What have you learned from this saga?
Uhh .. That some people take blogging way, WAY too seriously?
What have I learned?
That some people are not leaders in real life, so they try to be leaders in the anonymity of the blogosphere.
And if they're blokes, they must have small penises.
I've learned that anonymous bullies, even when they've been outed, still seem to lack the courage and honesty with themselves to be able to admit to what they did, to apologise for it, and to at least have a decent go at honestly explaining why they did it.
If they did this, then they just might find their victims to be somewhat sympathetic and prepared to forgive.
And they'd probably feel better about themselves and have happier lives too.
Or they can just take on a victim-mentality of their own, live in denial and keep on being the bitter, small, disgusting people they've always been.
Whatever.
I have to admit that it's been fun to watch.
I've learned I'm glad I've never been anonymous and I'm not significant enough to piss anyone off.
The site you mention gets a run for its money by an equally acerbic site. Bron might be familiar with the site. Over on that site in an effort to force conformity and exclude the heterodox people are called c..ts or f..kwits. That is hardly likely to elevate any debate. Similar sites have merely brought the scribbling on public toilet walls into the computer age.
I've learned that the name Roddy is poison. The only other person I've known with that name -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper, of the old WWF -- was a mongrel too.
The equally acerbic site Josh speaks of that I'm familiar with doesn't stalk people, threaten them, out them, post home and work addresses and phone numbers etc etc etc. Sure, the site is acerbic but nowhere in the same league as the one Jeremy speaks of.
i've learned new and surprising uses for the word "acerbic".
I can has acerbic web-site?
speaking of bullies, when do we get a post to revel in the collapse of hetty's nasty campaign?
"The equally acerbic site Josh speaks of that I'm familiar with doesn't stalk people, threaten them, out them, post home and work addresses and phone numbers etc etc etc. Sure, the site is acerbic but nowhere in the same league as the one Jeremy speaks of."
Well, it does out them.
What acerbic website is this?
Can you all stop saying acerbic, please?
This acerbic website of which you all speak, when exactly has it outed anyone (except for calling a pseudonymous commenter by the name that they were using at another blog)?
And I would also like to know when this acerbic website has called anyone a c**t.
(Landeryou's contemptible efforts last weekend, for example),
Lefty, you're always letting me know about the best stories. I had no idea Landeryou outed her until you just mentioned it. Thanks.
She sounds as though she is a violent creep who deserves to be outed and needs serious anger management therapy.
Landeryou did everyone public service by making her public. She's a creep and ought to leave her job until she is able to cope with her anger issues that the world doesn't work the way she wants it.
This is the sort of totalitarian midset that needs to be broken into small bits.
You ought to be thanking Landeryou rather than abusing him.
Screw her.
A CONVICTED G20 rioter, who has kept her taxpayer-funded Legal Aid job despite attacking police, is facing eight more charges over an anti-logging protest.
The charges against Julia Dehm, 25, of Brunswick West, come after two illegal protests in which campaigners shackled themselves to logging machinery in Victorian state forests.
Legal Aid will continue supporting Dehm, who has previous convictions for rioting, recklessly causing injury and intentionally damaging property.
This woman suffers from a totalitarian mindset and deserves to be scorned. She is also an officer of the court yet attacks cops at a demonstration.
Landeryou did a great job showing her up for what she is. ... a commie witch.
Ant: "The only other person I've known with that name -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper, of the old WWF -- was a mongrel too."
I take it you havent seen "They Live!"? That movie was gold and Rowdy coined some kick ass phrases.
Speaking of bullying Jeremy, have you read much about the current status of the US in Iraq?
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...eal-
841407.html
The Editor: "And I would also like to know when this acerbic website has called anyone a c**t."
Now, I could defend inevitable claims that the acerbic website in question did in fact call Triple J's Scott Dooley a c**t by pointing out that the website actually called him a "c**t's c**t". Victory on a technicality. But I won't
Fair enough: the acerbic website in question has called people f**kwits and c**ts. But the acerbic website in question has never published people's addresses, called their workplaces, threatened them with violence etc. This is what Jeremy is talking about in this post. There are blogwars and then there are blogwars.
By the way, anyone who doesn't think Scott Dooley is a c**t needs a humour transplant.
I'm confused about which website's we're talking about. For clarity;
TSSH *did* out people and attack them via their personal details.
TLSH only outed a specific pair of internet bullies.
Jeremy, I think the acerbic website being referred to is one with which I am intimately acquainted.
It starts with 'G' and ends with 'rods'.
goldenrods?
Gillytrods?
Georgebushrogershimselfwithfishingrods?
Ant wins.
Such acerbic wit!
ant, i tips me lid.
Evshow,
For some reason the Indy didn't mention that both sides have denied that the terms of the potential treaty were as mentioned in the Indy article and that the issue was discussed in an open public hearing yesterday in the Committe on Foreign Affairs of the US House of Reps:
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/...tice.asp?
id=996
Video here:
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/...v/
testimony.asp
and broadcast on US tv here:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/li...cts_id=205824-
1
The International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a briefing titled "Iraqi Parliament's Perspective on U.S.-Iraqi Relations" with members of the Iraqi Parliament to hear their assessment of the proposed U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement. The new security agreement is intended to replace the current United Nations Security Council resolutions authorizing the United States to engage in combat operations in Iraq which would expire at the end of the year."
Plenty of material on line about it if you search for the name of the subcomittee.
Sorry,
This was the original article from the Indy that I was referring to:
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...rol-
840512.html
...none of which has anything to do with my post.
Nothing further off-topic, thanks.
Sorry Jeremy, I wasn't trying to open debate on it here. Just wanted to know if you had read about it and if you possibly had a post about it in mind.
We leftists are strictly not 'internet bullies'.
We do, however, wait for Moskva politburo to give us instructions.
Jay and Silent Bob had an interesting solution to this problem. As a pacifist, I don't sanction it of course, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m...h?
v=mH_Sl_gk4ck
(video contains obscene language)
Lol.
The other thing I think it shows is the importance of not actually being a nasty piece of work. If you show people mercy, it will be shown to you; if you are relentlessly cruel and malevolent, people's sympathy when the blowtorch is turned back on you will be extremely limited.
And it's much better for friends, family and colleagues to think your unfortunate online material is misguided, rather than revealing you to be a truly nasty piece of work.
I mean, seriously, if you were Jamie how would you explain the TSSH archives to a friend or colleague without them being revolted by you? What defence could you possibly give?
'Nothing further off-topic, thanks.'
OK. I thought EvShow deserved to have the facts.
There was another reason that people didn't want to get involved and that was the belief that paying heed to such antics only fuelled the fire and justified their belief in their importance.
I don't agree with what they did to you and others (and maybe me? I can't remember, I think they slagged and named me once, only my first name, not really sure), but I can't agree with this new site.
It's too much eye for an eye behaviour, which I cannot see as justifiable.
Well, I already knew their names, so I haven't learned that, but I was surprised to see just how shamelessly they wussed out by deleting everything and completely packing up shop.
We're not.
"There was another reason that people didn't want to get involved and that was the belief that paying heed to such antics only fuelled the fire and justified their belief in their importance."
Ignoring them didn't work either: they just kept going. And going. And going.
"It's too much eye for an eye behaviour, which I cannot see as justifiable."
I don't think so: they're not publishing their home address or anything like that. They're publishing their names in conjunction with their nastier online outpourings.
Okay, so that in itself seems pretty harsh - I wouldn't want my name associated with the sort of spiteful drivel Caroline and Jamie indulged in for those few years - but they wrote it. And they wrote it with the nastiest of intentions.
"RA" and AndyLandy, thanks. Thanks to your invective I now know that Julie Dehm is one of the people who gets off her butt and makes an effort to make Oz a better place and protect our oldgrowth forest. Being targeted by Andy's spittle-flecked rants and being called a "Commie Witch" by mad blog commenters is a badge of honour and marks her as a good person. Since you have so thoroughly outed her I will now email her to thank her. Ta.
""RA" and AndyLandy, thanks. Thanks to your invective I now know that Julie Dehm is one of the people who gets off her butt and makes an effort to make Oz a better place and protect our oldgrowth forest."
You can't seriously believe that right? The people who rioted at the G8 protests are not making Australia a better place, the are just morons who think their point of view is so important it justifies violence.
Jeremy thanks for this post, I hadn't heard anything about TSSH for years! Amazing how it ended up. That grods site is funny too, first time I've seen it.
'Julie Dehm is one of the people who gets off her butt and makes an effort to make Oz a better place.'
She chucked a bench during a riot and injured a policewoman (you know, one of those people whoactually gets off her butt and makes an effort to make Oz a better place). I don't think that she is much of a role model.
OTT: I've seen riots, and that wasn't a riot. At G20, one policewoman got a case of tennis elbow. On the other hand, a bunch of people outside parliament got the shit kicked out of them when the cops pulled an unannounced overhand baton charge + 1 person who wasn't even there was kidnapped from a cafe a few days later and assaulted by police. Who has the higher moral ground?
ONTT: The invective on TSSH wasn't always a one way street. Some of their targets were innocent, but some mos def deserved what they got.
Hardly a defence for going after all the people who didn't deserve even close to what Jamie & Caroline dished out.
Not sayin' it was, J-Scrazzle. Just sayin', in the interests of bein' fair and balanced, it's worth noting that people were stalking and threatening them at the time as well. Also in the interests of being fair and balanced, I should note that I think that the very worst that they dished out was fairly low level.
Methinks some of you people who could afford a computer before I got round to being able to use them,in a limited sense,are just being a bit jocular,about these employed people who have found it easy to crap on others,with great ease.They are obviously simple oppurtunists,with nothing to add to the world at all.Take away their jobs,and they wouldn't have the self-confidence to shit on anyone.Life would be the ever-shrinking goldfish bowl,with some ancient hated song..reverberating through the glass until resonance was established. "Pop Goes the Weasel",to those who can now claim vintage,by knowing the Pop song!?I dearly would of loved to cop their smug crap,and put it back in its place,as a Public Service,and exercise of the approaching senile parts of a under performing mind,according to,the Johnny-Come-Latelies of that...the ABS.It is also so much Schoolyard.
Sometimes 'innocent bystanders' can be cought in the crossfire.
I remember one case some time ago when one lefty blogger was inundated with RWDB comments because a famoust right wing blogger quoted a post of her where she mentioned that Philip Adams came to have a coffee at her cafe.
Guido,
She was innundated with comments. On a blog! Oh the humanity!! Who would have thought a blog could attract comments?
Dr Cam, I too have seen riots and the G20 protests turned into riots. They were people there who thought they knew best and were prepared to use violence to enforce their will on others. Most everyone else thought they were childish idots who believe in a political philosophy for morons.
"Methinks some of you people who could afford a computer before I got round to being able to use them,in a limited sense...."
...Iain? Is that you?
NIC, maybe she was inundated by comments from reap. that would be genuinely inhumane.
NIC: When the worst thing that happens is that a policewoman gets tennis elbow and a police van has its windows busted in, it's not a riot.
Jeremy, I'm not saying that I don't understand why you feel the way you do - their hatchet job on you was particularly malicious and contemptible in the extreme.
But, I just can't justify an eye for an eye. And it is an eye for an eye ... you know it is. Even that article in The Age - why write that they live in Eltham (together with their names and workplaces)?
Maybe (undoubtedly) they deserve what's happening to them now. All I'm saying is how do Team Lulz, or anyone, justify calling what they did "contemptible" and then do the same thing themselves?
It's like smacking your child because they hit someone at school. Or, you know, killing someone to show them that killing is wrong. (Extreme yeah, but you get my point).
If they lose their jobs now, will you be happy? Honestly?
"All I'm saying is how do Team Lulz, or anyone, justify calling what they did "contemptible" and then do the same thing themselves?"
I don't think they are.
The nastiest thing that's happened to Caroline and Jamie is having their own words associated with their names.
And the reason that's such a horrible thing to do to them? Because their words were so damned horrible.
But that's hardly the outers' fault. So far as I can see they haven't called for Jamie or Caroline to die. Nor have they published their home address. They haven't published (or had their friends publish) photographs of Jamie or Caroline outside their home. They haven't searched through Jamie's work records to try to allege incompetence. They haven't... you get the idea. If Jamie loses his job, it will be because of things he's done and said, not because of anything "Team Lulz" has said about him.
It's not an eye for an eye - it's an intervention.
Their names needed to be out there so that they couldn't do it any more. Many, many people asked them nicely to stop - both friends and foes - and they persisted. They haven't expressed remorse. They haven't given any indication that they wouldn't do the same thing again if given the opportunity.
Unlike Caroline and Jamie, I don't think the people behind that website are driven by malice, or vengeance. I think they're driven by a desire to simply prevent a pair of remorseless, relentless bullies from continuing harassing innocent people - and to make sure that any future victims have a starting point for defending themselves.
That's how it looks to me, anyway.
Maybe not their home address, but they have still published their workplaces and encourage people (and provide links) to write to their bosses about them.
I don't think the people behind that website are driven by malice, or vengeance. I think they're driven by a desire to simply prevent a pair of remorseless, relentless bullies from continuing - and to make sure that any future victims have a starting point for defending themselves.
I think you are really lying to yourself if you don't believe it's driven by malice or vengeance. The whole site is the epitome of vengeance.
And if you were just trying to prevent someone from future bad behaviour, it would be just as easy to write them a personal email advising them that you have their personal details and that you would be willing to divulge them to the net at large if they persisted with their behaviour.
Are you sure that you're not letting your own personal experience at their hands influence your judgement? I know that I am influenced by their job jeopardy because of my own blog outing/job losing experience (which is STILL affecting my career). Perhaps?
You know I'm your friend, Jeremy, and that I think what they did to you was absolutely deplorable. And again, I stress, that I understand your feelings in this and that you feel differently to me.
The consequences of this site could be that they lose their jobs. And I ask you again, would that make you happy? Would that be justice for you? I don't reckon it would.
Anyway, we can chat about this further when I'm in Four Horse at the end of the month. But, let it be only a small portion of our conversation. I'd much rather talk about things that actually matter .... like how you have been. Chat soon.
"If they lose their jobs now, will you be happy? Honestly?"
Not really. I would be happy if they promised never to do anything like that again and if, there being no need for such a website to be there any more, "Team Lulz" were to then take it down.
But it is difficult to have a great deal of sympathy for people who still have not shown any remorse or regret for what they did.
"it would be just as easy to write them a personal email advising them that you have their personal details and that you would be willing to divulge them to the net at large if they persisted with their behaviour."
From what I understand, several people tried that. It had no effect.
"Anyway, we can chat about this further when I'm in Four Horse at the end of the month. But, let it be only a small portion of our conversation. I'd much rather talk about things that actually matter .... like how you have been. Chat soon."
Cool. Would be good to see you again.
Jeremy,
It is not an intervention if the people who are intevening are themselves anonymous.
The Age article was interesting. Why did it not reveal the actual names and backgrounds of the people behind Team Lulz? Surely that is a relevant part of the story. You say that they are doing this with proper motives, but it is hard to judge that when we don't know who they are.
Given Caroline and Jamie's past behaviour towards anyone who has disagreed with them in any way (And the fact that Jamie whacked an interim intervention order on the wrong person because he suspected that person of having involvment), up to an including explicit threats of violence, why on earth wouldn't you remain anonymous if you were behind it, NIC?
Jeremy,
The Age published the name of their suburb in an article that you contributed to.
The 'lulz' Start Here published a Google Earth picture of their house and the street they live on in a blog that you publicised.
It would not be hard to track them down on the basis of this information.
I am amazed that the Age's legal department cleared this.
"NIC: When the worst thing that happens is that a policewoman gets tennis elbow and a police van has its windows busted in, it's not a riot."
The video on youtube showed about a dozen protestors completely destroying a van. Trying to play it down just shows your bias on this matter and completely destroys your credibility.
"The Age published the name of their suburb in an article that you contributed to.
The 'lulz' Start Here published a Google Earth picture of their house and the street they live on in a blog that you publicised.
It would not be hard to track them down on the basis of this information."
A hell of a lot harder than just looking them up in the phone book.
There's a satellite photo of their house from Google Earth, and The Age identified the suburb as Eltham. So? That's not the way anyone's going to practically find them.
And Yobbo - I think you'll find that describing the van you're talking about as "completely destroyed" is a ridiculous exaggeration.
Seriously, man - trying to exaggerate it just shows your bias on this matter and completely destroys your credibility.
Jeremy,
The van was completely worked over. It was not going anywhere anytime soon. "Destroyed" would be about an adequate summary of the situation.
A lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere was wasted on that day.
Jeremy,
Are they listed in the phone book? If so, then your statement that 'Nor have they published their home address' is even more hollow.
NIC,
Maybe they should fix the van out of the budget for the Melbourne International Arts Festival. Punish the rioters and their supporters where it really hurts them.
Here are some more photos of the van.
I wonder if the lady in the tutu is the charming legal aid lawyer.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/
n...701_comment.php
http://www.smh.com.au/news/
natio...3266825928.html
The only damage I can see to that van is the windscreen. Was there an angle that showed more damage or was that it?
Anyone reading TSSH would have worked out that Caz and the Hack lived in Eltham. The Hack in one of his posts indicated that he lived in Diamond Valley and that he was about 30 km away from his work. Using Southbank as a starting point and the Connex train lines placed the Mountain Lair squarely in Eltham. The Hack and Caz probably seeded TSSH with enough red herrings to keep people guessing (eg Caz working as a journo, the Hack working for the Herald), but this one panned out.
Newspapers print the names of people involved in newsworth events all the time, regardless of who they are or what they have done. Newspapers routinely report on persons accused of heinous crimes and they use full names and suburbs/towns. The only restrictions are those imposed by law - I don't think that Caz and the Hack's circumstances equate to protecting the identity of abused children, or ensuring a fair trial for some accused crim.
Anyhoo, what was interesting was that this story got as far as it did. Don't get me wrong, I am following with interest having received a spray or two from the delightful Mr Hack peppered with c*nt and f*ck (bliss!). I would have thought however that
a) journos would have had some equivalent of "honour amongst thieves"/professional courtesy and buried it. (I don't mean to equate journos to thieves by the way - just the concept).
b) it isn't a particularly newsworthy story - I am interested of course, but I just wouldn't have thought so many other people would have been.
Exactly how many people did Caz and the Hack tick off?
Gdog, thanks for that.
The one shot of the garbage that was strewn around does not do it justice. There was a mass of garbage and mess left by the protestors. It is nice that people who campaign for the environment care enough about it to pick up after themselves.
Keri, it does not show it there, but the inside of the van was heavily damaged.
Here are some more photos, including someone who has apparently looted the inside of the police van. Anyone want to suggest that it wasn't a riot?
http://www.daylife.com/photo/03k...o/
03kv26N9L489K
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/
Articl...hub=CTVNewsAt11
http://www.theage.com.au/news/
na...9095914467.html
http://www.news.com.au/common/
im...,5308711,00.jpg
Ta guys.
I like Person of Interest 13. He obviously decided that his most recognisable feature is his chin and lower part of his nose. Ignoring completely the Mohawk.
why is it that when some commercial network bills their latest lame arse sit com as "riotous fun" it's all good but innocently pinch a logbook from a divvy van you've legitimately conquered and you come in for a pasting?
Well Wikpedia has info on it that determines a riot to include 12 or more people so technically it was a riot.
However trying to demonize everyone involved in the G20 protest as being part of a riot because of 20 ass hats is pretty ridiculous
Well, I haven't suggested that all the protestors were rioting. Indeed most of the coverage at places like Indymedia was scathing of the rioters. Heck, I even ran across an article when I was searching for those images above where Landeryou was pointing out how peeved Socialist Alliance was with Dehm and her ilk:
http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot....ari-
speaks.html
"Seriously, man - trying to exaggerate it just shows your bias on this matter and completely destroys your credibility."
You took the words right out of my mouth, Jeremy.
W-was it... was it while you were kissing me? :o
Oddly enough, Dr. Cam describes it as a riot on his webpage:
http://cam.bluexo.net/riot
Cam, actually he deliberately took the words right out of Yobbo's mouth - if you see the comment before Jeremy.
EvShow, Gdog is correct. Nowhere on this or other related comments threads has either myself or anyone else tried to tar the G20 protestors (however misguided and childish their political views are and however inappropriate the venue that they chose to put them across) with the riotous behaviour of the idiots who undertook the property damage. I have made this point before.
Obviously the ones who turned up to protest knew, or should have known, that the idiots would take an opportunity to riot - but they cannot be blamed for the actions.
END OF DISCUSSION OF G20.
Back to the topic.
Gdog,
The 'lulz' Start Here published a Google Earth picture of their house and the street they live on in a blog that you publicised.
Not true. Team Lulz never published the street that Caz/Hack lived in.
Yes we published a Google Earth image of a house. But so did they. And their justification for doing so was that it could be found via Google and the phone book. And they abused the person who questioned why they did so.
Do you understand why we did use a Google Earth image? You really should get your facts straight.
Cynic, this is not about eye for an eye. It is about making Caz/Hack being made accountable for their actions. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. But we are not talking about that here. We are talking about stopping two malicious people who couldn't be stopped by 'ethical' means.
If they don't like what has happened, then maybe they should have thought about that before they started acting like smart-arse anonymous pricks.
NIC, knowing who we are is not the issue. Would knowing who we are change how Caz/Hack have acted over the years? Would it make them take responsibility for their actions? Team Lulz is not the issue and we will never give Jamie the satisfaction of knowing who we are. If you or him don't like that then too bad.
Laterz,
Team Lulz
Team Lulz, I fail to see how it is failing to get your facts straight if someone describes a photograph as being of the house and street, and you say, no it is only the house and part of the street. Clearly Gdog was talking about the photo on your website.
You are the issue, because you are doing exactly what you complain that others are doing. Without knowing your real motivations, we cannot judge your actions. This is relevant to this blog, because Jeremy approves of your actions (at least in part).
It's not exactly the way I would have done it, but from what I've seen they've stayed pretty much on the defensible side of the line.
I don't care who Team Lulz are (although of course I'm curious, and I have my suspicions) - the important thing is for Jamie and Caroline's creepy campaigns to stop. If Team Lulz went beyond outing people who'd gone much further, and started outing other people just because they were friendly with the pair, THEN they'd be stepping over that line and I'd strongly disapprove.
Jeremy,
My concern with their motivations would be if they went about outing people who merely disagreed with their approach in outing the TSSH.
The line in the Lulz last post "if you or him don't like that then too bad", is slightly concerning because it appears to draw no distinction between their intended victims and others who are merely commenting on their approach - we are all lumped in together.
NIC,
We couldn't careless if you approve of our actions or not.
We have stated our motivations for outing Jamie and Caroline.
We published the pic of a house and part of a street, yes. However, we misread the comment to mean that we published the address and street name of which we have not.
Jamie and Caroline should have known better. If they don't like the methods they used being turned back on them, then too bad. As we have previously stated: these are two malicious people who could not be stopped by ethical means.
If bloggers are threatened, defamed and harassed by either Jamie or Caroline in the future, they now have recourse to protect themselves. We have now leveled the playing field.
Spread the lulz,
Team Lulz.
Honestly, I can't believe a single-purpose website is still generating so much discussion.
If the site's purpose was to "out" two thugs and make them stop what they were doing, surely it's a big mission accomplished, as George Bush or Tim Blair might say.
Everyone needs to move on, including Team Lulz.
Team lulz,
Thankyou for clearing up your misreading of my post.
My point was about Jeremy's claim that he hasn't outed their address; when clearly he has publicised a site that gives their names and a photo of their house and street and he has contributed to an article which lists their suburb. There can't be many dead end streets in Eltham and people could easily match the street and house to an address. Jeremy's defense is that the photo he publicised is not important because the name and suburb would be enough to get the info from the whitepages (I haven't checked if this is true). This is an odd defense to say the least.
Also odd is the way Jeremy has decided that the G20 is off topic when the post discusses this very issue. Oh well, it is his blog and he is master of his domain.
NIC - There are countless dead-end streets in Eltham. In fact, most of them are. You'd be a long time looking if you had no other indication than "a dead end street in Eltham"
You could find the address in the phone book, but the same goes for anyone else not anonymous on the intertubes, including many of Caz and The Hack's victims.
Keri, you meant Gdog, I think.
Ah, my apologies, NIC.
No problems. There are a lot of dead ends in Eltham. I don't really know the area well, but it is one of those suburbs where only people who know the area or have a map can get in or out of easily.
Yip, it certainly is.
I know the area fairly well, and I'd still get lost if I didn't have a map on me.
To be honest, we did it for the lulz. "I did it for the lulz"(IDIFTL) is a catchphrase which serves as a catch-all explanation for any internet drama you cause. Doing something for the lulz is also a completely justified reason for doing it; no-one sane should ever question or not accept this reason.
TL: "As we have previously stated: these are two malicious people who could not be stopped by ethical means."
Would it not have been more appropriate to do something, say... 12 months ago, when they were actually doing what you feel needed to be stopped?
Dr Cam
You are Ham
As in 'ham'
For Jews
And specially for Moham
The Hack
Was a greasy ballsack
And a christian like me
Needn't be takin things out of his garbage
Kev, you have hit the nail on the wrist.
Strawman:
So if someone commits a crime 20 years ago, it's okay if they are not punished because it was soooo long ago?
Also Dr Cam, Jamie and Caroline continued their behavior right up until the week before they were busted. You might think suggesting someone kill themselves is a hoot but we don't.
Spread the Lulz
Team Lulz
Actually, if someone commits a crime we usually call the police and let the judiciary handle the 'punishment'.
I know it was just a metaphor, but no one should take the law into their own hands. If they did, then lawyers like Jeremy would be out of a job, and nobody wants that.
Team Lulz, sorry to get all lawyerly on you - but there is a statute of limitations for most crimes, so yeah, it is pretty much OK for most crimes that happened 20 years ago not to be punished.
True NIC, however, unfortunately for Caroline and Jamie, the blogosphere has a long memory.
So, is Lulz pronounced with a "u" as in "pull" or an "o" as in "lol"?
That's terrible, TL. Is the person okay? They didn't do it, did they?
Not sure, but it's almost as bad as someone stealing your band's name.
I doubt that anybody would want to steal my band's terrible name.
if you're curious about caz and hack's address, just find it out the way i did, by having a spurious and vexatious intervention order served on you by a uniformed police officer, because of something somebody thinks you might have written somewhere on the internet.
I am hoping that Team Lulz is not behind any rumours I've heard - whether true or not - of people wanting to make complaints to employers. That's Jamie and Caroline style rubbish; not anything anyone should be seeking to emulate.
I agree with TL publishing their names for the purpose of protecting future victims. And I agree with the maintaining a record of their online efforts, for the purpose of deterring other would-be internet bullies.
But I don't think TL should go any further than that.
Anyone on this thread who thinks that Julie Dehm's actions have no relevance to her employment should agree with you in relation to the TSSH people.
They have as much relevance as her employer thinks they have -which appear to be none.
Commenting by HaloScan
