In fact, you found one of the three posts most relied on at the hearing. (One other was a "Jeremiah" post dating from Oct. 1998, and the third was a post where Scott said he was a big man, and if a snowboarder sideswiped him, it would be the snowboarder who was hurt.)
Note two things. First, Scott said that he and I had been at the receiving end of death threats and threats of physical violence. Second, Scott said that if David Boots, Ted Waldron (the two petitioners) threatened him or came on his property, he wanted them to know he would be armed and would defend himself.
I wrote the article and I was one of the ones threatened. The petitioners were careful to cancel a lot of the posts on Deja News before the hearing. son-of-a-bert@my-deja.com, 6/10/99, 12:01 p.m. "As I said before, keep an eye out. That's giving you fair warning. Something will happen to you and Bert, I promise. When I cannot say, but you will know when it happens, and you will know why when judgment day comes." Same poster, date, 12:06 p.n. "Can I add pain and suffering?... I think I'll take a picture of your facial expression when you finally get what you deserve and post it here for all to see." Same poster, date, 4:48 p.m. "But Bert deserves what is coming to him, so does him buttmante Scott.... If he thinks he can get away with this and not have some type of retaliation happen to him, others around him, his busines and private life he is dreaming." boots@ general.net 6/9/99, 12:07 p.m. (Petitioner David Hobbs posting under his own name) Ready to move too, Bert? It probably would be in your families best interest, seeing as controvrsial you have been here. Heaven forbid, something terrible ever happened to innocent parties associated to you. That would be awful."
These quotes are from the petitioners, the ones who claimed they were terrorized and needed anti-harassment protection.
But the judge was persuaded mainly because the respondent, Scott, had a gun. She did not find Scott had made threats, but that the flame war could escalate.
Prior to the hearing I had also sought an anti-harassment order, but Det. Shirey refused to take my complaint or answer my e-mail. Details are at: http://www.vix.com/menmag/shirey.htm
I left these details out of the article I wrote, for two reasons. First, I didn't want to get into "Who struck John," who made threats and who was credible. Second, and more important, these details are not, IMHO, relevant to the issue of the overbroad order.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, you found one of the three posts most relied on at the hearing. (One other was a "Jeremiah" post dating from Oct. 1998, and the third was a post where Scott said he was a big man, and if a snowboarder sideswiped him, it would be the snowboarder who was hurt.)
Note two things. First, Scott said that he and I had been at the receiving end of death threats and threats of physical violence. Second, Scott said that if David Boots, Ted Waldron (the two petitioners) threatened him or came on his property, he wanted them to know he would be armed and would defend himself.
I wrote the article and I was one of the ones threatened. The petitioners were careful to cancel a lot of the posts on Deja News before the hearing. son-of-a-bert@my-deja.com, 6/10/99, 12:01 p.m. "As I said before, keep an eye out. That's giving you fair warning. Something will happen to you and Bert, I promise. When I cannot say, but you will know when it happens, and you will know why when judgment day comes." Same poster, date, 12:06 p.n. "Can I add pain and suffering? ... I think I'll take a picture of your facial expression when you finally get what you deserve and post it here for all to see." Same poster, date, 4:48 p.m. "But Bert deserves what is coming to him, so does him buttmante Scott. ... If he thinks he can get away with this and not have some type of retaliation happen to him, others around him, his busines and private life he is dreaming." boots@ general.net 6/9/99, 12:07 p.m. (Petitioner David Hobbs posting under his own name) Ready to move too, Bert? It probably would be in your families best interest, seeing as controvrsial you have been here. Heaven forbid, something terrible ever happened to innocent parties associated to you. That would be awful."
These quotes are from the petitioners, the ones who claimed they were terrorized and needed anti-harassment protection.
But the judge was persuaded mainly because the respondent, Scott, had a gun. She did not find Scott had made threats, but that the flame war could escalate.
Prior to the hearing I had also sought an anti-harassment order, but Det. Shirey refused to take my complaint or answer my e-mail. Details are at: http://www.vix.com/menmag/shirey.htm
I left these details out of the article I wrote, for two reasons. First, I didn't want to get into "Who struck John," who made threats and who was credible. Second, and more important, these details are not, IMHO, relevant to the issue of the overbroad order.