SYD STALKER ????

Frisky Little Kitty · Post by **Frisky Little Kitty** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:23 am

fat_old_sun wrote:
In The Pink wrote:New twist to this thread.....

Do you guys think that people who make the stalker footage available for download are comparable to the person(s) who originally filmed it, and sold it? Is it as bad to keep offering it for download/file sharing/ so on, as it was to make it in the first place?
perhaps this is a bad comparrison but i think its close...

Here in Australia there has been a huge crack down on illegal child pornography. Guys have been jailed for years having alot of it in possesion, yet where are the guys that actually film it?
i haven't heard one news report on a defendant actually filming it or distributing it, only owning it from downloading it. all those shareware programs are riddle with the crap, yet u dont see any of those being closed. Thats where all these people are getting it from. From IRC channels and everywhere, yet none of these have seen justice.

Keith or Mod - delete this if inappropiate.

There is NO comparison......One is a guy walking down the street the other is the devistation and distruction of a child.....How can anyone be sick enough to see a connection?

CleverName · Post by **CleverName** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:07 am

I don't think you need to accuse him of being sick. He was trying to make a contribution to the thread. I don't see anything wrong with trying to get a little insight by making a slightly odd comparison.

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:26 am

Frisky Little Kitty wrote: There is NO comparison......One is a guy walking down the street the other is the devistation and distruction of a child.....How can anyone be sick enough to see a connection?

dont try to flame me just because me and linda are having a tiff. thats just immature, and yes there is a connection in the legality of subject. its not the subject but its the justice factor that i was trying to get people to see... how can anyone be sick enough to not see past the obvious?

In The Pink · Post by **In The Pink** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:02 am

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:19 am

In The Pink wrote:grow up fos. Her post had shit to do with you and me. She doesn't even know you PMd me, nor that I PMd you, so can the paranioa. She has every right to wonder what the hell someone stalking Roger Barrett, and Child pornography have in common. She didn't flame you. She asked how some one can be sick enough to see a connection. If you believe there is a connection, why don't you bother to answer her question, rather than be immature, and try to pick yet another fight? Ooops my bad, that's your game now, isn't it?

Anyway...

fat_old_sun wrote:perhaps this is a bad comparrison but i think its close...

Keith or Mod - delete this if inappropiate.
How do your own words taste????

CleverName wrote:I don't think you need to accuse him of being sick. He was trying to make a contribution to the thread. I don't see anything wrong with trying to get a little insight by making a slightly odd comparison.
Did she accuse him? NO she asked a question. HOW CAN anyone be sick enough??? If fos sees a valid connection, then he has every right to stand up and back that connection. But instead of doing so, he has chosen to try to claim that Frisky's post was to get at him, cause he's pissed at ME. Perhaps all she was trying to so was get insight into how pornography and Roger Barrett are related. Or did you not stop to think that this is a DISCUSSION. Not a one-sided dictation?

The world doesn't revolve around you fos. Nor does this thread. Keep your own hatred for me, or disappointment, or whatever it is out of this thread please.

i think thats a valid reponse.

i simply tried to continue ur precious thread by forgetting about PFCO, but then Cat said that crap. i dont need it so i have every right to say what i did so can it.

this thread might as well be locked now.

In The Pink · Post by **In The Pink** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:01 am

darteh · Post by **darteh** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:31 am

Arguing on the Internet is just like participating in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:34 am

darteh wrote:Arguing on the Internet is just like participating in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

finially some brains

TheDoctor · Post by **TheDoctor** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:27 pm

pfco wrote:Yes that is the infamous "stalker video" filmed by people associated with rogerwatersonline.com website, and sold by the owner of pinkfloydz.com. The seller claimed to have permission from Syd's family, but further investigation proved that they did not. Anyone who participates in stuff like this should not be trusted in any fan community. This is one reason why our website is not participating in helping pinkfloydz.com get money for this Tsunami raffle he's promoting. We don't feel comfortable in telling people to send their money to a person who has such low ethical standards.

Joe and Sandy

sorry to bring this up again. CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!?!

Joe and Sandy... whatever!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yes, the stalking video is not cool... yes, lets all leave Syd alone and respect his privacy...

you two are entitled to your own beliefs, but it's not right or cool to single out Col and attack his gallant efforts.

Your actions on this board speak for themselves.

"cheers"
Doc

(sorry Keith... had to be said)

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:29 pm

haha more brains!!!

Post by **Keith Jordan** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:32 pm

This topic will not be locked. You will behave youselves.

When I get home from work later, and before I start my second job, I am going to review this thread and possibly start banning people. Some people may get their PM facility disabled as well.

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:19 pm

ok, now all that the above has been said, i'm going to try to continue this thread as it was supposed to continue...

In The Pink wrote:New twist to this thread.....

Do you guys think that people who make the stalker footage available for download are comparable to the person(s) who originally filmed it, and sold it? Is it as bad to keep offering it for download/file sharing/ so on, as it was to make it in the first place?

its a very interesting question and well worth a debate...

heres another comparrison. a burgular steals a TV from a random house and sells it to a secondhand dealer. according to law, thats trafficing, therefore its my understanding that the secondhand dealer could be charged with accepting stolen goods. what this says is that its just as illegal to keep the chain going so, redistributing the footage would still be bad in the eye of the law and of my own eye.
thoughts?

TheDoctor · Post by **TheDoctor** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:23 pm

fat_old_sun wrote:redistributing the footage would still be bad in the eye of the law and of my own eye.
thoughts?

there was no law broken here... but ethicly... i would have to agree with you.

fat_old_sun · Post by **fat_old_sun** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:50 pm

TheDoctor wrote:
fat_old_sun wrote:redistributing the footage would still be bad in the eye of the law and of my own eye.
thoughts?
there was no law broken here... but ethicly... i would have to agree with you.

well can someone look it up on the legality of the stalking laws? cos if stalking is illegal, then the footage would be deemed illegal, then redistibuting would be then deemed illegal too... hmmm.

TheDoctor · Post by **TheDoctor** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:13 pm

fat_old_sun wrote: well can someone look it up on the legality of the stalking laws? cos if stalking is illegal, then the footage would be deemed illegal, then redistibuting would be then deemed illegal too... hmmm.

okay... take my word for it. i'm a former professional television station news videographer (ENG) for 7 years. There IS not law that forbids anyone from videotaping anyone or anything as long as you are standing in public property... what is in plain view is fair game.

Now if i put my video camera over a fence into another persons backyeard... that is invasion of privacy and would fall under a violation of "tresspassing". Criminal action could then apply.

I've dealt with this issue many many times from a first hand experience.

The only legal recourse is in a civil suit, BUT you have to proove that distress or harm has been done, which is very difficult to do.