect the right of your opinion...but do not agree with it. Thanks for being on my side in the fact that I did nothing wrong. I sleep good at nite...don't you wish Rams could say the same? *grins* From a site on Ms. Brady's page.. Referring to the Ramsey's... due to their lofty socio-economic status, receive deferential treatment from the police that no average Joe or Jane ever would get, withhold pertinent information, lie, stonewall, change their stories from day to day, claim to be media victims, diligently avoid any interviews in which they might actually have to answer a tough question, arrange for their own restricted-questions, no-police-allowed lie detector tests, and obviously are hiding something? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Ned" Posted by Diwi on 12:48:47 8/10/2001 I don't know WHY it's been assumed that I am a female for so long. Maybe because the majority in here are? About the REAL cyber-stalking issue, go into Jam's "public input" forum, click on archive and read the thread "is this guy worth looking at?" Then, read the threads by me entitled "Why was my post deleted?" (one in the previous thread which was obviously censored), and finally, "The pro-Ramsey Lynch Mob." I know that's a lot of reading, but to understand the whole thing, that's where the information is. I agree with you on Aurora, but that's not where the real form of "stalking" recently occurred. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Diwi ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Diwi, Ned" Posted by Thor on 14:24:11 8/10/2001 Diwi, congrats on your move! I read all of the stuff over there and felt your rage at what happened. It was infuriating. Good job, buddy! Ned, even tho I feel the Rams have guilty knowledge, I have appreciated your feedback to posts of mine and want to tell you I do enjoy your posts, as well as Diwis, and thank you all at JW to being a great place to post on this awful crime. Good going both of you gentlemen! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Boy thanks Thor" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:46:16 8/10/2001 That means a lot really it does. I am glad to be here. I try to respect what everyone here believes, even if it is different from what I do. :0) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Wow" Posted by Ayeka on 16:52:59 8/10/2001 You knock my socks off on a daily basis, Dunvegan. There can be no doubt that Chris made a very wise decision. You know your chit. =) I would love to view those pics too but I totally understand the reason for their being sequestered (ugh, is that even English? It's been a long week). Diwi, if it makes you feel any better, I knew you were a guy. Don't know how I knew, but I just did. :) Ayeka [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Diwi" Posted by Mini on 16:58:02 8/10/2001 I think it was Diwi's letter to his brother that had a reference to him being male. Also, Darnay calls him a god, not a goddess. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Dun" Posted by Aurora on 19:46:22 8/10/2001 What a crusader of justice you are !!! Everyone should be very proud of her for how she is defending my rights/and issues ..in her forum. Tomorrow it could be you that she leaps into action for. I am estatic that she uses her knowledge to fight injustice. Dun..maybe you can work your magic with my pics and do some editing on a few before you re-post them ? Diwi: I don't know what happened to you over "there" since I don't venture into the swamplands but I do sympathize with you. JR: Tell them to make it good if they are talking about me. Wish they had half as much righteous indignation for JonBenets killers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Aurora" Posted by JR on 22:10:27 8/10/2001 I don't post at the swamp and never will! I occasionally read over there. Since someone mentioned what was being said about you I went over there and read that thread. Personally, I would send hirself another email and tell hir to retract the thread but hir will probably give you the same old song and dance. You can bet hir knew you were not a flamer because hir lurks here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Diwi..." Posted by dustii on 05:15:43 8/11/2001 I sometimes don't read all of your posts either for reasons of length, and I sure have had times when I haven't agreed with what I have read. But I respect you as a fellow poster, and person, and I applaud you for the action you took at the swampland with your thread "why was my post deleted". Good on you Diwi. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL dustii ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Okay, being patient in Pennsylvania" Posted by MrsBrady on 06:45:24 8/11/2001 I'll just wait for the pics like a good girl. (Dun and Aurora - what a team!) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "WTG Aurora" Posted by Jeanilou on 15:24:08 8/12/2001 Aurora: I just wanted to let you know I totally support your right to post your pictures of the Ramseys. You are NOT stalking despite what Jameson and her mindless minions say. You have every right to attend a public event and to take photos of the participants. And you have every right to post those pics and to have your copyrights of the pics protected. I know from experience that this is hard to do but don't let Jameson get to you. I try my best to not let her get to me but sometimes her slimy, digusting, sickening ways get to me and I have to let off steam. Keep up the fight for your pictures and your rights. Don't let her make you feel threatened because she has tattletaled on you to Lin Wood. I wish I had done that. I wish I had just let her go ahead and tell the big bad Lin Wood on me, but instead I over-reacted because of my Cajun temper, and gave her the attention she so desperately craves. A mistake on my part. Oh well, there is always the hope the next time, I will handle myself better. :-) Congratulations to JW on their re-opening. I don't post here like I use to because I simply don't have time with work and family and all that, but I do read here from time to time. And lately I have found myself reading here more often, enjoying and perusing the various viewpoints on the forum. Congratulations again on being up and running! Jeanilou [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE List of Forums The opinions expressed are those of the author of those opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Web Host, Webmaster or any Justice Watch member. The opinions and analysis included herein are based from sources believed to be reliable and in good faith but no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to their accuracy, completeness or correctness. Any copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the express written consent of Justice Watch is expressly prohibited. Users of this site are subject to our House Rules. Questions or problems regarding this bulletin board should be directed to the Webmaster Legal Disclaimer A