Justice Watch Discussion Board "FLEET WHITE AND INTERNET SEARCHES " [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... FLEET WHITE AND INTERNET SEARCHES , darby, 23:56:43, 8/27/2000 Well Darby, Anderson, 00:02:19, 8/28/2000, (#1) arghhh, darby, 00:05:11, 8/28/2000, (#2) LOL , Anderson, 00:07:26, 8/28/2000, (#3) No , darby, 00:10:34, 8/28/2000, (#4) Here are some more , darby, 00:17:59, 8/28/2000, (#6) Darby, Anderson, 00:12:46, 8/28/2000, (#5) o-kay, darby, 00:25:30, 8/28/2000, (#7) U.K., Anderson, 00:36:19, 8/28/2000, (#8) hmmm, do we have a problem?, mary99, 00:58:27, 8/28/2000, (#11) actually, darby, 00:46:12, 8/28/2000, (#9) darby, mary99, 01:05:26, 8/28/2000, (#12) Darby, Anderson, 00:53:18, 8/28/2000, (#10) Well, Anderson, mary99, 01:07:29, 8/28/2000, (#14) THIS IS WHAT I GO BY:, mary99, 01:11:38, 8/28/2000, (#16) m99, Anderson, 01:08:55, 8/28/2000, (#15) Anderson, darby, 01:06:39, 8/28/2000, (#13) Guess what, Anderson?, mary99, 01:25:39, 8/28/2000, (#19) mary99, darby, 01:16:15, 8/28/2000, (#17) Anderson, darby, 01:25:07, 8/28/2000, (#18) Something hinky to make me thinky..., mary99, 01:38:26, 8/28/2000, (#22) mary99, darby, 01:28:12, 8/28/2000, (#20) OK, Darby, mary99, 01:40:19, 8/28/2000, (#23) mary99, darby, 01:54:27, 8/28/2000, (#25) Darby, Anderson, 01:33:28, 8/28/2000, (#21) Anderson, the link works , darby, 01:50:37, 8/28/2000, (#24) Darby, Anderson, 01:56:25, 8/28/2000, (#26) It's not hard to understand, darby, 02:01:14, 8/28/2000, (#27) Darby, Anderson, 02:06:42, 8/28/2000, (#29) I mean , darby, 02:06:32, 8/28/2000, (#28) To be perfectly clear and for the record , darby, 02:17:53, 8/28/2000, (#31) aw shucks, ah'm fame-us!, mary99, 02:13:52, 8/28/2000, (#30) One last thing, darby, 02:26:31, 8/28/2000, (#33) Darby, mary99, 02:22:37, 8/28/2000, (#32) Google, shana, 02:35:11, 8/28/2000, (#35) mary99, darby, 02:30:56, 8/28/2000, (#34) Over and Out, mary99, 03:23:13, 8/28/2000, (#36) FOR THE RECORD, Holly, 08:31:04, 8/28/2000, (#37) Ah, guess what, Watching you, 09:59:53, 8/28/2000, (#38) WY, darby, 10:26:12, 8/28/2000, (#39) Well that and, Holly, 10:35:28, 8/28/2000, (#40) this is quite odd..., mame, 10:56:28, 8/28/2000, (#42) Well, I take this seriously., Holly, 11:06:29, 8/28/2000, (#44) WOW..., shadow, 10:52:33, 8/28/2000, (#41) Darby and Holly, Watching you, 11:16:27, 8/28/2000, (#46) ACR, comments?, mary99, 11:04:49, 8/28/2000, (#43) Geez, Anderson, 11:08:07, 8/28/2000, (#45) Calm down, calm down, hareen, 11:28:50, 8/28/2000, (#49) Go ACR!, Lacey, 11:24:55, 8/28/2000, (#48) Hahaha, Watching you, 11:21:42, 8/28/2000, (#47) calm down, folks, fly, 12:08:51, 8/28/2000, (#56) Ditto, fly..., LurkerXIV, 14:22:58, 8/28/2000, (#82) This is routine, LizzieB, 11:52:18, 8/28/2000, (#53) WY, mary99, 11:38:59, 8/28/2000, (#50) *, v_p, 11:52:28, 8/28/2000, (#54) for the heck of it, Longhorn, 11:49:25, 8/28/2000, (#52) Am I to Understand..., shadow, 11:48:27, 8/28/2000, (#51) Shadow, 1000Sparks, 12:10:08, 8/28/2000, (#57) Google, Watching you, 12:05:23, 8/28/2000, (#55) Good old Google!, Ev, 12:17:43, 8/28/2000, (#58) This is recent, folks, mary99, 12:37:21, 8/28/2000, (#61) Mary99, Anderson, 12:39:14, 8/28/2000, (#62) Anderson, mary99, 12:45:00, 8/28/2000, (#63) OK, EV..., shadow, 12:33:37, 8/28/2000, (#59) I'm calm now, but still troubled, darby, 12:59:20, 8/28/2000, (#68) Shadow, Anderson, 12:34:52, 8/28/2000, (#60) Mary99, hareen, 12:51:30, 8/28/2000, (#66) Demand factor, janphi, 12:48:21, 8/28/2000, (#65) Mary99, Watching you, 12:46:24, 8/28/2000, (#64) what's next.., Dianne E., 12:56:31, 8/28/2000, (#67) Janphi is right, Anderson, 13:04:50, 8/28/2000, (#70) Dianne E., darby, 13:04:40, 8/28/2000, (#69) Kind of stupid , Seeker, 13:18:24, 8/28/2000, (#72) darby, hareen, 13:07:26, 8/28/2000, (#71) hareen & Anderson, darby, 13:19:39, 8/28/2000, (#73) Darby, Anderson, 13:27:26, 8/28/2000, (#75) darby, fly, 13:23:07, 8/28/2000, (#74) Well, FWIW, mary99, 14:22:09, 8/28/2000, (#81) fly, Anderson , darby, 13:58:19, 8/28/2000, (#76) LMAO, Starling, 14:23:03, 8/28/2000, (#83) Dear Darby..., ibnora, 14:13:04, 8/28/2000, (#78) Anderson, darby, 14:11:52, 8/28/2000, (#77) Darby, Anderson, 14:20:25, 8/28/2000, (#80) Well I only , Holly, 14:45:23, 8/28/2000, (#86) ibnora, my friend, darby, 14:18:12, 8/28/2000, (#79) Dear Darby 2, ibnora, 14:39:16, 8/28/2000, (#85) ibnora, LurkerXIV, 14:52:25, 8/28/2000, (#88) Yes, ibnora., Holly, 14:35:35, 8/28/2000, (#84) Dear Holly, ibnora, 15:15:41, 8/28/2000, (#90) Thanks, Ibnora, Holly, 15:19:20, 8/28/2000, (#91) JUSTICE WATCH DISCUSSION BOARD, Morgan, 15:14:21, 8/28/2000, (#89) Dear Morgan, ibnora, 15:34:49, 8/28/2000, (#94) Don't Understand..., shadow, 14:47:51, 8/28/2000, (#87) shadow, lake, 15:27:30, 8/28/2000, (#93) sued?, darby, 15:26:14, 8/28/2000, (#92) That's not to say, darby, 15:38:47, 8/28/2000, (#96) Darby, Anderson, 15:34:53, 8/28/2000, (#95) Anderson....ROFL!, LurkerXIV, 16:04:18, 8/28/2000, (#99) LurkerXIV, Anderson, 16:14:10, 8/28/2000, (#101) Anderson, darby, 15:42:41, 8/28/2000, (#97) You guys, darby, 15:56:30, 8/28/2000, (#98) Darby..., PegB, 16:28:56, 8/28/2000, (#105) Well :), canadiana, 16:20:22, 8/28/2000, (#103) Ibnora, Morgan, 16:16:58, 8/28/2000, (#102) Lake..., shadow, 16:11:01, 8/28/2000, (#100) BTW Shadow, Seeker, 16:27:45, 8/28/2000, (#104) Shadow, Colorado-an, 16:42:56, 8/28/2000, (#106) What's next?, mary99, 17:44:21, 8/28/2000, (#107) Mary99, Anderson, 17:55:37, 8/28/2000, (#108) A Candy Rose Speaks..., LurkerXIV, 19:45:34, 8/28/2000, (#109) ibnora, Colorado-an, 22:16:59, 8/28/2000, (#110) Comment, mary99, 23:12:52, 8/28/2000, (#112) ..., shana, 22:33:06, 8/28/2000, (#111) LOL...., Pedro, 00:10:10, 8/29/2000, (#113) .....well, jonesy, 00:19:04, 8/29/2000, (#114) It may seem silly to you, mary99, 00:44:20, 8/29/2000, (#115) I say Googley-Eyes, mary99, 04:20:03, 8/29/2000, (#116) aiy aiy aiy, Chris, 05:08:49, 8/29/2000, (#117) Whew!, Holly, 06:01:19, 8/29/2000, (#118) All I know, Watching you, 06:29:14, 8/29/2000, (#119) What Me Worried?, Lacey, 07:17:16, 8/29/2000, (#120) Divide and Conquer, LurkerXIV, 08:00:39, 8/29/2000, (#121) mary99.., Dianne E., 08:08:39, 8/29/2000, (#122) too bad, fly, 09:23:21, 8/29/2000, (#124) All I want to know this morning is why, Holly, 09:21:27, 8/29/2000, (#123) ACR..., shadow, 09:45:42, 8/29/2000, (#125) I am afraid, very afraid, 1000Sparks, 10:03:57, 8/29/2000, (#126) Where have you been, Watching you, 10:09:34, 8/29/2000, (#127) Peg, I love you, too, darby, 11:23:02, 8/29/2000, (#134) LOL 1000Sparks!, hareen, 10:30:30, 8/29/2000, (#128) Google-ing here ..., Country Girl, 10:48:43, 8/29/2000, (#130) hareen, 1000Sparks, 10:39:04, 8/29/2000, (#129) My thoughts, Starling, 11:59:45, 8/29/2000, (#145) Sparky, Watching you, 11:09:45, 8/29/2000, (#132) Hey, Fleet Baby..., shadow, 11:08:39, 8/29/2000, (#131) Heh heh, Shadow, Watching you, 11:12:46, 8/29/2000, (#133) .......WY, jonesy, 11:27:29, 8/29/2000, (#135) From ACandyRose, AuntieBJ, 11:34:14, 8/29/2000, (#136) Well, Watching you, 11:41:57, 8/29/2000, (#138) Dear Auntie BJ,, LurkerXIV, 11:52:09, 8/29/2000, (#143) CandyRose, Seeker, 11:50:01, 8/29/2000, (#141) BJ, janab, 11:46:15, 8/29/2000, (#140) Who is Dan Lucas?, Cassandra, 12:04:39, 8/29/2000, (#147) Thank you, AuntieBJ, 11:43:38, 8/29/2000, (#139) AuntieBJ, shadow, 11:51:59, 8/29/2000, (#142) AuntieBJ, hareen, 12:01:47, 8/29/2000, (#146) Jonesy and Shadow, Watching you, 11:59:43, 8/29/2000, (#144) WY..., shadow, 12:19:42, 8/29/2000, (#149) Leave It, Lacey, 12:19:01, 8/29/2000, (#148) ....WY, jonesy, 12:43:06, 8/29/2000, (#152) Hey, I've been, gaiabetsy, 12:38:51, 8/29/2000, (#151) New thread, Watching you, 12:37:30, 8/29/2000, (#150) I removed #138, Chris, 12:45:04, 8/29/2000, (#153) 138 was my post, Watching you, 12:50:48, 8/29/2000, (#154) WHAT the H*LL, docg, 13:12:29, 8/29/2000, (#159) Actually..., shadow, 13:07:50, 8/29/2000, (#157) jajajajaja!, Chris, 13:11:48, 8/29/2000, (#158) 137?, fly, 13:06:22, 8/29/2000, (#156) Nevermind, Chris, Watching you, 13:04:34, 8/29/2000, (#155) Chris, AuntieBJ and Others..., shadow, 13:20:58, 8/29/2000, (#160) What a long thread____________________, pinker, 13:49:19, 8/29/2000, (#161) Shadow and others, AuntieBJ, 13:53:11, 8/29/2000, (#162) ................................................................... "FLEET WHITE AND INTERNET SEARCHES " Posted by darby on 00:01:39 8/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:01:39, 8/28/2000 You want to hear something REALLY hinky? Listen up! Y'all who are thrilled with Fleet White's latest complaint will especially LOVE this one, if you aren't privy to it already. LizzieB had a question for me on the Stephen Singular thread concerning a certain quote of Mary Bienkowski's. I did some of my usual searches, employing google.com. Lo and behold, I began to notice an incredible thing that I have NEVER seen before. Mind you, I do an average of about ten internet searches a day, and I have NEVER seen anything close to what I am about to tell you. When I was doing my search tonight, I started noticing that Justice Watch threads were popping up all over the place. Whole threads with all of our names and everything. Each thread could be clicked on, and the entire thread could be read. I have often seen a couple of jameson's threads come up, but never have I seen any from Justice Watch. Specifically, I started noticing that FLEET WHITE threads were coming up. Even more specifically, I noticed that all of the FLEET WHITE threads I was seeing pertained to MYSTERY WOMAN. Now, I began to investigate further and noticed a common denominator in all of these threads. If I simply do a search on "jonbenet2000.tripod.com", what happens is that I get 40 threads--and not just from JW, but from A Candy Rose and jameson's forum, plus a few from Closer2 (who was once gsquared here at JW). The one and only thing in common in ALL of these threads? They ALL pertain to Fleet White and Mystery Woman! All of them. I went ahead and printed the results of my search, so I can scan them in at a later date if things were to suddenly...change...somehow. Could "somebody" perhaps have copied all of this stuff onto the general internet just so that "somebody" could make a case that it is all very public information?? Anyway, here are the results from my search and the forum each came from: "Mystery Woman" ACR "More Intriguing Sleuth Stuff 2" JW "WhoIsMysteryWoman.txt" copied from JW "Litigate my little bleeding heart ass..." JW "Case Connections to Child Porn" JW "something HINKY...Thread #2" JW "Myst. Woman: Times-Call 5/13 part II" JW "Hinky #4" JW "Is there more to the story?" JW "Ramseys" jameson's links "Boulder Police on Mystery Woman" jameson's links "HinkyThinkyThreads.txt" Closer2 stuff copied from somewhere "VariousEmailsFromSpade.txt" Closer2 stuff copied from somewhere "Evil Parallels" JW "FBI Still Investigating Callie" jameson's links "Mystery Woman: Times-Call 5-13" JW "Mame/BJ Report 5/10/00" JW "Holly Interviews Mame PART2" JW "Callie" jameson's links "Disman: Arianne's Dream" jameson's links "More Intriguing Sleuth Stuff" JW "Mame Interview with Callie" jameson's links "San Bernardino, Trona, CA" jameson's links "Trona continued, again" jameson's links "MamesInterviewWithMW.txt" Closer2 stuff "something HINKY to make you THINKY" JW "White speak - Camera squeaks" JW "Breaking News" JW "Curioser and Curioser...OR Hinky #3" JW "A FISHY STORY" JW "Questions for dis_man, April 3" jameson's links "More Intriguing Sleuth Stuff 3" JW "White Speak - Part Deaux (DOH!)" JW "MW & Mame, Part III" JW "WhoIsStephenMason.txt" Closer2 stuff "ACRFleetWhiteMysteryWoman.txt" Closer2 stuff [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Well Darby" Posted by Anderson on 00:02:19 8/28/2000 Congratulations. You found one of ACandyRose's archive pages. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "arghhh" Posted by darby on 00:05:11 8/28/2000 That's it? I feel really stupid. :-( But why is it all out there on the internet like that? It never has been before! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "LOL " Posted by Anderson on 00:07:26 8/28/2000 Didn't you notice the background? And this: If there are any questions regarding this site Please send comments to webmaster acandyrose@hotmail.com Last Update: July 25, 2000 10:57am EST [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "No " Posted by darby on 00:10:34 8/28/2000 Anderson, I didn't. In fact, when I click on these things, all I see are tripod. Like this one: http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05192000CalliesContribution1847.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Here are some more " Posted by darby on 00:17:59 8/28/2000 What I find odd is that all of these threads are each their own URL out on the internet now. I find that sort of, I don't know...invasive of a protected--though not private--forum. Also the search is just on jonbenet2000.tripod and not anything specific. But what I get are forty threads on Fleet White and MW. http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05192000SomethingHinkyII-5190.htm http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05202000ACRVariousEmailsFromSpade.txt http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05192000ACRHinkyThinkyThreads.txt http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05172000FBIStillInvestigatingCallie1837.htm http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05152000MWTimesCallPartII-5149.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Darby" Posted by Anderson on 00:12:46 8/28/2000 Let me save you the trouble: http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/ All of the pages are linked there. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "o-kay" Posted by darby on 00:25:30 8/28/2000 Feeling so sheepish, I think I'll disappear and catch some zzs for a long, long while. Don't be too hard on me. There were no candy roses on the sites that I found--at least not the way I found them. So it looked VERY strange to the unknowing darby. (Yes, you may now call me U.K.) This does look to be a very handy site to find all of the info in one place. goodnight and goodbye luv, U.K. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "U.K." Posted by Anderson on 00:36:19 8/28/2000 All I did was pop in jonbenet2000.tripod.com to get that. Just drop the end of the url to get to the main page. For example: http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05232000Hinky4-5218.htm and then back off the 05232000Hinky4-5218.htm and Voila! Mebbe you can save a little time next time you run across something like that saved on the free sites. : ) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "hmmm, do we have a problem?" Posted by mary99 on 00:58:27 8/28/2000 The good news is now I know how to access those records! ACR forum has officially moooved and is now accessible only to those who have the Group Registration number. Thanks for finding them, darby, especially since when I used the ACR Subculture link on Ken Polzin Jr's page, it didn't work. I thought ACR took all those pages down after the Jeanilou copyright madness. The bad news is, if this is OUR forums archives, what are they doing on the web under the ACandy Rose moniker? Its one thing to copy, paste and save, but to re-distribute them under ACR meta-tags is flat out wrong, IMHO. If Chris wanted to put them out there, that's her right as the forum owner and moderator. But is it OK for another forum owner to basically rip them off and put them in cyberspace? I don't think its right. I never minded ACR storing the forum history threads on her site, as long as I could access them. What I don't like is her 'trusteeship' of those threads, your threads, my threads, OUR threads, exact copies of the original forum threads, now accessible under any search engine. Isn't that like, hinky? Can I go out and Xerox the latest tabloid articles and scan them lifesize on JW or put them in a search engine under mary99/nationalenquirer/aug2000.com? Gimme a break...I wonder what Chris will say...and no, I'm not a member of ACR's secret forum, so I've got nothing to lose by voicing my thoughts here. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "actually" Posted by darby on 00:56:45 8/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:56:45, 8/28/2000 Anderson, that's what I did on google. As I said in my first post, after I saw that all of the sites had jonbenet2000.tripod.com in common-- I typed in: www.google.com Then I searched: jonbenet2000.tripod.com And I got 40 URL sites that had absolutely no reference to candy rose. NONE. All they each had in common was the tripod thing. I suppose I could have figured out the candy rose thing if I had delved into it. I could tell that the sites were some sort of collection because they had the "jonbenet2000.tripod" in common. What I didn't know was that they were gathered together at candy rose. It's not easy to see that just looking at one of the sites. I still wonder why the threads are out there on the internet just for this purpose. Couldn't there have been a way to organize the threads without creating an internet URL for each of them? Like here at JW, such a collection might continue to be threads without making them into separate URLs. It's a little frightening to do a search on 'darby + "Fleet White"' and find about ten URLs with my posts on them on the world wide web. I dunno...I don't think I like that somehow. edited to say, that I know that you are saying just to put that tripod thing up in the location and you get the candy rose site. But *I* was trying to say none of those individual tripod sites on the internet reference candy rose. But either way, I'd like to know how everyone feels about threads being out there on the internet as their own URLs. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "darby" Posted by mary99 on 01:05:26 8/28/2000 I totally agree with you. You expressed my concerns exactly. ACR has NO BUSINESS in my opinion, linking your name, my name, any name, to a web search engine. This is a copyright violation, and needs to be addressed. I also think it's could be a case of a poor internet joke on those who have questioned Fleet White's actions over the last 8 months. What I say here, I thought STAYED here, until Chris put it in the archives, which presumably are NOT on the Internet, in a search engine, linked to your name, my name, our collective names... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Darby" Posted by Anderson on 00:53:18 8/28/2000 As far as I know, it's where ACandyRose has archived the threads on the discussions. It's good to have everything in one place, IMO. Did you find the thread on the MW Timeline? http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/MysteryWomanTimeLine.htm There's some very interesting stuff there for those of you have been involved in her story. And not just links from the forums. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Well, Anderson" Posted by mary99 on 01:07:29 8/28/2000 Are ALL the ACR threads now archived on the Internet, linked to the author's name and subject matter? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "THIS IS WHAT I GO BY:" Posted by mary99 on 01:11:38 8/28/2000 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 User Agreement. Questions or problems regarding this bulletin board should be directed to the Webmaster Legal Disclaimer [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "m99" Posted by Anderson on 01:08:55 8/28/2000 Why are you asking me? Here's the link to her site. See for yourself. http://jbr_history.tripod.com/SubcultureDirectory16427.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Anderson" Posted by darby on 01:06:39 8/28/2000 You know, it is great to have all of this in one location. Thanks to Ruthee, and all of the folks who worked so hard on this. But the internet thing is a little shocking, for me at least. Anyone who posted on those threads could do a search on their own names (hats) on an internet search and find all kinds of things that they posted. Maybe I'll get used to it and get over it. U.K. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Guess what, Anderson?" Posted by mary99 on 01:25:39 8/28/2000 That link doesn't work! So, was the purpose of the 'secret forum' was to plot for a way to get even with those bad, naughty posters who have the ability to think logically about the Great Fleet White and in doing so, offended those who rever his very silence. Hey, if this is WHY and HOW Fleet White collected the postings of little mary99, goody, goody! When I travel to Boulder, I'll have a nice long list of reasons to ask questions about his behavior! My only question is: should I address him as Mr. Mason or Mr. White???? ROFLOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "mary99" Posted by darby on 01:16:15 8/28/2000 I don't fully undertstand what's going on. Thank goodness I printed out those google pages and that I was talking on the phone to Holly and she duplicated what I was doing. Just as I was thinking in my first post, things have changed. It's not working now! Holly and I were talking as the thing was happening. I would type in "darby" + "Fleet White" on google, and I got ALL of those links! She did the same with her own name. We did other people's names as well and got all kinds of threads. Now, I type in jonbenet2000.tripod on a google search, as I did less than an hour ago and it's not happening. What's going on? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Anderson" Posted by darby on 01:25:07 8/28/2000 What I'm trying to say is that I did some generic searches on google and got URLs of Justice Watch and other forums' threads--40 of them. All of the ones I listed above were part of it. The words "Candy Rose" didn't come up on my search. I understand that these threads and things are linked together at Candy Rose. But what *I'm* trying to say is that they were ALSO out there on the internet. But now it changed. I don't know why those things were "out there" like that, or why they happened to change after I posted my thread, but that seems to be what happened. I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe me because I know this sounds preposterous. However, I printed out my google search and can prove it. I've never scanned something into a post, but I will figure out how to do so tomorrow night and scan the results of my google search if anyone is interested. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Something hinky to make me thinky..." Posted by mary99 on 01:43:35 8/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:43:35, 8/28/2000 Still wondering what Chris will think about this, or if she gave 'express written consent' for 'copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of this service'. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "mary99" Posted by darby on 01:28:12 8/28/2000 Please don't do this. We don't know what's going on yet, so we mustn't jump to conclusions. Okay? Please? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "OK, Darby" Posted by mary99 on 01:40:19 8/28/2000 I am really not surprised to find them on the web, after all, ACR is 'on the web.' It's the search engine business that seems out of bounds. Enough said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "mary99" Posted by darby on 01:54:27 8/28/2000 I'm just saying that we can't assume anything just because something looks hinky. It DOES seem hinky, though. Individual Justice Watch threads really have no place hanging out on the internet, IMO. What's odd is it's just the ones that were also gathered together at Candy Rose--just the ones that pertained to Fleet White and Mystery Woman--that found an address out on the internet, even if temporarily. How could this just happen to happen, I wonder? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Darby" Posted by Anderson on 01:33:28 8/28/2000 Does the link I provided to the ACR Subculture site work for you? It works for me. Here's the link for the old site with a link to the new one: http://members.aol.com/acandyrose/index.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Anderson, the link works " Posted by darby on 01:50:37 8/28/2000 for me right now. But I will say that all of these links have been working on AND off for me all night. In any case, the issue I'm concerned about is the fact that all of the Fleet White/Mystery Woman threads from several forums had their own URL on the internet for a time tonight. I do understand that they are also gathered together in Candy Rose. But what I'm trying to say is that for a while tonight, they were all out on the internet as well. Anderson, Justice Watch threads and threads from various forums each had their own addressable URL on the World Wide Web tonight, separate from the Candy Rose thing. Do you happen to know why this would be? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Darby" Posted by Anderson on 01:56:25 8/28/2000 Did all of those links include jonbenet2000.tripod in the url? If so, it's simply because they're stored at the jonbenet2000.tripod.com site. They came up separately in your search because of the content I imagine. What's so hard to understand about that? And why are you so concerned? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "It's not hard to understand" Posted by darby on 02:01:14 8/28/2000 but I don't like it. I don't like the idea of posts of mine that I've put into the Justice Watch forum being searchable and clickable on the generic web. I don't know why, but it bothers me. Perhaps it's because I put them on Justice Watch and that's where I think they should stay. It feels like a copyright infringement. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Darby" Posted by Anderson on 02:06:42 8/28/2000 I do understand where you're coming from. Sorry if I've came across as harsh. (If we'd been sitting side by side, at one of our computers, I think I could have explained it to you better!) Good night/morning. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "I mean " Posted by darby on 02:06:32 8/28/2000 It's one thing to have them together at Candy Rose. That's okay with me somehow because the site deals with JonBenet. But I don't want someone to be able to do a search on "darby" out on google and come up with all of my posts. Something doesn't seem right about that to me. Anyway, it looks like it's not happening any more, so maybe it was just a fluke. A strange, strange fluke, but a fluke nonetheless. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "To be perfectly clear and for the record " Posted by darby on 02:17:53 8/28/2000 Those forty threads did NOT have the usual "Candy Rose" background! They did NOT say "Candy Rose" anywhere in them--I know because I did a search on those very words after getting into one of the threads. They each were their own clickable separate URL, much as JusticeWatch.com is its own. While they were on the internet as their own URLs, I was able to do searches on my own name in google and then find threads I posted upon. But then I put up this thread, and now I can no longer do this. This probably is no biggie, but I just thought I'd share it. The whole thing seems weird to me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "aw shucks, ah'm fame-us!" Posted by mary99 on 02:13:52 8/28/2000 Well, someone IS playing a little joke tonight...or has been playing a little joke. Results of a google search on mary99 + fleet White: Google results 1-6 of about 26 for mary99 + fleet white. Search took 0.34 seconds. "Sound Off On Fleet White" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- ...Thomas--lap dog to Fleet White :-), mary99, 23:44:25,... ...Discussion Board "Sound Off On Fleet White" [ Main ] [ Help ] [... justicewatch.hispeed.com/jwforum/jonbenet/5450.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages "Mystery Woman part 2" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- Powered by DCForum98 ...6/04/2000, (#57) We only have Fleet White's , Holly, 21:03:40,... ...been on for about 2 years. Fleet White allows the media to present... justicewatch.hispeed.com/jwforum/jonbenet/5366.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from justicewatch.hispeed.com ] "Callie" ...Ashley, 00:27 AM, May-15-00 Is Fleet White , Ashley, 00:35 AM,... ...whom. This needs to happen from Fleet White Jr. and down the line... www.crosswinds.net/~jameson245/23p/23page19.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages "Trona #5" ...not been treated adequately. Fleet White isn't screaming on the... ...lee2, Holly and yes, lake(!) on Fleet White. He gives me a case of... www.crosswinds.net/~jameson245/33p/33page15.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.crosswinds.net ] "Mame/BJ Report: 5/10/00" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- Powered by DCForum98 ...14:50:13, 5/10/2000, (#18) Fleet White, lake, 15:28:50, 5/10/2000,... ...5/10/2000, (#19) Lake points at Fleet White - now we KNOW . . . ,... jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05092000MameBJReport5-10-5111.htm - 86k - Cached - Similar pages "White Speak - Part Deux (DOH!)" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- Powered ...13:16:34, 5/12/2000, (#8) If Fleet White is so heroic,, Holly,... ...daughter? Pretty iffy stuff, Mary. Fleet White has not be charged... jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05122000WhiteSpeakPartDeux5132.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from jonbenet2000.tripod.com ] In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 6 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "One last thing" Posted by darby on 02:26:31 8/28/2000 Yeah, mary99, that's what I mean. "Normally" when we do a generic google search on "darby" or "mary99", we don't get a big list of all the threads we've ever posted upon at JusticeWatch. But now that some of those threads have been gathered together in Candy Rose, it looks like those particular posts come up in a generic search. Thanks for the info, Anderson. It looks like this is what happens when someone takes a post and tacks on a new tag--a separate URL is created which is searchable on the WWW. I guess I was thrown off to find my own self out there like that. I'll get over it. Finally, goodnight! U.K. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Darby" Posted by mary99 on 02:22:37 8/28/2000 You are being too magnanimous, I do believe. Our work has been stolen and linked by design on a search so Fleet White can make his case. Certain of our forum buddies must have decided this was an honorable way to redeem Fleet White's tarnished name...by plastering the internet with our copyrighted posts. The webbies who put it in a search engine are the ones who violated copyright law, AND by publishing it, can be targeted by White as distributors. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Google" Posted by shana on 02:35:11 8/28/2000 I found my hat listed on URLs for JW's highspeed server (no longer accessible), at jameson's, and also in the Steve Thomas chat transcript at apb. I found another of my hats (not Ramsey forums) listed in a transcript of an NBC chat. And I rarely post. BJ/ACR is not to blame for this and nobody is collecting or assembling info for FW. Please! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "mary99" Posted by darby on 02:30:56 8/28/2000 I'll admit I have the same paranoia. But I also realize that I tend to lean in that direction sometimes, so I try like hell to fight it. If that's what happened, then we've got it on record. But chances are, that's probably not what's happening here. Let's get some sleep, girlfriend! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Over and Out" Posted by mary99 on 03:23:13 8/28/2000 Shana, you're famous too! Google results 1-6 of about 7 for shana + "justice watch". Search took 0.45 seconds. "something HINKY...Thread #2" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- Powered by ... Justice Watch Discussion Board "something HINKY...Thread #2" [... ...15:52:12, 5/19/2000, (#20) Florida LOL, shana, 16:11:28, 5/19/2000, (#25)... jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05192000SomethingHinkyII-5190.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages "More Hinky" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- Powered by DCForum98 ... Justice Watch Discussion Board "More Hinky" [ Main ] [ Post New... ...your work Chris! Edited to add. shana, where and which forum has the info... jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05192000MoreHinky5188.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from jonbenet2000.tripod.com ] "Mystery Woman" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- Powered by DCForum98 ... Justice Watch Discussion Board "Mystery Woman" [ Main ] [ Help ]... ...thread as *.mht - here's a Paste, shana, 13:39:49, 6/01/2000, (#9)... justicewatch.hispeed.com/jwforum/jonbenet/5348.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages "CNN 4/27 and 4/28 (Friday)" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- Powered by ... Justice Watch Discussion Board [ JonBenét Ramsey Discussion ] [... .... [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE Justice Watch Lobby The opinions... justicewatch.hispeed.com/jwforum/jonbenet/5005.html - 65k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from justicewatch.hispeed.com ] Steve Thomas: Unedited Transcript (Part 3) ... shana The highlight shifts Angie Steve will you come to Justice... ...JFK Assassination JonBenet Ramsey Justice the Law Juvenile Justice... crime.about.com/newsissues/crime/library/blfiles/blthomas3.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages jameson245's Page ...01:41 PM (EST) Going to the Justice Watch, I think the 3rd or 4th... ...collective sense of fairness and justice is perverted. Second, the small... www.crosswinds.net/~jameson245/7p/7page26.html - 84k - Cached - Similar pages In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 6 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. The first search, without the "", had 500+results! But, you've been posting longer than I. Do you think it strange that ONLY the Fleet White threads are up on the internet search engines? I do. Darby, good advice. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "FOR THE RECORD" Posted by Holly on 08:31:04 8/28/2000 Fleet White or his representatives may not reprint or reproduce in any way any of my internet posts. If any of my posts appear in the body of documentation offered in support of criminal charges sought against members of the media, remove them immediately. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Ah, guess what" Posted by Watching you on 09:59:53 8/28/2000 y'all. This is the internet we are talking about, isn't it? I mean, not to get confrontational or anything, but what were you thinking when you hit that Post your Message button? That the results of that little tap on your mouse would be a neat little isolated post on the JW forum? The internet is global, folks, and humans from the United States and around the world are reading what we post. We can make all kinds of statements as to the privacy of our posts, but the fact is, they are not private. Once we hit that little button that sends our private thoughts into a public forum for all to read, all bets are off. It is post at your own peril, I think. It may be sort of like, once you've made your posts public, you don't own them anymore - they can be republished by anyone and used by anyone who wants to use them. Now, I don't know this as fact, but I think there are few, if any, laws that cover internet forum postings, and it may post at your own peril at this point. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "WY" Posted by darby on 10:26:12 8/28/2000 I know what you are saying. But what I am saying is that we have a new phenomenon here. In the past, NONE of our JW threads EVER have gone out on the general Internet. Sure, anyone could always get to them by logging onto JW first. But now, "clickable" JW threads are on the Internet and can be accessed via a search engine directly. This is new. Specifically, the threads involved are ONLY those that have been consolidated at ACR--and all of them have to do with FW/MW. The obvious question that comes to my mind is--Is it okay (or legal) for ACR to just reuse the threads this way? Beyond that, the question I have is--Is there a way to get these threads into ACR without having them available on the general Internet--much the way JW is set up? If so, then I wish this would be done. I have never posted with the thought that my post was going to be searchable on the general Internet. I don't like the fact that this now is happening. And no, to answer your question, I certainly can't control everyone, and it's true that absolutely anyone could do the very thing that was done at ACR. But I think I have a legitimate complaint and have a right to ask that ACR find a way to gather this information without causing JW threads to get put onto the general Internet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Well that and" Posted by Holly on 10:35:28 8/28/2000 how come they are the FW/MW threads? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "this is quite odd..." Posted by mame on 10:56:28 8/28/2000 in line with some poster's suggestion that i'm an unknown...only a few weeks ago entering "mame" in a search engine brought zilch. a couple weeks ago my kids were goofing around and searching for different names in the family. they did, "mary suma" and "mame"...both brought up a slew of mystery woman audio reports, etc. this was done on yahoo, i believe. i assumed toppcat was doing his magic again! go figure...makes sense that if my source is correct in telling me the majority of the 600 pages is internet posts to show how the media reports influenced discussions on fleet white...that blanketing the web with those reports would be in order. our discussions on the internet are no different in my opinion than coffee shop, barber shop, and backyard discussions. hey, this is america, we get to talk and express our opinions! ain't that grand! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Well, I take this seriously." Posted by Holly on 11:06:29 8/28/2000 Fleet White and his reps are not authorized to use my posts to bolster his criminal libel complaint. If the bulk of the data is internet posts, his 600 page motherlode is more of a waste of the Court's time then I thought. How about this? That ransom note is pretty darn long and convoluted and phony. Just like EVERYTHING Fleet White writes. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "WOW..." Posted by shadow on 10:52:33 8/28/2000 I'm famous! My ravings are floating around on the Internet... is this my 15 minutes of fame? lol shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Darby and Holly" Posted by Watching you on 11:16:27 8/28/2000 and Shadow, LOL. I haven't bothered to go look to see if any of mine made it - it's like, whatev. Darby and Holly: I don't know why only the MW/FW threads made it there. My organized mind leads me to some possibilities, but no conclusions, because I simply have no way of knowing. It is possible that someone is compiling the MW/FW threads for nefarious or innocent reasons. They are arbitrary threads, as you know, and arbitrary sells. There may be yet other reasons that I won't go into here, but it doesn't take much to figure out where I am with this one. When one considers the content of many of these MW/FW threads, by putting two and two together, one might come up with some theories about who and why. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "ACR, comments?" Posted by mary99 on 11:04:49 8/28/2000 Chris, did you know when you gave permission for ACR to use these threads for her Subculture Pages, that certain threads, and apparently only certain subjects and posters, would be specifically entered in search engines? Funny, when I put Watching You + Fleet White into Google, this is what I got: Google results 1-2 of 2 for Watching You + Fleet Wwhite. Search took 0.52 seconds. The Travels of Jim & Wendy White in South Africa ...table, was a card with the message, "For you . . . Okwakho . . . echoes... ...to stay around, just to find out if you were a potential meal! Despite... www.interlog.com/~wwhite/safrica.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages The Travels of Jim & Wendy White in Australia Revisited ...Driving back to Yulara Resort, watching the display of merging colours in... ...termites eating their rotting centres. (If you press the centre arrow,... www.interlog.com/~wwhite/austral2.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages For the record, I also expect any redisribution of copywrighted threads to cease. I never gave my consent to have them archived on the general internet, nor did I expect my name to be entered into a search engine. If this isn't enough to convince others of White's nefarious motives, wake up and smell the coffee! Chris, what is your opinion on this? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Geez" Posted by Anderson on 11:08:07 8/28/2000 Seems to me that several of you guys have gone totally paranoid. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Calm down, calm down" Posted by hareen on 06:47:15 8/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:47:15, 8/29/2000 before this goes the way of the Whitecalfs. (Or Whitecalves, I guess it is? Do you do that with a proper name?) I agree with Anderson and shana. I don't think there is anything sinister going on here, or that it's unique to ACR. I searched a few "hats" at google and got posts on a number of forums. Maybe google has just started searching forums. Excite used to do that. You could search by a poster's hat and get a post, just like this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Go ACR!" Posted by Lacey on 11:24:55 8/28/2000 LOL Wilton, ya got that right. People. Listen to yourselves. WAH! Pay back's a bitch, isn't it Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Hahaha" Posted by Watching you on 11:21:42 8/28/2000 so who gave you permission to search for Watching you + FW, Mary99? Just kidding. Who cares? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "calm down, folks" Posted by fly on 12:08:51 8/28/2000 Depending on the search engine used, this sort of thing has been possible all along. Years ago I used Alta Vista and had all sorts of forum threads pulled up when searching using a poster's hat. Given that this was back in BNF days, I seriously doubt that the posters' hats were intentionally "plugged into" anything with the purpose of being able to search for them. ACandyRose has archived all sorts of things. She has threads related to the "death" and "ressurection" of Curious/dimwit/Robin/etc., for example. She tends to document "notable" episodes in forum activities. To view this as anything more than documenting a notable period in JBR forum history is probably unjustified. Nobody has any right, IMO, to complain that what they have posted on a public, anybody can read, forum, is relevant to a legal case and is used in that case to prove a point. We all have been told time and again how the DA, cops, journalists, etc. read JW, that JW is the "forum of record," etc. That means we have a wider audience than the 50 or people who actually post. Good grief! We've had threads giving advice to the BPD, appeals to the Gov, and various others. Seems like some here intend for others to "use" JW threads. So why can't FW use public JW threads? Because he's not your favorite person? If ST were involved in a lawsuit and some of your JW threads would be useful to his side of the case, would you be caterwauling like you are now? I doubt it. Face it, folks. You post here, anybody and his dog can read it, copy it, and use it (within copyright limitations). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Ditto, fly..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 14:22:58 8/28/2000 ..I have used AltaVista, deja, and egosurf to find many "hats" and have also used the real names of posters to find a lot more on the internet. Whatever gave some of you the idea that your posts would never show up on a search engine?? Such naivete! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "This is routine" Posted by LizzieB on 11:52:18 8/28/2000 Ever since I've been here (since day 1) it's been the case that if you put a poster's nick in some search engines, you're going to bring up the different threads that poster posted on. This is nothing new! Perhaps it is new at google, I don't know. It's seldom that I put a poster's name in a search engine. Usually there is a lag time of several months or longer after a thread has been made before a search engine picks up on it. Different search engines send out bots all over the web to record this information. There is tremendous competition between seach engines to have the most complete data base. It's the nature of the WWW. And it's not copyright infringement. GET OVER IT! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "WY" Posted by mary99 on 11:38:59 8/28/2000 My point is that YOUR threads aren't linked to your hat on google. Good luck to those who think they put ME in hot water. Obviously, it took some doing to enter my name and the FW/MW threads in a search engine. Are you saying that each and every poster, on every thread, on every subject ever 'documented' by ACR is now searchable on google? It's not quite that 'innocent'. No, I'm not paranoid. I'm wondering whose idea of a 'joke' this was. Or is Fleet White trying to change the way we get our news? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "*" Posted by v_p on 11:52:28 8/28/2000 O M G grip [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "for the heck of it" Posted by Longhorn on 11:49:25 8/28/2000 I did a search on Longhorn and FW, it pulled up some old, old, BNF posts. As it shows, at that time, I respected a certain poster's right to hir beliefs, but respectfully disagreed. I was wrong about that, as well as my forcast at the end. Oh well. The thing is, anything we put on the web is there for all to see, no holds barred. It's not up to Chris, it's up to each of us to know what the world wide web is about.: FROM: Longhorn EMAIL: 12;10cst LOCATION: DATE: Sunday May 11, 1997 Morning all, interesting day. Happy Mothers day to all! jameson, sorry you are taking a bashing, and I'll defend your right to post, but have to admit, I'm with Rockford and "serious". I just think the fact than arrest hasn't been made does not mean they do not know who did it. I think the OJ case has changed all high profile cases. I think instead of making an arrest and then building the court case, the court case is going to have to be nailed down before an arrest is made. All the more reason to suspect the R's is the fact that the police feel no need to rush the arrest, they know or feel that this was an accident/error killing and that no one else is at risk. That is my opinion as it stands now. I also feel that there have been separate investigations going on all along, we all learned with the Susan Smith case that you must first treat it like a true kidnapping, but also never assume anything.The police traveled to check out Eustache(sp? :) I agree, from what we know apparently some parts of the investigation were compromised in the early hours, but we just don't know to what extent. I think we are watching an escalation of psych warfare, and I also believe it is coming to a close. I feel certain it will not be much longer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Am I to Understand..." Posted by shadow on 11:48:27 8/28/2000 that Al Gore discovered the Internet and FW now controls it? Does this mean he is the one I have to plead with for my 15 minutes of fame? This is getting to complex for my simple brain. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Shadow" Posted by 1000Sparks on 12:10:08 8/28/2000 I think you are onto something here. You explained it so well that now I understand. Mary99, are you saying you think Fleet wrote the ransom letter? WOW !!!!!!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Google" Posted by Watching you on 12:07:31 8/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:07:31, 8/28/2000 Shadow, you'd better figure it out quickly - tick, tick, tick. Mary99 You asked: *Are you saying that each and every poster, on every thread, on every subject ever documented' by ACR is now searchable on google?* My answer: No, I didn't say that, nor did I imply that. Until today, I didn't even know this google site existed, since I know everything and don't have to search for information, LOL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Good old Google!" Posted by Ev on 12:17:43 8/28/2000 As a matter of fact, just last week I was fooling around with it too, and entered various family names. Put in Mr. Ev's mother's maiden name, and found her family history going back to 1749! Can you imagine? Will update through the generation most recently deceased, because I think that's great. We had a lot of it, but not that far back. Have any of you put in your real name? I did that and was more than startled to see several entries, including donations, etc. that Mr. Ev and I had made. I'm not so sure I like that, but realistically, anything that sits here is game for a search engine, don't you think? That's the nature of the beast. I guess the only way to prevent that is to curl up and die, but then, darn it, your obit will be there! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "This is recent, folks" Posted by mary99 on 12:37:21 8/28/2000 Look, my posts aside, this was not set up like this even a week ago. If Fleet White is compiling a 'dead list' of his very own, doesn't it stand to reason that he would WANT to put those posts and names up to show how far and wide he is being discussed? Either some of you are missing the point, or you just don't get it. I get it...coming soon to a search engine near you...Fleet White threads, Mystery Woman threads, private emails, passwords, lists of hat names, don't you folks have a clue? Gee, I wonder when the documenting of Cybersleuths will go up online. Now that's a forum to be proud of! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Mary99" Posted by Anderson on 12:39:14 8/28/2000 Look to the sky. That black helicopter should be flying over any minute now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Anderson" Posted by mary99 on 12:45:00 8/28/2000 LOL! Are you piloting? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "OK, EV..." Posted by shadow on 12:33:37 8/28/2000 Now you've really gotten me interested in this Google thing - how do I do it? shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "I'm calm now, but still troubled" Posted by darby on 12:59:20 8/28/2000 On the heels of learning that FW had compiled 600 pages of stuff, presumably including internet posts, I admittedly WAS paranoid when I found thread after thread out on the Internet bearing my name. Then I realized that I was wasting my time worrying about it. Fact is, FW ALREADY has everything anyone has ever said--including me--about MW, so why try to lock the barn door after the horses have already escaped? (or whatever that cliche is) However, this issue goes beyond Fleet White and MW, at least for me. The truth is that threads or authors on our forum are NOT usually searchable on the internet and they never have been--that is, UNLESS someone hooks them to an address identifier, using a utility such as tripod, to produce a unique address. I think that's what happened here--a common hook was attached to the MW/FW threads for the purposes of providing a common link to the MW/FW site at ACR. As I said before, I'm GLAD these things are together somewhere, so long as the threads are being used for the common good. What bothers me is the fact that the threads and posts are out on the internet. I was proposing that I think it would be great if ACR could find another way to pull threads together without having to have them out on the internet. That's all. I ask you all to forget the FW/MW thing for a minute and answer if IN GENERAL you mind having anything (or everything) you post at JW searchable on the internet by anyone at all, just by doing a search on your name. Maybe it doesn't bother anyone else, but it does me. And like I said, maybe I'll get over it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Shadow" Posted by Anderson on 12:34:52 8/28/2000 Go to http://www.google.com [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Mary99" Posted by hareen on 12:52:43 8/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:52:43, 8/28/2000 Posts from Cybersleuths ARE on there. I got a lot of those. Try this: pick an unusual hat from CS -- somebody who has been posting a while and run a search on it. See if you don't get results at CS. I understand completely why y'all got all excited about this at first, but really, it's okay. And, NO, I DON'T think FW would want all these posts to come up if somebody searched his name! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Demand factor" Posted by janphi on 12:48:21 8/28/2000 There's also a demand factor on engines like google. The more someone puts in a search subject--that is, the more times a certain name or term comes up in anonymous, random, everyday searching--the higher priority the engine's 'bot or crawler or whatever puts on that certain name or term. I imagine FW's investigators or the BPD (if they are not one and the same) put in the search terms a couple of times and saw others and picked those up and searched them. Thus, a lot of activity in a very short time on the FW's name, initials, MW, posters and their hats and so forth. I work with google everyday and these JBR forum posts just started coming up in the past 2-3 weeks. Chances are, when this dies down, they will go back to very low priority and you'll be hard pressed to find the same posts in the search engines then. I've noticed lots of rotation on certain searches I do--never the same items or in the same order on subsequent searches. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Mary99" Posted by Watching you on 12:46:24 8/28/2000 notice you seem to be one of the very few who is concerned about this - wonder why? I'm not concerned. I've done nothing to be concerned about. Have you? As for CS, you don't like it there because they've all got your number. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "what's next.." Posted by Dianne E. on 12:56:31 8/28/2000 ..now that they have discovered search engines, LOL. I guess the moral of the story is when you click the enter button make sure you are able to stand behind your rants. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Janphi is right" Posted by Anderson on 13:04:50 8/28/2000 Notice the Cache option on the links that are returned on a search on Google. Click on it and you'll see something like this: "This is likely not the most recent version. Click here for the current page without highlighting. This is Google's cache of jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05122000WhiteSpeakPartDeux5132.htm. To show your matches, we have used the snapshot of this page that we took as we crawled the web. Google is not affiliated with the authors of cached pages or their content." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Dianne E." Posted by darby on 13:04:40 8/28/2000 Nothing to do with that, at least for me. My point is that I post at Justice Watch, and in general, that's where I have intended them to stay. (And NOT just my FW posts.) LOL--would this mean I'm a public figure now? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Kind of stupid " Posted by Seeker on 13:18:24 8/28/2000 to worry about any of this isn't it? I mean, really, here we are posting on a public forum for the whole world to see and some of you are acting paranoid! Like your posts weren't there for the entire world to see anyway. God Mary99, you are so full of conspiracy thoughts it's no wonder you're scared chitless. LOL I doubt FW cares what is posted about him by people he's never met and wouldn't care to meet in the first place. He wouldn't waste his time, money, or the resources to try and locate us. It would cost him more than he could recover. Relax, posting our "opinions" doesn't make it true and he would have no cause to come after anyone here. If ANYONE wanted to copy these posts and threads of ours there is nothing we can do about it. Period. We are giving this (posting threads) info out to the public of our own free will. Moral, if you don't want your "thoughts/posts" out there on the general internet, quit posting. EVERYTHING you post, be it e-mail, threads, etc. is able to be located and read by ANYONE who has the knowledge or skill to pull it out of cyber-space. Absolutely everything creates a "file" of some type. Get over it, or quit posting. Just my 2-bits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "darby" Posted by hareen on 13:07:26 8/28/2000 Just look at the bright side -- your posts are always well thought out and interesting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "hareen & Anderson" Posted by darby on 13:19:39 8/28/2000 hareen--thanks :-) Anderson, somehow I have trouble reading some of your posts. Could you type a little bigger? :-) My point is that those threads would NEVER have been "out there" on the Internet like they currently are had ACR not gathered them together into a common link. It's not google's "fault"--not even ACR's "fault". It's just that ACR's method makes them searchable on the internet. It bugs me. I don't know why, but it does. I have a feeling that unless somebody gets nasty about copyright infringement (which I have no intention of doing), I'm just going to have to live with this. But I don't like it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Darby" Posted by Anderson on 13:27:26 8/28/2000 >My point is that those threads >would NEVER have been "out there" >on the Internet like they currently >are had ACR not gathered them >together into a common link. It's >not google's "fault"--not even ACR's "fault". > It's just that ACR's method >makes them searchable on the internet. > It bugs me. I >don't know why, but it does. Sorry, but you're wrong about that. Here are a couple of links that popped up on a Google search that are from JW when the forum was on the hispeed.com server: "Mystery Woman part 2" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- Powered by DCForum98 ...6/04/2000, (#57) We only have Fleet White's , Holly, 21:03:40,... ...Summon the Fleet, Lacey, 14:41:24, 6/04/2000, (#56) Ginja, darby,... justicewatch.hispeed.com/jwforum/jonbenet/5366.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages "Sound Off On Fleet White" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- ...Discussion Board "Sound Off On Fleet White" [ Main ] [ Help ] [... ...................... Sound Off On Fleet White, Nandee, 10:31:30,... justicewatch.hispeed.com/jwforum/jonbenet/5450.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from justicewatch.hispeed.com ] Fact is, if it's on the internet, PERIOD, regardless of whether it's a forum or a thread that someone has saved and placed on a web site, Google will find it, sooner or later. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "darby" Posted by fly on 13:23:07 8/28/2000 It is quite possible that those threads WOULD have been out and searchable without ACR "collecting" them. Did you see the post by Longhorn or me up above. Using certain search engines, forum threads have always been available, and not just when collected on somebody's personal web pages. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Well, FWIW" Posted by mary99 on 14:22:09 8/28/2000 First, for Fleet White to try to prove criminal libel by using unauthorized, illegally obtained, copyrighted posts, without going to MW as the source...he's a fool...subject to prosecution. Second, Chris owns the threads and the posters own their posts. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited by copyright. As some have pointed out, anything on the web becomes fair game. That's fine and dandy if you are reading at your home computer what I had to say about White. However, to base a criminal libel complaint on STOLEN, improperly obtained threads, is a crime...and not what any competent legal counsel would advise. I say now, I hereby order Fleet White, and any and all who may be acting on his behalf, to desist from use in whole or in part, any of my posts. Express written consent has not been granted, nor has distribution been authorized. Thirdly, if he wants to accuse me, mary99, of libel, I suggest that he base his criminal libel complaint against MW first, and then enlist the BPD to legallysubpoena any and all threads which reflect my belief in the validity of MW's allegations, based on her own account. Last, those who seek to make Fleet White appear maligned by the nature, content or tone of my posts, are forgetting that on every referenced thread, I've been in the minority. Post after post preceeding and following mine are filled with pro-White defenses to my arguments and praise for Fleet White. IOW, the threads themselves prove by their essential content, that the vast majority of JW posters think Fleet White is a hero. NOT the way to make a case for criminal libel, IMO. And, any posts used as a supporting document in a criminal libel complaint must be shown in context. My individual posts are not admissible in and of themselves. Those who linked JW Fleet White and Mystery Woman threads to web meta-tags have, by distributing the threads, basically endorsed the content, BTW. To desseminate material known to be false, for the purpose of malicious defamation is the essence of what criminal libel is all about. To hold one's opinion is not. Consider this: That a poster would attempt to aid Fleet White's criminal libel complaint by purposely distributing what they believe is false and/libelous is a crime in and of itself. In a nitwit attempt to show that White has been libeled, someone has decided to distribute the material, attempting to saturate the web with statements they believe to be false. Think about it. Is this not like setting one's own house afire to sue the electrician? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "fly, Anderson " Posted by darby on 13:58:19 8/28/2000 My contention is that there are NO JW threads that are internet searchable UNLESS someone adds a link. The whole reason those FW/MW threads are searchable right now is because they were linked together at ACR. If they hadn't been, google would never have found them, even if they still existed in their original format at JW. I believe this is true because I've tried to do searches on JW threads many, many times in the past and never with success. Anderson, I would also think that the other ones you found had had a link added (though not by ACR), or were never just a regular thread in a forum but were created as an internet link to begin with. I just wish there was another way. I would think that all kinds of things could be just read and taken out of context if someone isn't familiar with JW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "LMAO" Posted by Starling on 14:23:03 8/28/2000 Not at no one in particular - I'm just trying to visualize some DA reading through all those posts regarding White. You guys we are a popular hang out for case followers, however, we do not represent the general population. Don't kid yourselves. I see peoples claws are coming out already on this thread. That's a shame.... Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Dear Darby..." Posted by ibnora on 14:13:04 8/28/2000 you are flat out, unequivocally wrong. Your friend, ibnora [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Anderson" Posted by darby on 14:19:19 8/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:19:19, 8/28/2000 Well, after looking at them again I can't say for absolute certain that those threads you found weren't somehow made into addressable google links. They are obviously from JW. There have always been one or two stragglers that have seemingly always been out there, but I don't know about these ones you found. At any rate, I've never seen so many JW threads come up all at once, and it kind of took me aback. edit: I think it's true that ACR's link makes those threads internet addressable, but I can't say for certain that there is no other way to do this with other forum threads. All I can say is that zillions upon cajillions of JW threads have never been readily accessible directly from the internet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Darby" Posted by Anderson on 14:20:25 8/28/2000 Go to Google and do a search on "justicewatch.hispeed.+com". I promise you'll find links that aren't related to you, Fleet White, or the Mystery Woman. The actual links won't work. You'll have to click on the "Cached" part to view the threads. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Well I only " Posted by Holly on 14:45:23 8/28/2000 got about 24 results. Some were jameson's and then I saw MW. Looks like the "deck" is stacked to me, unless someone can figure out how this works. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "ibnora, my friend" Posted by darby on 14:18:12 8/28/2000 Then explain. I'm no internet expert and I'd like to know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Dear Darby 2" Posted by ibnora on 14:39:16 8/28/2000 Dear Darby There is nothing to explain - just that threads from all forums and bulletin boards have come up regularly for years, depending on the search engine you use and what you are searching for. It has been explained to you over and over again in this very thread Simply put, the Internet was originally designed as nothing more than a huge information database, usable by people all over the globe. One does not have to be an expert to understand this simple concept. Threads and posts come up routinely. I guess that when one is worried about being charged with libel, or treason, or other transgressions, one might tend to notice it more. Your friend, ibnora [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "ibnora" Posted by LurkerXIV on 14:52:25 8/28/2000 :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Yes, ibnora." Posted by Holly on 14:35:35 8/28/2000 Exactly how does this work? How come when I search Holly and Patsy Ramsey I don't get anything? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Dear Holly" Posted by ibnora on 15:15:41 8/28/2000 Firstly, you must look at how often you actually talk about "Patsy Ramsey". More often, you probably use "PR", or maybe some other abbreviation. Very few posters actually spell out her full name so it is unlikely that the combination of Holly and Patsy Ramsey will show up in a single document. Secondly, "Holly" is a fairly common name. So, if for instance, you were to enter Holly + PR you might get about 21,000 hits. Enter Holly + MW and you would get about 2,900. Enter Holly + Patsy Ramsey you would get 37 but not all the references to Holly would be about you. Of course, all of this depends on which search engine you use and it depends on how often the engine scours the web. I hope this helps. Your friend, ibnora [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Thanks, Ibnora" Posted by Holly on 15:19:20 8/28/2000 Do I have to use +? Are the numbers you used what you got off a search? I used GOOGLE and got 24 hits for holly Patsy. All Patsy Cline and Buddy Holly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "JUSTICE WATCH DISCUSSION BOARD" Posted by Morgan on 15:14:21 8/28/2000 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, 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 JUSTICEWATCH IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. Users of this site are subject to our User Agreement. This legal disclaimer is seen every time a member logs on to JW. Some posters are saying that the rules embodied in these statements do not need to be followed. In the next breath they claim to be outraged that John and Patsy Ramsey feel that they are above the rules that the majority of citizens are expected to, and do, obey. It's obviously time to have a discussion of the rules of this forum with Chris. In the meantime, I am giving notice to Fleet White and any of his representatives, and to all members of Justice Watch, and anyone else, that any reproduction of my posts may only be done with the permission of Justice Watch. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "Dear Morgan" Posted by ibnora on 15:34:49 8/28/2000 Two simple concepts for you to understand: 1] Copyrights do not preclude an item appearing in a search engine. Search engines do not need anyone's permission to include them in a search. 2] A victim of libel (for instance) has every right under the law to use in a legal action the copyrighted material that defames him/her. Cordially, ibnora [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Don't Understand..." Posted by shadow on 15:14:07 8/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:14:07, 8/28/2000 I'm having a "senior moment" - are some people here worried about being sued, or are they worried that FW will use JW posts to prove that his reputation has been smeared? Edited to add - see mame's post #29 on "...Wise Says..." thread. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "shadow" Posted by lake on 15:27:30 8/28/2000 You never understand. Go back to sleep. You could hurt yourself if you tried to understand this mess at your age. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "sued?" Posted by darby on 15:26:14 8/28/2000 NO, I'm not worried about being sued by the Whites, though I suppose it looks as if I am. I don't think the Whites are suing anyone, and if they did, it wouldn't be internet posters. I just don't like seeing our JW posts on the internet. I never had before, and suddenly they are legion. Nora, it's a question of degree. There have been a very small handful of posts that have come up on searches in the past, but never anything like this, at least in my experience. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "That's not to say" Posted by darby on 15:38:47 8/28/2000 that I like the thought of the Whites using JW posts to prove criminal libel. I don't! But I think he's only attempting to use the posts as his proof that the Boulder Daily Camera led people to believe he had done bad things in the past. That's a far cry from suing posters for discussing what was in the publication. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Darby" Posted by Anderson on 15:34:53 8/28/2000 Where are you seeing Justice Watch posts that aren't on the internet. Somewhere on the back of a cereal box? Maybe enclosed in the latest mailing from Publisher's Clearing House? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "Anderson....ROFL!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 16:04:18 8/28/2000 ...you baaaad boy! This place is a constant source of amusement. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "LurkerXIV" Posted by Anderson on 16:14:10 8/28/2000 My head hurts! LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "Anderson" Posted by darby on 15:42:41 8/28/2000 I'm saying that I am constantly doing searches regarding this case on the internet, usually using google. And I have NEVER come upon any Justice Watch posts before. Until last night, when I got FORTY in one search. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "You guys" Posted by darby on 15:56:30 8/28/2000 are TOTALLY misunderstanding me. I know some of you love to hate me, but you have missed the mark on what I'm trying to say. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 105. "Darby..." Posted by PegB on 16:28:56 8/28/2000 ...I love you... I think I understand what you are saying, "I'm saying that I am constantly doing searches regarding this case on the internet, usually using google. And I have NEVER come upon any Justice Watch posts before. Until last night, when I got FORTY in one search." ...perhaps you think the reason these didn't show up until now is because now someone has archived them altogether or has gathered them for their own research reasons? ibnora and others are telling you this is probably not true, most likely google.com just expanded their data bases, this expansion is going on daily. Not every search engine has the same areas of data base they retrieve from, this is why Yahoo may give you 3000 hits for eggplant and Excite may only have 300. This may also explain why Excite my have 30,000 eggplant hits next week if they increase their retrieval area, or if someone already in their area writes a novel about eggplant. It is true what many have tried to explain is that when you post to JW or make a web page your thoughts are OUT there, if there are copywrite laws you have truely applied to your writings, then it would be against the law for others to use them w/o your permisson, but I think that applies to garnering income from your stuff, not sure about that. But trust me your stuff is out there, maybe some little Chinese housewife has Darby posts for wall paper in her kitchen. This is a good thread because it makes us stop and remember how many millions of eyes could be reading our posts - and Darby I agree with someone who posted above, your posts are always thoughtful, so don't worry..... ;-) Remember BIG BROTHER is watching... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "Well :)" Posted by canadiana on 16:20:22 8/28/2000 From where I sit, if I want a recipe, let's say for Eggs Benedict, I enter "eggs benedict" or eggs +benedict on a search engine and I will find recipe sites, cookbook sites, famous chefs, AND message board posts! I got my computer in 1996 I think and it has ALWAYS worked this way for me. So everything, everywhere, on the internet is available using one search engine or another and always has been, in my experience. These forums are message boards, or bulletin boards, much like bulletin boards in schools, laundromats or grocery stores. Some POSTS (posted for all to view) want to sell something, advertise fundraisers, or meet potential partners. A bulletin board is a PUBLIC FORUM. Perhaps this is why so many posters have been outraged by posts slandering named individuals over and over again. JMO of course. :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "Ibnora" Posted by Morgan on 16:16:58 8/28/2000 I absolutely agree with you. It's called fair use, and it has nothing to do with my point. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Lake..." Posted by shadow on 16:11:01 8/28/2000 Personal insults are not allowed on this forum - your post will be deleted shortly!!! BTW, you told me to leave you alone about three months ago and I have not responded to one of your posts since. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 104. "BTW Shadow" Posted by Seeker on 16:27:45 8/28/2000 Lake just loves to insult and get a rise out of people. Maybe we'll get lucky and Lake and Rascal (A.K.A. MaskedMan) will go back to jams to post. I agree, insulting others just makes them look like they feel intimidated and shows how small they are. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 106. "Shadow" Posted by Colorado-an on 16:42:56 8/28/2000 I just want to take a moment to tell you how much I appreciate your intellectual and well thought out posts. You always have the voice of reason and I always read all your posts. Wish we had lots more posters like you. Keep up the good work :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 107. "What's next?" Posted by mary99 on 17:44:21 8/28/2000 I can't wait to see everyone's email's turn up in a search engine. hehehe, they're already on the web, right? Anderson, thank you so much for guiding this discussion. My, you are a fountain of useful information today. And you even stayed up late last night to express your interest. To those at cybersleuths, perhaps your posts will make it into a Hall of Shame somewhere soon. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 108. "Mary99" Posted by Anderson on 17:55:37 8/28/2000 I didn't really stay up late last night solely for the purpose of this thread. I just happened to catch it and jumped in. I'd hoped to nip Darby's suspicions(?) in the bud by trying to explain what she'd found. Who'd have thought this thread would have taken off the way it did? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 109. "A Candy Rose Speaks..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 19:45:34 8/28/2000 ...and tries to put the record straight: http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/InternetForumParanoia29792.htm At this point, I am very sad that Chris and BJ have had so much trouble just because of a couple of airhead posters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 110. "ibnora" Posted by Colorado-an on 22:16:59 8/28/2000 Great Post! Your friend, Colorado-an [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 112. "Comment" Posted by mary99 on 00:29:07 8/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:29:07, 8/29/2000 I've noticed that some people either want to pretend they don't know what I'm talking about, or, they really don't have a clue. Darby said: I think it's true that ACR's link makes those threads internet addressable, but I can't say for certain that there is no other way to do this with other forum threads. All I can say is that zillions upon cajillions of JW threads have never been readily accessible directly from the internet. **** Certain Internet experts here have stated that once something is written, it is out there, everywhere, for anyone to read. I beg to differ. To find 'justice watch' on google is easy. You will get a link to the Justice Watch SITE, our FORUM, and not archived threads...unless they're on a server, like ACR, where the threads are linked into a search engine. ACR had 'documented' the hot button issues for the benefit of all, but ultimately it was against our best interests. I'm not going to blame ACandyRose for putting up the Timeline, or a particular poster or group of posters for its demise -- but the end result is that the threads are too contentious to leave up on an Internet server...accessible on google. I read the ACR 'Paranoia' page and it quite frankly looks the other way as far as explaining what really happened. It tells 'a' story of JW posters up in arms over 'nothing'. ACR did not present both sides of the story. She makes no acknowledgement of WHY posters are feeling upset...presenting their feeling as 'Paranoia'. She bears some of the blame if she keyworded 'Fleet White' and 'Mystery Woman' into a search engine. She closed her public forum the night this seach engine stuff went on, and again made no reference to the two events possibly being linked. Is not the discovery of 40+ threads linked to a poster's name for the first time ever, when the ACR went PRIVATE only hours before significant? She edited that part right out of my post. So, how is that 'presenting both sides' of the Internet Subculture? In the end, I believe the Timeline, because of the issue of copyright and useage, and the purposeful infringement of other's rights by a few, could not continue. This 'Internet Paranoia' business was NOT a graceful exit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 111. "..." Posted by shana on 22:33:06 8/28/2000 This is WAY silly. Lay-off BJ...she doesn't own Google. Dear nora, another tiramisu for you! Doesn't anybody here use deja? What is usenet, what is the WWW, what is email? What is the Internet??? LOL, lotsa stuff out there...FIND IT! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 113. "LOL...." Posted by Pedro on 00:10:10 8/29/2000 ......Mary and Darby, get over, anyone can read in JW, this is the net. Chris whatever decission you made was right. Good one Nora. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 114. ".....well" Posted by jonesy on 00:19:04 8/29/2000 .....this is the funniest thread I have read for alooooooong time - LMAO - so many meltdowns.....so little time - what is really funny is WHO is melting down the fastest ! sparki should read this thread to her chickens and they would lay umpteen dozen eggs ....hahahahaha [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 115. "It may seem silly to you" Posted by mary99 on 00:44:20 8/29/2000 ...but I and Darby felt a certain degree of ...betrayal, perhaps? Anyone CAN read here, but they must come to the Justice Watch forum to do so. Would you be equally amused to find the WOR threads up on a google search under your name? Also, not every poster was represented on the threads. For instance, Anderson + justice watch : Google results 1-10 of about 34,800 for Anderson + justice watch. Search took 0.74 seconds. Categories: Mature Content News > Online Archives > Wired > 1999 > Worldwatch Price Watch(r) - Street Price Search Engine Search Engine that covers Computer Component Street Description: The original online price guide. Includes prices on virtually all PC hardware as well as some consumer... Category: Home > Consumer Information > Reviews > Price Comparisons > Computer Equipment www.pricewatch.com/ - 4k - Cached - Similar pages Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey? ...interesting thread over at Justice Watch, by Anderson.... ...interesting thread over at Justice Watch by Dawn. Def. food for... www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb418140 - 101k - Cached - Similar pages Shielded from Justice: About Human Rights Watch ...Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United... ...in the United States HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH CONTENTS OVERVIEW... www.igc.org/hrw/reports98/police/uspo03.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages The New ECSF - - Your Ministry ...Transitional House, operated by Justice Watch, is Cincinnati's... ...Michael and All Angels hosted a Justice Watch conference in 1997.... www.episcopal-dso.org/pages/intercha/9903ecsf.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages New Page ... Justice Department has not even questioned Huang. Judicial Watch... ...to "Main" Justice. See Judicial Watch's Request,... www.ernstwiley.com/cahig/jwreportnotes.htm - 67k - Cached - Similar pages psalm ...CHRISTMAS TREES Thank you Anderson of Justice Watch for... ...Ramsey Thank you Starling of Justice Watch for your research here.... www.webbsleuthss.com/psalm.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages The Supreme Court After 1951: The Separate Supreme Court ...year, and on Chief justice Christie's watch, they increased to... ...New Jersey court system, Chief Justice Vanderbilt once said that... courts.state.de.us/supreme/hist3.htm - 54k - Cached - Similar pages Impeachment ReportJudicial Watch Interim Report ...obstruction of justice and other criminality, Judicial Watch... ...Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committed by... www.uhuh.com/Starr/jwclint.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages Judicial Watch Interim Report ...obstruction of justice and other criminality, Judicial Watch... ...Impeachment Report Judicial Watch 9/28/98 Larry Klayman, et al Judicial... www.mega.nu/ampp/jw1.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages Judicial Watch Interim Report ...obstruction of justice and other criminality, Judicial Watch... ...Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committed by... 209.70.190.2/specials/interim_report/interim_HTML.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages Out of ten 'hits' on the first page, only two are actually Anderson at JW threads. Google results 1-2 of 2 for Ibnora + justice watch. Search took 0.04 seconds. "Is there more to the story?" DCScripts Discussion Forum -- Powered by ... Justice Watch Discussion Board "Is there more to the story?" [... ...Web Host, Webmaster or any Justice Watch member. The opinions and... jonbenet2000.tripod.com/05262000IsThereMoreToStory5290.htm - 71k - Cached - Similar pages JonBenet Ramsey - Mrs. Brady's URLs - JonBenét Ramsey Murder Investigation ...Mrs. Brady's Links EMail Mrs. Brady Watch Jann Scott on Boulder Community... ...Live, Boulder Community TV, 8 PM, MST (watch it live on the internet)... mrsbradys_archive.tripod.com/11021999MrsBradysURLs.htm - 38k - Cached - Similar pages Ibnora + justice watch produced two hits in the whole of the WWW. So you see why it upsets me that certain posters were selected out, and others, like me, were perhaps overrepresented at ACR's Timeline. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 116. "I say Googley-Eyes" Posted by mary99 on 04:20:03 8/29/2000 Webmeister Member Posts: 58 Registered: Mar 2000 posted 08-19-2000 06:48 AM Does Google get it's listings from another directory, such as LookSmart or Open Directory? I see new listings being added to Google every day under my preferred search terms, but I can't seem to get them to add any of mine when I submit them directly to Google. Are they pulling these new listings from somewhere else? If so, I'd like to know where so I can go and submit there. Thanks! Can anyone here help the Webmeister out? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 117. "aiy aiy aiy" Posted by Chris on 05:08:49 8/29/2000 Awhile back, ACandyRose asked me if she could republish the threads from Justice Watch on her site. I said she could. At the time, posters were looking for archive threads, I didn't have the time to gather and publish them and I didn't see that I would have that time in the near future. Unfortunately, only posting some of the threads that tell the stories ACandyRose sets out to tell doesn't republish our archives, it republishes some of our threads...and usually the most lively ones. Not necessarily threads that display the usual intelligent discourse from this forum. ;-) Also, it's not really clear to me whether I have the permission to give. The research I have done shows that the threads are mine but the posts are yours. What does that mean in this situation? I have no idea. The reason that Justice Watch threads haven't shown up in the archives before could be any number of things. First of all, none of the stuff from when the forum was Private would show up because those weren't HTML pages. Remember when we switched? It was because the Private forum data is stored in another format and when you request a thread, the forum software displays it. So, it's sort of creating an HTML page on the fly. TC wrote a good post explaining how that works awhile back. Wish I could find it. Based on my understanding of search engines like Google, they not only index on meta tag information (and, all search engines are different) but also the content of the page. Further, some search engines just pick out the words that have high usage and discard others as not relevant. So, let's say that there is a page with Fleet White's name on it 75 times and Mary99 appears 20 times and Florida (because that was the example used) appears one time. The words Fleet + White + Mary99 are likely to be indexed but possibly/probably not Florida. When you submit your site to a search engine like Google, you only submit the root site. For example, I wouldn't go through and submit each thread or page of this site - in fact, if I did that I would probably be kicked off the site for spamming their submission engine. So, I would submit the justicewatch.com URL and they would send a bot/spider to the site to gather and index the information at the site. I'm sure that, if she submitted her site, all ACandyRose submitted was her initial index page and the spider/bot did the rest of the indexing. Also, there is no guarantee when a search engine will reindex your site. Search engines sometimes go weeks without reindexing a site. The site owner has absolutely no control over that. There are multiple email lists and forums about the "science" of search engines and this type of stuff is exactly why...because there is a certain logic behind each search engine and people spend hours trying to understand each search engine's criteria for listing their site. If you're good at it, you can command a hefty price tag, also. There are people in businesses and that's all they do - submit to search engines. So, I guess what I'm saying is that no one is to blame for what Google decided to pick up and index in their search engine. There is also a file that can be included on the site that tells spiders "don't go into this directory" or "don't index the stuff in here" and when the forum was PRIVATE, just to be sure that the stuff didn't appear in search engines, I also had one of those. I really don't think there is anything sinister going on here by anyone involved. Speaking for myself, I know there isn't. I realize that by posting this earlier I could have possibly prevented the over-reaction...or not. I mean, lately when I try to do something to help, it only fans the flames. That, and I was trying to figure out what was the real issue here. I'm not totally certain I understand that, even yet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 118. "Whew!" Posted by Holly on 06:01:19 8/29/2000 If only I really understood this... Thanks Chris. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 119. "All I know" Posted by Watching you on 06:29:14 8/29/2000 is I never post anything I don't want anyone outside of this forum to see - WOR or otherwise. So, I'm not worried at all. Are you worried, Sparky? Lacey? Anderson? Jonesy? I hereby give anyone who wants to carry my posts to Timbucktoo or however you spell that place to have at it. I am honored that you think my posts worthy of publication. Yeeeeeeehhhhhaaaaaaaawwwww.............. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 120. "What Me Worried?" Posted by Lacey on 07:17:16 8/29/2000 No not much. And what's this, now we have Auntie BJ in the crosshairs? What's up with that, geez, some of you, you always have to have someone to target. It's time to get proactive. If FW can use the filth some of you posted about him as a result of an ambiguous BDC article more power to him. You are full of chit if you think he can't. Copyright infringement? LOL not likely. More like, poetic justice JfJBR Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 121. "Divide and Conquer" Posted by LurkerXIV on 08:00:39 8/29/2000 Nothing benefits the Ramseys more than divisiveness among the Anti-Rams forums. The RST is probably having a good laugh at this current Forum War, and are hoisting their champagne glasses to darby and mary99. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 122. "mary99.." Posted by Dianne E. on 08:08:39 8/29/2000 ..are you aware there is a spy center (saw it on 60 minutes, the name escapes me) that takes in every communication made? ..are you also aware that sitting in my home in Calif. I could be receiving your emails etc. and you would never know it (you would still receive them also)? Please do not call the FBI; I have NOT intercepted your communications. The sound of helicopters is so loud outside today, wait look, they are all black ones. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 124. "too bad" Posted by fly on 09:23:21 8/29/2000 I haven't examined ACR thoroughly enough to be able to evaluate how good and honest a job is being done laying out major forum events, but I think it is an interesting and worthwhile project. Assuming the threads were not being pruned so as to distort things significantly, I think it is too bad if JW thwarts the project by retracting use priviledges. Obviously, ACR isn't going to record the mundane (even if good) discussions. From what I've seen, ACR has focused on "notable" or major online events: Curious' death and ressurection, perhaps the rape fraud, the shower vision, etc. Those might not be seen as necessarily complimentary or representative of any particular forum or poster, but I don't think anybody can argue that they are not "notable." Newpaper headlines aren't exactly representative of life in the US, either. They focus only on the notable, not the routine things appearing on page 6 every day and that are usually more representative of most people's daily life. Still, those headline events are often important bits of history and frequentlly merit archiving. mary99 posted: ACR had 'documented' the hot button issues for the benefit of all, but ultimately it was against our best interests. I think that pretty clearly unveils the feelings behind this latest uproar. Self-interest and embarrassment. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 123. "All I want to know this morning is why" Posted by Holly on 09:21:27 8/29/2000 Madonna looks like a 40 yr old Cowboy's Sweetheart JonBenet wannabee in her new video. Scary. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 125. "ACR..." Posted by shadow on 09:45:42 8/29/2000 Hummmm... I believe some of my old "Sludge Reports" are over there. If someone is republishing them, I want money - where's the money? shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 126. "I am afraid, very afraid" Posted by 1000Sparks on 10:03:57 8/29/2000 Now everyone will know that I hang out on a plant forum and don't know where the seed pod is on a pansy. woe is me........ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 127. "Where have you been" Posted by Watching you on 10:09:34 8/29/2000 sparky, I have been looking all over for you. Really? A plant forum? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 134. "Peg, I love you, too" Posted by darby on 11:23:02 8/29/2000 I did a bit of research last night and discovered that (according to google) creating a link will usually cause google to pick up a URL in its access path. Hence, I feel pretty confident in saying that it's no coincidence that right after ACR created a link (jonbenet2000.tripod.com) for those 40 threads, they suddenly made their way into google's search engine. The link itself caused the threads' inclusion in google's path. This makes sense, and poses no sinister movtives upon anyone. And this is actually what I thought yesterday, after a fleeting moment of paranoid insanity the night before. Judging from the reactions above, I failed miserable in conveying this. In case nobody realizes it, I KNOW that everything I put on JW is available for the whole world to view, and that the posts here are not private. However, finding so many JW threads in a search engine took me aback. Believe it or not, my reason for distaste over this thing hasn't so much to do with Fleet White threads in particular as an uncomfortable feeling I have when any random threads are subject to generic internet search engines, thereby taken out of the context of the forum from which they came. I particularly don't like to see all of my posts out there, available to anyone without their going through JW. (Maybe you all feel differently.) Ultimately, there probably isn't a lot that can be done about it. Even adding a tag onto the URL of every thread here to prevent search engine access (which can be done) probably won't stop the problem entirely. My idea was to propose a different method for putting JW threads into ACR (without a link). But that would only solve the problem in this one case. fly, speaking for myself, I have no problem with anything I've ever said on the forums about Fleet White. I stand by everything I've ever said and feel I've been consistently fair about the whole thing. This issue goes beyond the White threads, for me at least. I already know what the answer is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 128. "LOL 1000Sparks!" Posted by hareen on 10:30:30 8/29/2000 It's true! But it was a petunia. I'm going to buy some stock in Google. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 130. "Google-ing here ..." Posted by Country Girl on 10:48:43 8/29/2000 I see it this way: the subject was MW/FW so if you posted alot on those threads you have a good chance of being on the threads that were on ACR's timeline; and therefore, pulled up on the Google search. Follow? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 129. "hareen" Posted by 1000Sparks on 10:39:04 8/29/2000 yes the petunia came first but now it's the Pansy. WY, your e-mail thingy isn't working. Tell those people where you work to get their act together... OH NO ! ! ! Maybe someone is hacking it... YOU should be afraid........ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 145. "My thoughts" Posted by Starling on 11:59:45 8/29/2000 Yahoo used to be my favorite search engine because if I didn't get the hits I wanted - it gave me the option to click on "try your search on" various other engines. Alta Vista was my favorite, secondly. I was curious to know if anyone case related was posting on the various forums, so I would type in "Find Posts by Mike Bynum." That is how I found the forum where Jameson was indulging in a conversation with Michael and claiming JonBenet's head was propped on something, in the murder room. So, in that sense Darby it's not unusual to get hits. As far as, who owns the individual posts on these threads - in my mind, I own my own words and I am responsible for my own words - not Chris. But this is Chris's forum, and I am but a guest here but in all actuality - she owns the thread that I post my words on. If I didn't feel that my words were not mine I would not have got pissed, at the many times that my research, that I did on my own time, and typed out with my own fingers was swiped by the likes of Jameson. Too many times to count, were the numerous tab articles and transcripts that were swiped from under our noses - even if they weren't mine/your words, it was still me or you doing the typing, while the lazy ones just copied and pasted, what me/we took the time to relate to you. So basically what we have is a redistribution issue. I post here, and I'm going to continue to post here, until Chris decides she's had it with me. However, I'm not as inclined anymore to do the research, that I once did because of the swiping issue. Anything I do in the future, that is significant might as well go to email (and that's not saying anything I've ever tried to do is significant). Acandyrose has never done anything to me personally and Jameson hasn't for that matter either but I should have the final say as to where my stuff ends up at in a public domain. Ruthee asked my permission once to post something I said on her site and I gave permission. I would give that same permission to acandyrose. Jameson does not have my permission and that is my final answer Regis.LOL There's alot of digs being made on this thread and the words hissy fit and paranoia have been used in the last 24 hours - so let me ask this - who posts under the hat "Candy" at Cybersleuths? There is a thread at Cybers, posted on July 27, 2000 at 10:17 p.m. that states things jameson said about the Whites was being faxed to the BPD for their FW case file. So whoever candy is - is attempting to contribute to that file, that is 600 pages. So someone is helping to promote that case IMHO. Hope no one gets pissed at me for showing what I feel is a fair thought to share. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 132. "Sparky" Posted by Watching you on 11:09:45 8/29/2000 are you chitting me again? My e-mails are not getting out? I just sent you one, sparky, see if you got it. If not, I'm going to fire our Tech Ser staff, LOL. I imagine there is a heavy load of e-mails since our babes got back to school, but this is ridiculous. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 131. "Hey, Fleet Baby..." Posted by shadow on 11:08:39 8/29/2000 Remember when you're drawing-up those law suits, shadows the guy who defended you! :-) lol!!!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 133. "Heh heh, Shadow" Posted by Watching you on 11:12:46 8/29/2000 me too, Fleet. I got my tailfeathers tarred more than once over you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 135. ".......WY" Posted by jonesy on 11:27:29 8/29/2000 ......wahhhhh, you like sparki better than me - you never e-mail me I'm outta my mind but please feel free to leave me a message ! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 136. "From ACandyRose" Posted by AuntieBJ on 11:34:14 8/29/2000 I am in the process of deleting every single stinking one of your precious priceless threads from my archive files. I wouldn't dirty my host server with them. Am I angry? You are damn right I am. I am one of the most calm and collective people you will ever know but you have pushed me to the edge. I am not a thief and I did not steal anybody's work. My web site was free and was there for you. Yes, it was a pleasure and a wonderful feeling of accomplishment on my part to be able to again use my abilities to provide a working research tool and history archive to a group of people I was proud to be a part of. My ACandyRose Internet Subculture web site and my ACandyRose Subculture TimeLine were two different things. The subculture web site showed the good, the bad and the ugly of individual posters, individual events. The Timeline "was" the history of YOUR threads and your postings, your actual real life threads in your own words, not something that would be misconstrued by me or anybody else. The TimeLine covered everybody on all the forums. It was probably the first time in history that all the threads from all the forums were consolidated into one web site. That is why it was important to use them. The "balance" was important. I wanted to be able to include DocG's analysis and Greenleaf's humor and Ginja's level head and Denver's parody and Panico's transcripts, Beanie's relentless fight for his right to freedom of speech, Jameson's die hard drive for the Pro Rams, Geno's IRC chat room and the wonderful times we use to have there at night, Texas1's Jury Room, and then there were the real life gatherings, photos, smiling faces, happy happy. And then there was the Dave Lucas show that I spent hours and hours on to record and encode and upload and provide for you to listen to. I could go on and on and on. What did I get out of it? Nothing . I made no money. It was a free web site on a free host servers. It took me a lot of hours or work, a labor of love. It was a part of me and one small gift that I was personally give of myself. You know I have sat back and read this thread in amazement. I asked myself over and over where was Chris to set the record straight. She finally arrived hundreds of posting later. My hat goes off to her on her final posting. You people are complaining and bitching make me sick. You make me ashamed to be part of this subculture. You make me ashamed to be a member of this forum. You have called me a thief, you have suggested that my ACandyRose Subculture Forum is there to plot and plan dastardly deeds. There are members on your own forum who are the masters of that. You are a bunch of the biggest whining cry babies I have ever witnessed on the Internet and in real life. My web site was a history archive file and nothing more. I wanted to be able to tell the world of the talent, of the humor, of the creativity, of the perseverance, of the type of people who fight for justice, that they were "real" people and not just some cyber idiots hanging out on the Internet and yes the bull$hit, that was there too. There were hoaxes and game playing and hacking and the Pro and Anti Ramsey groups and forum wars and poster wars. It was the good, the bad and the ugly. Did you only want to have the good side of the subculture history to be seen? Kiss my royal cyber a$$ !! The ACandyRose Internet Subculture web site WILL NOT go away but many of your quality essays will. You do not deserve to be a part of the history files certainly not in the original light I had thought you belonged. I will write the history site myself, I am fully capable to do that. I wanted to be able to use your own words, your own postings to represent YOU as reference but I don't need them. Thank you ACandyRose (aka AuntieBJ) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL AuntieBJ ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 137. "Shadow" Posted by AuntieBJ on 11:37:49 8/29/2000 Shadow: You gave me permission to include your shadow reports on my ACandyRose Internet Subculture web site. I made no money off them. They were there as a tribute to your talent. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: 2/3/99 Date: 99-05-19 18:36:38 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: ONEE~1.DOC (13312 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute 3rd file - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: 3/24/99 Date: 99-05-19 18:35:15 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: ULDE~1.DOC (14848 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute Next - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: Sludge Reports Date: 99-05-18 17:47:05 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: ONEE~1.ZIP (16610 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute AuntieBJ: Below is an attempt to send to Word97 files - I will wait to hear if it worked before I try to send more. Am going to send 1999 reports first. I have quite a few for 1998 - some dating back to the J-7 forum. I am really honored that you chose to add my reports to your absolutely super web site! Well, looks like it attached only one file.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: Another 1999 Date: 99-05-19 19:17:17 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: INREV.DOC (13824 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute I stumbled onto this "gem" for 1999 that I didn't delete from my hard disk. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: Trying Again Date: 99-05-19 18:33:43 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: EAMT~1.DOC (14848 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute AuntieBJ: I was able to down-convert my files to Word06/95 - hope this works. If it's not too much trouble, it would be "neat" if the Sludge Reports were on your site in "desending" order by date (very latest first)? You already have: 2010 Status - 5/14/99 Wizard of Oz - 4/6/99 Interview With Experts - 3/18/99 I'm sending "Dream Team#2" (4/13/99) on this email; then "Boulder In Crisis" (3/24/99); "Who Needs..." (2/3/99) on the next; then "Greenleaf" (1/26/99), the last for 1999. After that, as I have time, I will send you others in desending order. Hope this works - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: 1/26/99 Date: 99-05-19 18:37:56 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: EENL~1.DOC (11264 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute Last 1999 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: 8/11/98 Date: 99-05-20 12:56:43 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: RSE.DOC (12800 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: 8/16/98 Date: 99-05-20 12:50:53 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: RATE~1.DOC (13312 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: 10/15/98 Date: 99-05-20 12:29:12 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: AWARD.DOC (11264 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute I'm leaving town for a week in a couple of days - thought I'd send a few more reports while I have time! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: Great!! Date: 99-05-20 20:24:03 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com. To: ACandyRose@aol.com AuntieBJ: I just got a chance to look at the Sludge Reports on your Web Site. Really neat... but do you think I'll get sued? :-) I hate to tell you, but the Boulder In Crisis piece is missing the begining of the OJ show... maybe I somehow lost it? Let me know & I'll resend. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: Last Sludge Reports Date: 99-05-22 19:24:40 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: TERV2.DOC (12800 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute AuntieBJ: I have only two "regular" Sludge Reports left (that I could find) to send. I have several Weekend In Reviews that I will send after I return from NC next week. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: last one Date: 99-05-22 19:25:43 EDT From: Shadow3813@aol.com To: ACandyRose@aol.com File: INTV.DOC (14848 bytes) DL Time (50666 bps): < 1 minute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I will remove them today. Thank you ACandyRose 138. "Well" Posted by Watching you on 11:41:57 8/29/2000 in all sincerity, Auntie BJ, you do what you think you need to do, but you didn't deserve any of the rantings on this thread. It is their guilt and their fear talking. They stepped on their own d*cks, now they don't know how to undo what they did. This makes me really sick. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 143. "Dear Auntie BJ," Posted by LurkerXIV on 11:52:09 8/29/2000 There are many of us here who admire you and appreciate the magnificent contributions you have made in the search for justice for JonBenet. Many of us have used your sites as excellent resources. Please do not judge us all by the actions of a few. I think it is a great deficit to JW,and to those who seriously study the case, that your site will now, by necessity, lose the sense of balance that you strived so diligently to achieve. As I said above, there are no winners here, except John and Patsy Ramsey. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 141. "CandyRose" Posted by Seeker on 11:50:01 8/29/2000 You can use anything of mine you want. Feel free. Thank you for all of your hard work. I, for one, appreciate that you took the time and trouble to do this even if it was misunderstood by so many who seemed paranoid due to some of the posts they did. If this were a "private" forum, I might, but probably not, have been a little concerned about posts being available on a search engine. As it is, some people go overboard on everything. I think it's just in their nature. Thank you CandyRose for trying. I understand. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 140. "BJ" Posted by janab on 11:46:15 8/29/2000 I just wanted to tell you that I'm sorry we will no longer have all that information in one place, that history... It was truly a monumental task you undertook and you accomplished an awful lot. My thanks to you for all that you've done for us in the past. . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 147. "Who is Dan Lucas?" Posted by Cassandra on 12:04:39 8/29/2000 Have I missed something good? Is it too late to catch up? Lots of knickers in a twist, I see! Everybody step back from the keyboard and nobody gets hurt! (to quote one of Pedro's best admonitions! LOL) Now take a deep breath. (as the present and probably eventually ex Mrs Clinton said.) I never had sex with that post. (as Mr C said.) LOL Relax, guys. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 139. "Thank you" Posted by AuntieBJ on 11:43:38 8/29/2000 To all of you who defended the ACandyRose Subculture web site. I really appreciate it. ACandyRose [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL AuntieBJ ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 142. "AuntieBJ" Posted by shadow on 12:03:47 8/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:03:47, 8/29/2000 Holy crap! I was kidding... I have always been honored that my Reports were on your site. I think it's probably time for shadow to give up on my feeble attempts at humor. In any event, I'm certainly sorry if I offended you. shadow Editted to add - don't remove one damned thing from your site including my reports! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 146. "AuntieBJ" Posted by hareen on 12:01:47 8/29/2000 I think your site is wonderful and always marvel at how much work you've put in it. Is it possible for everybody to just let a few days go by to cool off and then maybe reconsider the need to remove all this from ACR? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 144. "Jonesy and Shadow" Posted by Watching you on 11:59:43 8/29/2000 Shadow, I knew you were kidding. Jonesy, I would very much like to be your e-mail pal, but I don't know your e-mail address, and I'm not set up to do the web e-mail thingybob, so if you can get your e-mail address to me via sparky or someone who likes me enough to be my e-mail pal, I would most certainly e-mail you. Howsomever, the blasted e-mail here is so freaked up right now, I doubt they'll ever find some of my e-mails for the next hundred years or so. AuntieBJ, after this thread, I'd be just mean enough to dig my heels in and leave everything right where it is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 149. "WY..." Posted by shadow on 12:19:42 8/29/2000 Obviously AuntieBJ didn't. Maybe, this subject just wasn't a good candidate for humor? Everyone, ignore everything I've said on this thread!!!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 148. "Leave It" Posted by Lacey on 12:19:01 8/29/2000 Auntie BJ. All your hard work. Leave it. Preserve it. For posterity, and all of that. Your website, your masterpiece - it means much to many of us. Let those who got mired in the mythical muck of the mystery woman wallow in their shame. Good luck to you Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 152. "....WY" Posted by jonesy on 12:43:06 8/29/2000 ...I'll try to find "somebody" that likes you - may take a few days - shadow, maybe my caustic sense of humor has rubbed off on you - of course you were kidding - Auntie will see that in time - [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 151. "Hey, I've been" Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:38:51 8/29/2000 out of the loop for awhile, but I feel like the "crazy Indian" whose tribe members will probably decide to "lay off" and "not attack too much" because I "speak to the Gods directly and disproportionately", but I have read most of these posts and what I gather is a lot of people (of course also sometimes myself) take themselves far too seriously and just can't seem to understand their's more to life than this forum or any other. I've made up my mind, and isn't it the luxury of someone like me, that whatever I say on the web is fair game for all. I'm more of a crazy and a fool if I think otherwise. We all leave ourselves wide open, and if we don't like it, we'd better find another medium to share on. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 150. "New thread" Posted by Watching you on 12:37:30 8/29/2000 for this subject? Or should we just start a new one with an apology to Auntie BJ? How many more good people are going to be victims of the fallout of the MW saga? I'm not loading this thread again. It takes too long, and enough damage has been done. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 153. "I removed #138" Posted by Chris on 13:09:06 8/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:09:06, 8/29/2000 It contained personal information about a poster. Edited because I screwed up. It was post #137 that I removed. A thousand sorries. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 154. "138 was my post" Posted by Watching you on 13:07:31 8/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:07:31, 8/29/2000 nada [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 159. "WHAT the H*LL" Posted by docg on 13:12:29 8/29/2000 is going on here? The first time I ever did an Internet search on my own (real) name, I was astonished to find all sorts of odds and ends, including posts to some email listserve groups that I'd totally forgotten I'd sent. This was rather disconcerting at first. But then I remembered that everything I'd sent to those groups was sent to a large number of people I knew very little about, for the most part, people who might, if they wished, forward what I'd written to ANYONE at all. So it was clear from the start that when I submitted anything at all to ANY Internet group, I had to think a bit about the consequences. Which I, of course, did. If my personal email starts showing up when someone does an Internet search, I will definitely be upset (so will some other folks I know -- LOL). But, face it folks, we are communicating here IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW. Get used to it. A Candy Rose is a tremendously valuable resource. Please leave it ALONE. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 157. "Actually..." Posted by shadow on 13:07:50 8/29/2000 It was post #137 and the information was about me! Thanks, Chris... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 158. "jajajajaja!" Posted by Chris on 13:11:48 8/29/2000 Shadow's right, I'm trying to do too many things at once. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 156. "137?" Posted by fly on 13:06:22 8/29/2000 WY - Your #138 is still there, I think. #137 seems to be AWOL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 155. "Nevermind, Chris" Posted by Watching you on 13:04:34 8/29/2000 138 is still there, anyways. I'm confused, we're all confused. I read about your neighbor on daily thread. You have enough to deal with without this petty shit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 160. "Chris, AuntieBJ and Others..." Posted by shadow on 13:20:58 8/29/2000 Take a deep breath - ignore all this crazy crap! Thank you chris... I love ya! And AuntieBJ, I love ya too. I'm really sorry I pissed you off! This thread is getting too long, it has outlived its usefulness, and just needs to die!!!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 161. "What a long thread____________________" Posted by pinker on 13:49:19 8/29/2000 _____________________I was afraid I'd loose my connection while reading the new stuff from today. I sure did have fun and giggles playing Goooooogle myself last night. Why the training I've received here at JW is superior than that from the adult computer classes at the local junior college. Thanks! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 162. "Shadow and others" Posted by AuntieBJ on 13:53:11 8/29/2000 I apologize to you. After reading this thread I just went off the deep end when I read your post. Very sorry ACandyRose Thank you to those who have offered your support. I really do appreciate it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL AuntieBJ ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE