Is Dave Denney at it again, making obscene death threats ?

Is Dave Denney at it again, making obscene death threats ?

[Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)]

Today I was informed by AT&T security personnel by telephone that David 
Denney of Dimensional Communications, LLC, Denver, CO, had been sent 
email about obscene email from Denney et al to me.

In my opinion, the email must have made Denney absolutely furious;  so 
angry in fact that I received the following from him, via an anonymous
mailing at The University of Denver.  What is curious is that in my 
opinion Denney is apparently trying to impersonate David Weller now.


-----------------[ begin obscene death threat by email ]---------

From: anon05ef@nyx.net (Name withheld by request)
To: cjames@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Dumbo the The Rt Rev'd James
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 18:20:37 +0000


I am *SO* glad that your little tirades are
confined to the co.* groups.... You have been
*SUCH* an embarassment (read *ass*) in the comp.lang.ada
group....  Had any ada contracts lately ???? Hmmmmm

Fuck off & die under some rock somewhere.

Yours in Reverandness, 
Dave


-----------------[ end   obscene death threat by email ]---------

Re: Is Dave Denney at it again, making obscene death threats ?

[Brian & Karen Bell]

If anyone cares:

    I inadvertently replied by mail (which, as a long time c.l.a. watcher I know is an
    exercise in futility -- look where it got me) rather than by USENET return post to
    the following jamesblather:

Subject: 
     Complaint #1 against bgbell@mdn.net: Stop sending me email 
  Date: 
     Thu, 2 May 1996 02:35:15 GMT 
  From: 
     "Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)" <cjames@worldnet.att.net>
   To: 
     bgbell@mdn.net
   CC: 
     cjames@worldnet.att.net


>From: Brian Bell <bgbell@mdn.net>
>To: "Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)" <cjames@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: Re: Is Dave Denney at it again, making obscene death threats ?
>References: <4m6eem$qqs@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>Organization: At home...
>Date: Thu, 2 May 96 02:23:19 +0000
>
>Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd) wrote:
>>
>> Today I was informed by AT&T security personnel by telephone that David
>> Denney of Dimensional Communications, LLC, Denver, CO, had been sent
>> email about obscene email from Denney et al to me.
>>
>
>   Please take your sick, twisted problems elsewhere. No one cares.
>
>   Brian
>

Brian Bell on harassing email

[Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)]

Brian & Karen Bell <bgbell@mdn.net> wrote:
>If anyone cares:
>
>    I inadvertently replied by mail (which, as a long time c.l.a. watcher I know is an
>    exercise in futility -- look where it got me) rather than by USENET return post to
>    the following jamesblather:
>
>Subject: 
>     Complaint #1 against bgbell@mdn.net: Stop sending me email 
>  Date: 
>     Thu, 2 May 1996 02:35:15 GMT 
>  From: 
>     "Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)" <cjames@worldnet.att.net>
>   To: 
>     bgbell@mdn.net
>   CC: 
>     cjames@worldnet.att.net
>
>
>>From: Brian Bell <bgbell@mdn.net>
>>To: "Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)" <cjames@worldnet.att.net>
>>Subject: Re: Is Dave Denney at it again, making obscene death threats ?
>>References: <4m6eem$qqs@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>Organization: At home...
>>Date: Thu, 2 May 96 02:23:19 +0000
>>
>>Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd) wrote:
>>>
>>> Today I was informed by AT&T security personnel by telephone that David
>>> Denney of Dimensional Communications, LLC, Denver, CO, had been sent
>>> email about obscene email from Denney et al to me.
>>>
>>
>>   Please take your sick, twisted problems elsewhere. No one cares.
>>
>>   Brian
>>


No one cares about our sick, twisted personal problems Bell.

Go the the mall.

Re: Brian Bell on harassing email

[Jim Trascapoulos]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]


Actually, I've been forwarding your mail to AT&T on nearly every post for
the past few weeks. By reposting private mail you are, in absolute
reality, your own worst enemy.

BTW - how is it that you are SO harassed by everyone who responds to your
harassing posts? Can't you see the connection here??

--------------------------------------------------------------
           Jim Trascapoulos <jtrascap@cybergoober.com>
                  on eworld <jtrascap@eworld.com>
             WWW: <http://www.cybergoober.com/bcd>
                �Your Stuckeys On The Infobahn"

        Digital Systems Coordinator * Graphics Designer
                   Chroma Copy Inc. * Big City Design
                         Denver CO. * Wheat Ridge, CO.

Jim Trascapoulos on limiting freedom of speech and not being churched

[The Right Reverend Colin James III]

jtrascap@cybergoober.com (Jim Trascapoulos) posted with deletions:

| Actually, I've been forwarding your mail to AT&T on nearly every post for
| the past few weeks. By reposting private mail you are, in absolute
| reality, your own worst enemy.
| 
| BTW - how is it that you are SO harassed by everyone who responds to your
| harassing posts? Can't you see the connection here??
| 
| --------------------------------------------------------------
|            Jim Trascapoulos<jtrascap@cybergoober.com>
|         Digital Systems Coordinator * Graphics Designer
|                    Chroma Copy Inc. * Big City Design
|                          Denver CO. * Wheat Ridge, CO.

AT&T WorldNet loves to get complaints about articles to usenet groups,
because they throw them away.  In fact, any large internet provider worth
paying throws them away.  But they nevertheless hope that by the complainer
sending email, one may someday bring one's business to the provider and
become a customer there. (Shameless plug for AT&T WorldNet)

AT&T WorldNet knows their internet law, and usenet charters (except for
boring moderated groups which are never widely read) are meaningless and of
absolutely no merit or demonstrable affect.

AT&T is for freedom of speech, but obviously Trascapoulos is not.

Regarding giving Christianity a bad name, Trascapoulos is a whiner:
Orthodox Christians don't have time to whine, because they are too busy
worshiping God by giving Him thanks in their hearts, minds, and souls.  

As I didn't see Trascapoulos in Church last Sunday, I assume it was because
he chose to be in the funny papers instead.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Re-usable, patented software for banks and financial markets. 
Mirror sites:  www.cec-services.com  &  www.cris.com/~cjames3
Colin James III, Principal Scientist, cjames@cec-services.com
CEC Services, LLC, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood,  CO  80215-1502
Voice: 303.231.9437;  Facs: 303.231.9438;  Data: 303.231.9434
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Re: Brian Bell on harassing email

[Scott Weiser]

jtrascap@cybergoober.com (Jim Trascapoulos) wrote:
>Actually, I've been forwarding your mail to AT&T on nearly every post for
>the past few weeks. By reposting private mail you are, in absolute
>reality, your own worst enemy.

What's more important is that this paragon of virtue and defender of the faith 
seems to be commiting a tortious act *each and every time he post a private 
e-mail message.*

You see, copyright law states that the *author* of a "work" holds the 
copright, and this includes (according to legal precedent) private 
correspondence.  For example, if a famous poet writes a private letter to a 
friend, and includes in that letter an original poem, the *reciepient* has NO 
right to copy, publish or sell the letter without the permission of the 
author.

This is a well established legal principle.

And it applies to e-mail just as much as it does to written letters, 
photographs or other copyrightable materials.

So, each time that Mr. James publically "copies" and "publishes" a private 
e-mail correspondence, he violates U.S. copyright law, and the authors of 
those messages are the victims of tortious conduct and can sue him.

All of which is interesting, but since the courts would likely not find 
against a mentally deranged person, it's probably a waste of time to sue.

-- 
Regards,

Scott Weiser

******

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"

******

The opinions expressed are my own.  If I was a laywer, you'd be
paying big bucks for this.  All complaints should be
delivered in person to: Gatekeeper@hell.org

Copyright 1996 by Scott Weiser

All rights of reproduction or distribution are retained by the author.

PGP 2.62 public key fingerprint:

A6 BD 79 21 A4 24 7B 10  F1 4C 2E BF D1 40 2A 0A

Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.

[The Right Reverend Colin James III]

Scott Weiser <Scott.Weiser@worldnet.att.net> posted with deletions:

| What's more important is that this paragon of virtue and defender of the faith 
| seems to be commiting a tortious act *each and every time he post a private 
| e-mail message.*
| 
| You see, copyright law states that the *author* of a "work" holds the 
| copright, and this includes (according to legal precedent) private 
| correspondence.  
|
| This is a well established legal principle.
| 
| And it applies to e-mail just as much as it does to written letters, 
| photographs or other copyrightable materials.
| 
| So, each time that Mr. James publically "copies" and "publishes" a private 
| e-mail correspondence, he violates U.S. copyright law, and the authors of 
| those messages are the victims of tortious conduct and can sue him.
| 
| All of which is interesting, but since the courts would likely not find 
| against a mentally deranged person, it's probably a waste of time to sue.


Scott Weiser is mistaken, as usual, about copyright infringements.

All _email_ I receive becomes my sole property, naturally, with which I
shall do as I deem fit, including publishing it without the author's
original copyright notice and without express written permission. 

If anyone doesn't like that idea, then don't send me email.

I have purposely altered Weiser's original usenet article article by
deleting parts of it without his permision.  

I have also purposely altered Weiser's copyright notice by removing it
completely along with other things.  

According to Weiser's argument, he can bring a tort action of copyright
infringement against me.  

The proper venue would be federal court.  

I invite Weiser to do so. 

Any federal judge will throw Weiser out of court as being "mentally
deranged" for his specious arguement, which flies in the face of the spirit
and intent of copyright law.

That is because Weiser can not establish that damage exists, and hence
monetary valuation of the extent of damages is impossible to establish.

The point is that unless value can be proven, a copyright notice is
meaningless.  Hence, putting a copyright notice on trivial communication is
ultimately of no protection whatsoever.

Weiser would have been better off by going to Synagogue on Friday, rather
than trying to practice copyright law on the internet by proferring
unstudied opinions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Re-usable, patented software for banks and financial markets. 
Mirror sites:  www.cec-services.com  &  www.cris.com/~cjames3
Colin James III, Principal Scientist, cjames@cec-services.com
CEC Services, LLC, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood,  CO  80215-1502
Voice: 303.231.9437;  Facs: 303.231.9438;  Data: 303.231.9434
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.

[The Right Reverend Colin James III]

Scott Weiser <Scott.Weiser@worldnet.att.net> posted with deletions:

| What's more important is that this paragon of virtue and defender of the faith 
| seems to be commiting a tortious act *each and every time he post a private 
| e-mail message.*
| 
| You see, copyright law states that the *author* of a "work" holds the 
| copright, and this includes (according to legal precedent) private 
| correspondence.  
|
| This is a well established legal principle.
| 
| And it applies to e-mail just as much as it does to written letters, 
| photographs or other copyrightable materials.
| 
| So, each time that Mr. James publically "copies" and "publishes" a private 
| e-mail correspondence, he violates U.S. copyright law, and the authors of 
| those messages are the victims of tortious conduct and can sue him.
| 
| All of which is interesting, but since the courts would likely not find 
| against a mentally deranged person, it's probably a waste of time to sue.


Scott Weiser is mistaken, as usual, about copyright infringements.

All _email_ I receive becomes my sole property, naturally, with which I
shall do as I deem fit, including publishing it without the author's
original copyright notice and without express written permission. 

If anyone doesn't like that idea, then don't send me email.

I have purposely altered Weiser's original usenet article article by
deleting parts of it without his permision.  

I have also purposely altered Weiser's copyright notice by removing it
completely along with other things.  

According to Weiser's argument, he can bring a tort action of copyright
infringement against me.  

The proper venue would be federal court.  

I invite Weiser to do so. 

Any federal judge will throw Weiser out of court as being "mentally
deranged" for his specious arguement, which flies in the face of the spirit
and intent of copyright law.

That is because Weiser can not establish that damage exists, and hence
monetary valuation of the extent of damages is impossible to establish.

The point is that unless value can be proven, a copyright notice is
meaningless.  Hence, putting a copyright notice on trivial communication is
ultimately of no protection whatsoever.

Weiser would have been better off by going to Synagogue on Friday, rather
than trying to practice copyright law on the internet by proferring
unstudied opinions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Re-usable, patented software for banks and financial markets. 
Mirror sites:  www.cec-services.com  &  www.cris.com/~cjames3
Colin James III, Principal Scientist, cjames@cec-services.com
CEC Services, LLC, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood,  CO  80215-1502
Voice: 303.231.9437;  Facs: 303.231.9438;  Data: 303.231.9434
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Re: Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.

[Ian Firth]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
 Useless, patent-leather software for wanks and supermarkets.
 Mirror Mirror on the wall, who's the wierdest of them all:  
 Colon James 1/3, Principal Lunatic
 cjames, cjames rant, rant james, rant@cec-services.com
 CEC Services, LLC, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood,  CO  80215-1502
 Voice: 382.5968;  Fax: 277.4653;  Data: 675.2637
 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So I can legally do the same thing then ?
BTW, can you decipher my phone code above ???

Re: Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.

[system]

In article <318C4C23.617E@divsoft.com>, Ian Firth <ian@divsoft.com> writes:
>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> Useless, patent-leather software for wanks and supermarkets.
> Mirror Mirror on the wall, who's the wierdest of them all:  
> Colon James 1/3, Principal Lunatic
> cjames, cjames rant, rant james, rant@cec-services.com
> CEC Services, LLC, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood,  CO  80215-1502
> Voice: 382.5968;  Fax: 277.4653;  Data: 675.2637
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
>So I can legally do the same thing then ?
>BTW, can you decipher my phone code above ???

This counts as satire and is protected by the first amendment.

I am quite willing to believe that e-mail is considered copyrighted
material, however if Colin is commenting on it, then his use may well
fall under fair use, especially since the commercial value of such
e-mail is likely nil, and he did not quote the whole thing.

While monetary damages are unlikely to be accessed, if a breach of
copyright law was found to have occured an injunction could be put
in force against Colin against further such action.  I would expect
that any violations of such an injunction would come under the 
heading of contempt of court with attendent penalties.

So to summarize, even when Colin is right (an apparently rare event) he
is wrong.

Cheers,
Robert

Not a lawyer, Scott Weiser practises copyright law on the internet.

[The Right Reverend Colin James III]

Scott Weiser <Scott.Weiser@worldnet.att.net> posted with deletions:

| What's more important is that this paragon of virtue and defender of the faith 
| seems to be commiting a tortious act *each and every time he post a private 
| e-mail message.*
| 
| You see, copyright law states that the *author* of a "work" holds the 
| copright, and this includes (according to legal precedent) private 
| correspondence.  
|
| This is a well established legal principle.
| 
| And it applies to e-mail just as much as it does to written letters, 
| photographs or other copyrightable materials.
| 
| So, each time that Mr. James publically "copies" and "publishes" a private 
| e-mail correspondence, he violates U.S. copyright law, and the authors of 
| those messages are the victims of tortious conduct and can sue him.
| 
| All of which is interesting, but since the courts would likely not find 
| against a mentally deranged person, it's probably a waste of time to sue.


Scott Weiser is mistaken, as usual, about copyright infringements.

All _email_ I receive becomes my sole property, naturally, with which I
shall do as I deem fit, including publishing it without the author's
original copyright notice and without express written permission. 

If anyone doesn't like that idea, then don't send me email.

I have purposely altered Weiser's original usenet article article by
deleting parts of it without his permision.  

I have also purposely altered Weiser's copyright notice by removing it
completely along with other things.  

According to Weiser's argument, he can bring a tort action of copyright
infringement against me.  

The proper venue would be federal court.  

I invite Weiser to do so. 

Any federal judge will throw Weiser out of court as being "mentally
deranged" for his specious arguement, which flies in the face of the spirit
and intent of copyright law.

That is because Weiser can not establish that damage exists, and hence
monetary valuation of the extent of damages is impossible to establish.

The point is that unless value can be proven, a copyright notice is
meaningless.  Hence, putting a copyright notice on trivial communication is
ultimately of no protection whatsoever.

Weiser would have been better off by going to Synagogue on Friday, rather
than trying to practice copyright law on the internet by proferring
unstudied opinions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Re-usable, patented software for banks and financial markets. 
Mirror sites:  www.cec-services.com  &  www.cris.com/~cjames3
Colin James III, Principal Scientist, cjames@cec-services.com
CEC Services, LLC, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood,  CO  80215-1502
Voice: 303.231.9437;  Facs: 303.231.9438;  Data: 303.231.9434
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Re: Brian Bell on harassing email

[Tom "Tom" Harrington]

Scott Weiser (Scott.Weiser@worldnet.att.net) wrote:

: So, each time that Mr. James publically "copies" and "publishes" a private 
: e-mail correspondence, he violates U.S. copyright law, and the authors of 
: those messages are the victims of tortious conduct and can sue him.

: All of which is interesting, but since the courts would likely not find 
: against a mentally deranged person, it's probably a waste of time to sue.

It's probably a waste of time anyway.  If someone violates your
copyright, you can sue for financial damages.  Except in very rare 
cases, you'd have a hard time proving any sort of financial loss 
as a result of posting private email.

Then there's the forgery question.  It's easy to forge a Usenet
article in someone else's name; so even if you sued, it'd be
possible for the defendant to claim that the posting was a forgery,
from someone else.

--
Tom Harrington --------- tph@rmii.com --------- http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph
--------==========> KOOK CODE: (Grubor+)*2 Fomin+  KC: 3 <==========--------
         This signature is not to be removed under penalty of law,
                          except by the consumer.
---> Visit CONSPIRACY ONLINE: http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph/bunker.html <----

Re: Is Dave Denney at it again, making obscene death threats ?

[Kent Mitchell]

Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd) (cjames@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Today I was informed by AT&T security personnel by telephone that David 
: Denney of Dimensional Communications, LLC, Denver, CO, had been sent 
: email about obscene email from Denney et al to me.

Of course we'll assume that *this* is the truth but it really says nothing.
Maybe they sent him e-mail encouraging him to send more mail to Colon. 
I kind of doubt it but you never really know from this statement.

: In my opinion, the email must have made Denney absolutely furious;  so 
: angry in fact that I received the following from him, via an anonymous
: mailing at The University of Denver.  What is curious is that in my 
: opinion Denney is apparently trying to impersonate David Weller now.

Of course Colon knows who sends him mail via anonymous services.  Not only
is he a "reverend" but now a mind reader.  He *KNOWS* this is David Denney
even if there is no information that identifies the writer.  And how David
Weller relates to this is a reach but I guess Colon just can't keep from 
dragging other people into his postings in the vain hope that someone will
care.

: -----------------[ begin obscene death threat by email ]---------

I don't see how the message  Colon posted is a "death threat".  I sounds
like a a simple statement of the desires of the writer with no implied
course of actions stated.  It's hard for anything to be a threat unless
someone actually state that he (or his agents) are going to cause an action.
About this message being obscene, well in order for something to be obscene
it is generally accepted that it must have "no redeeming social value".
It may be hard to argue that this message falls into this category as many
people might consider the death of Colon as a "good event" for society.


--
Kent Mitchell                   | One possible reason that things aren't
Technical Consultant            | going according to plan is .....
Rational Software Corporation   | that there never *was* a plan!