Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Bulk Substrate   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6382893 - 12/18/06 11:38 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

>If simply moving into a place with a built-in peephole cover can get you investigated, or worse, shot, we're in more trouble than I thought.

Do I really need to go there? I mean, you do know thats a fallacious argument dont you? Do I need to list the fallacy? I didnt think so, we all learned this back in high school. Think.. Ill post it if you dont know... (hint: this statement was never said nor argued - you purposely changed words to discredit... hmmm)

Here's another hint - see if you can pick it out:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#cause


funny...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6382961 - 12/18/06 12:00 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Again, if you're ALREADY under surveillance, then you should be cleaning your place, not obscuring your peephole as you have bigger problems already.

But, for the average Joe who isn't suspected of anything, covering your peephole and windows so nobody can see the bong on your coffee table is not going to land you in jail, or even raise suspicion. There has to be something else going on with you to make tape on a peephole an issue that would concern the cops.

That [covering windows and peepholes] would completely stupid and would get anyone busted.

Unless the person covering peepholes and windows is already in trouble, you're grossly exaggerating.

And a covered peephole is easily and legally discovered from a good distance from the entrance of a home.

A covered peephole and an uncovered peephole in a dark apartment look the same from the outside.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOJK
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 06/08/03
Posts: 10,629
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6383113 - 12/18/06 01:07 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

This is totally, totally ridiculous.

I'm curious about the circumstances under which a covered peephole could generate suspicion... assuming the police don't have a warrant to search your residence (because if they do, it doesn't matter if they can see in your peephole or not) the only way they can tell that your peephole is covered is by attempting to (illegally, by your argument) look through it.

So in effect, you're telling people that stopping police officers performing illegal surveillance on you is a bad idea? What's next,"Never refuse a police officer if he asks to search your car or your house, even though you have a legal right to refuse, because it might generate suspicion," ? Can't you see how massively stupid that is?

Of course it's a good idea to use a peephole cover. Stopping anyone with $10.00, a mailbox and access to Ebay from looking in your front door without your knowledge is a good idea. You also come off looking like an argumentative immature jackass when you flame respected site staff offering sound advice.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Diploid]
    #6383204 - 12/18/06 01:36 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

http://cbs4boston.com/newhampshirewire/NH--MarijuanaArrests_e_n_0nh--/resources_news_html

DO NOT CLICK THE BELOW LINK FROM THE SHROOMERY - MANY GOVNMT SITES TRACK WHICH SITE YOU LINKED TOO

[url=http://anonym.to/?http://www.wsp.wa.gov/crime/hotline.htm]www.wsp.wa.gov/crime/hotline.htm[/url]
www.sbi.utah.gov/narcotics/spotpot.html
[url=http://anonym.to/?http://www.kansas.gov/drugenforcement/stopgrows.htm]www.kansas.gov/drugenforcement/stopgrows.htm[/url]
www.homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/99/990305.html

[url=http://anonym.to/?http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06160602jsk.pdf]www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06160602jsk.pdf[/url]

www.checkfirstonline.com/Warning-Signs.htm

Every single one mentions covered windows. They also mention concealing visibility from the outside. The DEA goes a tad deeper.
Once I get out of class I will happily dig up the DEA link which specifically states Covered windows, mail slots, and peepholes warrant suspicion of illegal drug related use. I wont do it attached to my school ID.

Now, stop with your "I think this, I think that" you have 0 credentials or references. Let me guess, every State in the US and the other links provided, they are all just blowing snow up your ass right? Yeah, dont believe what is heavily advertised in drug related departments of every state, and developed country. (I can post links for the UK, Canada, Spain, etc, which all say the same thing)

>A covered peephole and an uncovered peephole in a dark apartment look the same from the outside.

No fucking shit sherlock... I never said they looked different at night, with no lights on.

you are very stupid, or naive, or maybe just plain ignorant.

Its obvious you have never performed surveillance, have you? You simply walk any time past dark but still before 8 or 9 at night, and you can tell each place that has covered door slots and peepholes. That CAN and DOES warrant a bored cop walking the K9 by and getting a hit, a walla getting a warrant. I will dig up cases (proving that simple k9 walk by's are completely legal with little to no suspicion) if needs be to prove this as well. Its done fairly often. You think they (Govnmnt) is that stupid they cant even tell when someone goes to great lengths to conceal their activities like that?

Try it - at night, when 90% of home lights are on. Takes less than a minute or two to see who has blacked out their doors.

Ive done the studies (police abuse, growing govnmt, etc) for several classes already.

I have 5 family members holding federal positions, including 2 in search/seizure related to drug/firearms fields. (ATF and DEA) (doesnt change who I am). I have compiled several reports, some peer reviewed, on related civil/government issues. Please stop with your guessing, and shut up until you can offer anything valid besides "your" feelings on the subject.

Now, before your negligent advice gets some one in trouble, know before you speak.

Edited by Bluemoondreamer (12/18/06 01:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6383217 - 12/18/06 01:41 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

>So in effect, you're telling people that stopping police officers performing illegal surveillance on you is a bad idea? What's next,"Never refuse a police officer if he asks to search your car or your house, even though you have a legal right to refuse, because it might generate suspicion," ? Can't you see how massively stupid that is?

Where the fuck are you getting this shit? I never said any such thing, if I did, quote the line exactly.

I said -
"All I said in my above post was that his advice COULD get someone hurt, when it is a pointless measure. In fact, if they used a borescope illegally to bust you, you would have a good case for your lawyer to argue."

Those are two entirely different statements. Grow up.. get educated.

Yeah you try what you stated above... Darwinism at its best, guess we gotta thin the heard sometimes.

>he only way they can tell that your peephole is covered is by attempting to (illegally, by your argument) look through it.

Wrong again. You can tell from 50-75 feet away just by looking in that general direction.

feel free to argue my points, but arguments containing reworded phrases or misdirected meanings are fallacious. If you want to debate something Ive said, post case numbers or links, not your feelings or guess. And if you want to address something Ive said, quote the entire line. Dont take things out of context, that really shows how immature , ignorant, and uneducated you have become.

Ill stop here since a couple senior members are saying EVERY state department is essentially blowing snow up everyones ass. Every state department, federal body, and foriegn government is just wrong even though it is freely posted on every "Signs of marijuana grow op" "Signs of a clandestine lab in your neigborhood".

Whatever... you can lead a horse to water..

Edited by Bluemoondreamer (12/18/06 01:50 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6383350 - 12/18/06 02:10 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

One last thing... if you cant see that all I am saying is, there are better solutions than covering a peephole. How about move your bong to your bedroom and smoke in your bathroom? Why not keep all illegal items out of sight?

That is much better thank blacking out your home/apt/whatever. It draws less suspicion, and guess what? if a crook breaks in when your not home, and a cop HAS TO WALK THROUGH YOUR HOME to make sure it is safe...

Tell me who has a better chance comming out unscathed... Someone who left a bong on there table, or someone who has no illegal items in sight?

Same deal if a cop feals someone is in trouble. If your bong is on the table, bye bye... Or if someone leads a normal looking life, and puts there shit away, and doesnt black out there place, chances are, you wont have issues... But if a cop comes in, sees tape on your peephole, trashbags over the windows, he will be watching for quite a while.

But do it your way. Just black out your place, you will be fine.

Edited by Bluemoondreamer (12/18/06 02:11 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6383393 - 12/18/06 02:21 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Alright, enough with the flaming and childish, disrespectful name calling to people who are engaging you in a civilized manner. Your behavior lends no weight to your argument, and it makes you come across like an excitable child.

One day forum ban so you can think about it.

And while I'm at it:

you have 0 credentials or references

And you're still in school. :shrug:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoom
just a tester
Male
Registered: 06/16/04
Posts: 11,252
Loc: Cypress Creek
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Diploid]
    #6384036 - 12/18/06 05:58 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

:lol:

this is the craziest thread I've ever seen in this forum...

Bluemoondreamer is on a tirade in here :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Boom]
    #6384136 - 12/18/06 06:39 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

he's also full of shit.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStroFun
Repeater

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 977
Loc: Mycotopia.net
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: wilshire]
    #6384171 - 12/18/06 06:51 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

this thread sucks.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6385330 - 12/19/06 03:55 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

> You apparently dont know public law

I am a scientist, not a lawyer. However, I have read a handful of law books that were written with the layman in mind. I certainly know more than the average Law and Order television fan (...or whatever the latest police/court show is. I don't watch television.)

Your statement: "Using devices to circumvent that protection [designed to make it unviewable from the outside] and view the inside of a home would be considered illegal."

Thus, for your statement to be correct, there must be a federal law or constitutional amendment that states that it is illegal for people (or law enforcement) to view the inside of your home by circumventing "screening" protection devices". I claim that no such law exists and asked you to prove me wrong by stating the actual law that you claim exists. Your reply "You apparently dont (sic) know public law. I would do your homework for you, but please get a grip and clue before you open your mouth" is ad hominem and has nothing to do with answering the challenge I posed. As such, I have to assume that you are incorrect and unable to prove otherwise.

Lets proceed to your next argument:

"Unlike a garbage search, defendants experiencing an FLIR-device search do not voluntarily emit the heat this equipment detects, cannot foresee this kind of search on their homes, and cannot avoid this form of detection."

So police cannot use evidence obtained with a FLIR-device without a court order. Please show me where it makes it illegal for police to use a FLIR-device. Please show me the court cases that show that police looking through a peephole is seen by the courts the same as police using a FLIR-device. Until the court cases exist linking the two, the link is a "sounds about right" guess on your part. When it comes to my freedom, I am not going to trust a guess.

> Please, get a life and an education before you become such a self righteous smartass.

Again, ad hominem. I also haven't seen you present your credentials. Perhaps you have a PhD in colorful language? I spent eight years at an accredited engineering university studying physics, electrical engineering (digital emphasis), and computer science. I have almost 200 hours of college credit under my belt. Do you still want to compare education? Was there a point to this?

Quote:

"Recently the Supreme Court found that the monitoring without a warrant of an electronic beeper inside a private residence, where the beeper was not observable to the naked eye, violated the Fourth Amendment.[6] "For the purposes of the [Fourth] Amendment, the result is the same [as for a physical search without a warrant] where, without a warrant, the Government surreptitiously employs an electronic device to obtain information that it could not have obtained by [unaided] observation from outside the curtailage of the house."[7] Thus, the monitoring of the beeper while it was inside the residence infringed on the homeowners' reasonable expectation of privacy and violated the Fourth Amendment."

COULD NOT BEEN ATTAINED FROM THE UNAIDED EYE...




The original word you used was illegal. I see nothing in the above that makes it illegal for police to "obtain information that could not have obtained by [unaided] observation from outside the curtailage of the house."

> Christ you say the dumbest shit sometimes Seuss...

Everybody has their moments. Again, ad hominem.

> When the supreme court has upheld numerous cases dealing with unwarranted searches based on the exact same collection criteria, it is law.

The supreme court interprets law. Congress passes law. This is basic high school liberty and law stuff. The supreme court does not "create law" through their rulings.

You made a claim that it was illegal for police to use devices to look inside your home. I asked you to show me the law that makes it illegal for police to look inside your home (using devices). You replied with the following tirade:

You apparently dont know public law.
grip and clue before you open your mouth.
get a life and an education before you become such a self righteous smartass.
Christ you say the dumbest shit sometimes Seuss...
Seuss - are you really that stupid
Do you even have your JD? How about a BA or BS?
Have you even taken a introductory civics, pl, or cj curriculum?
Youve hit your limits on drugs

All I asked for was the law that states that it is illegal for LEO to use active devices to look inside a home (curtilige if you want to be specific) without a search warrant or court order.

Again, you site cases that show that evidence can be suppressed from these activities (searches), but you have not shown the activities to be illegal which was your initial premise.

From past debates, I know that Wilshire knows his what he is talking about when it comes to law. If he isn't a lawyer, then I would be surprised to find that he isn't in law school. I am pretty certain that when I make mistakes regarding the law, that he will correct me in a mature manner, as he has done in the past. I will trust his opinion, that you are "full of shit" as well.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefunkyjunky
Sigh Low Sippin'
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/03
Posts: 420 420 Posts!
Loc: brick city
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Seuss]
    #6391540 - 12/20/06 06:28 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

One last post before this thread goes off to the graveyard...
I checked my apartment building the other night, 29 of 30 doors had the window at the top of the door blocked, and over 1/3 had dark peepholes at night, which looked identical to my taped peephole. In fewer words, my covered-peephole door looked identical to over 33% of the other doors.
And I would take Seuss (in a library) over any public defender!


--------------------
Long Live the Shroomery
Peace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: funkyjunky]
    #6392969 - 12/21/06 04:02 AM (17 years, 4 months ago)

> And I would take Seuss (in a library) over any public defender!

Heh... I wouldn't. *grin* Though, if I had a public defender, I would certainly be spending the majority of my time in the library making sure that my rear end was covered.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Seuss]
    #6392973 - 12/21/06 04:18 AM (17 years, 4 months ago)

For those following this thread, Bluemoondreamer was a puppet of XTCollection, and has been banned permanently. XTCollection is still allowed to post. I don't know if XTCollection will continue the "debate" or not, but if so, please be aware they are the same identity.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblefastfred
Old Hand
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Seuss]
    #6403977 - 12/28/06 04:50 AM (17 years, 4 months ago)

Damn this was a crazy thread...

I kinda have to agree with XTC though on some points.

If FLIR is unreasonable search, as it seems to be, then it IS illegal. No prosecutor would bust a cop for it, but you could sue over it.

Looking in a peephole with a borescope is almost certainly just as illegal. Of course, most cops are more criminal than the average citizen and would have no moral problem committing this crime.

Covering your peephole probably doesn't matter one way or the other, but to be smart (and to turn this thread constructive) just use a piece of wax paper or tissue paper.

Blacking out your windows is pretty much a dead giveaway and would be pretty stupid. OTOH everyone has curtains.

One good point is that cops have many dirty tricks. A K9 walk by is license to search anyone at any time for any reason. A K9 will indicate on anything it's master wants, so if they actually have reason to suspect you then they will search if they want to.

The whole "We need more evidence for a warrant," bullshit is just TV drama. There's "I smelled the odor of drugs", "I heard a scream", "anonymous neighbors heard a violent argument", "The K9 indicated", etc, etc, etc. I've even seen them flat out lie and say they got a 911 hangup call from the telephone line.

Anyway... Wax paper! And you guys need to smoke a jay and chill out.


-FF

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXTCollection
Stranger

Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 340
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Suess - [Re: fastfred]
    #6418026 - 01/02/07 12:26 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

This message was sent to Suess-

Do you have any evidence of this other than your hunch? BMD informed me about what happened, I checked and now supposedly he is a puppet of me? Or I am of him? Im slightly confused.

Anyhow, he stays with me more than 6 months out of the year. I have proof of this becuase we both have internet bills in different names. We also have two different IP's. How can two members with different ip's but from the same ISP be puppets?

Look I dont know what you have against the guy, but Im not going to foward you two bills with peoples names on it. That is a bad security move.

I have spoken about BMD in several posts a LONG time back. I dont where this gang mentalitly came from, but do you make it a habbit to try and call people out?

I searched my posts, he hasnt used my account for anything, so I dont find any legitamite reasoning why you banned him, let alone throwing accusations about maliceous behavior.

I will post this in the thread you made these accusations, and will wait for an appropriate response.

--

Now I do not understand what caused this gang mentallity to rush in, and start some war against BMD. But your not going to drag me in with it. We occasionally use the same pc, but its not often. Furthermore, I have spoken about BMD several times about a class mate who has siblings overseas, and the legal right to grow mushrooms, as we never did in the US. He was responsible for all of the photos and growing that I posted. (I never took the credit in any of my posts tho)

I think Suess is sad reflection of the shroomery, throwing accusations around with out knowing anything about anyone. If this is because he asked me to leave a rating for you, I did, and I will now go through everyone else in this thread that shows this gang mentallity of beating people up because he voiced some views against the almighty suess.

Im almost angry, but it shows the admins who posted in this thread are the same low life scum that ran overgrow. You show the same behavior patterns that Admins at OG displayed, and eventually built cases against their members to save their own asses when OG went down.

You have no proof of your accusation, you just accuse because I left you a feedback at the request of a friend? Where is this wrong in the TOS? College roomates cannot use the same PC to post? Is this against the rules?

I have already spoken about bluemoondreamer in several posts long before this came up. Ill post them if needs be. I know we have two different internet accounts. I will not foward his and my bills to you to verify this.

You have no evidence of any wrong doing, but you freely accuse members of doing so. If you didnt like the negative feedback, maybe you should have thought about your decision to inform members it was ok to black out your living spaces. BMD asked me to leave a feedback for you, I logged in and did so (after reading the thread and drawing my own conclusions).

I leave the ball in Suess's court so everyone can freely see, he is just a big baby that can amount to a major security threat to its users.

Would BMD and I logged on at the exact same time from 2 different IP's prove you wrong?

What if BMD and I called you from two seperate phone lines at the exact same time?

Or how about BMD mails you a postcard from his sister's country when he is there, and Ill mail one to you from the US the exact same day?

So go ahead Suess - you name it. Tell me what I and him have to do.

Ohh and once your done stating your "demands", you need to give him an apology. He never did a thing too you. He was only giving advice that most the world understands as common knowledge, and in your pursuit to be right no matter what the costs, you decided to make accusations against him (and now me).

I still trade and communicate regularly with members outside of this board. Anyone who may read this, as you probably know, suess is few cans short of a six pack.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXTCollection
Stranger

Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 340
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Seuss]
    #6418263 - 01/02/07 01:28 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
For those following this thread, Bluemoondreamer was a puppet of XTCollection, and has been banned permanently. XTCollection is still allowed to post. I don't know if XTCollection will continue the "debate" or not, but if so, please be aware they are the same identity.




More appropriately worded:

For those following this thread, I had to make myself appear right, no matter what. Therefore, I banned bluemoondreamer for the only reason I could. I banned him as a puppet of XTC even though those two accounts have never posted defending one another, or discrediting other members, as the definition maliceous puppet implies. Furthermore, I wont allow XTC or BMD to prove that they are in fact individual members. I know you must ask yourself, when the hell did they become puppets? Neither of the started any arguements, nor did they defend each others point of view. Hell XTCollection has only been on to lurk maybe 5 times in the past year. But since both members left me a negative feedback, thats all the proof I need to ban them as puppets, and to foward your (insert username here) IP#'s, email addresses, and personal info to the homeland security department. Ok, that last part really wont happen unless you really piss me off. -Seuss

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXTCollection
Stranger

Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 340
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: XTCollection]
    #6418325 - 01/02/07 01:42 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

Here I am posting - under my name and IP...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebluemoonfvr
Stranger
Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 2
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: XTCollection]
    #6418326 - 01/02/07 01:42 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

Let me guess, Im the same person as XTC?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXTCollection
Stranger

Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 340
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: bluemoonfvr]
    #6418335 - 01/02/07 01:44 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

Exactly. So which mod would like to verify they are in fact, two different IP#s and computers all together? (I dont know if admins can see mac #'s etc...)

Same time, two different IP's, accounts, and people.

No too bright of a detective are you suess? So what else would you like to prove we are two different people?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Bulk Substrate   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Using RFID to stealthily circumvent controlled delivery Kryptos 845 17 03/09/16 10:08 PM
by enlightened seed
* Bailing from X state to another to circumvent criminal charges Anonymous 441 6 09/14/10 07:56 PM
by c1dh3d
* How can I mask my IP for sendind untrackeable e-mail??
( 1 2 all )
AIRDOG 679 26 06/19/11 03:48 PM
by Stonehenge
* I didn't lie on the application....I just didn't understand it!
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 2,419 50 10/31/08 12:51 PM
by Stonehenge
* Caught-opinions wanted...
( 1 2 3 all )
starcade 1,327 58 02/14/11 02:01 PM
by linkamathingy
* TEK: Halting apartment managers and other employees in their tracks...
( 1 2 all )
Smallworlds 1,637 20 10/23/05 10:14 PM
by _OttO_
* PLUTONIUM GOT ME BUSTED! *DELETED*
( 1 2 3 4 all )
BlimeyGrimey 7,289 74 10/18/06 01:29 AM
by BlimeyGrimey
* I just got probable cause raided, and I'm still here... WTF
( 1 2 all )
Eraserhead 3,432 30 07/06/06 08:51 AM
by Eraserhead

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, Alan Rockefeller
4,251 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.