Home | Community | Message Board

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

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
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
Reverse Peephole
    #6355890 - 12/10/06 09:33 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

I finnnnnnnally got stoned and of course ideas start poppin' into my head... As I was applying electrical tape to my peephole (makes it look like lights are off from outside), I began wondering, since the peephole is just a concave or convex lens, the reverse design at the proper focal point would reverse the view.  Since I live in a one-room studio apartment, this means anyone outside could see my entire dwelling without my knowledge!  I did a google search and lo and behold  Reverse Peephole Scope  showing exactly what my paranoid mind was dreaming up.

Question is, would this type of surveillance require the same type of warrant as other spying?  Like phone recording, infrared, internet monitoring.  Because: plain sight requires no warrant, even if binoculars are used, afaik.

egad, i'm outta tinfoil for hats!  :tokeeporder:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblerod
Ψ
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/29/05
Posts: 3,727
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: funkyjunky]
    #6356004 - 12/10/06 10:08 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Well you got me thinking, so I went outside,
but I cant see shit.

I dont know about the legal thing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: funkyjunky]
    #6356076 - 12/10/06 10:26 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Using some device to look through a peephole that you normally can't see through definitely doesn't sound like 'plain-view' to me.


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKoala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: dblaney]
    #6356278 - 12/10/06 11:19 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

I don't know.

You're just reshaping the light that is already escaping the apartment. Using binoculars you're bending the light you wouldn't otherwise be able to see.

Neither is fair, but if something is seen through your window with binoculars, without a warrant, I doubt it would be thrown out.

Some doors have a little metal flap over the inside peephole. I would either get that, or some duct tape, or a piece of fabric and a velco-pad sticky thing if I were concerned.

Thanks for bringing it up though.


--------------------
You're not like the others. You like the same things I do. Wax paper, boiled football leather... dog breath. We're not hitch-hiking anymore, we're riding!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOJK
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 06/08/03
Posts: 10,629
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: funkyjunky]
    #6356302 - 12/10/06 11:31 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

what's a "peephole" :confused: ?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKoala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: OJK]
    #6356346 - 12/10/06 11:48 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

It's a circular piece of glass, about a centimeter in diameter on a door.

It's curved on the outside convexly, so that someone on the outside can't see in as the light is scattered, but from the inside you can see who is out there. The curve makes it possible to see pretty far to the sides of the area outside your door.


--------------------
You're not like the others. You like the same things I do. Wax paper, boiled football leather... dog breath. We're not hitch-hiking anymore, we're riding!

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]
    #6356674 - 12/11/06 02:58 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

> Question is, would this type of surveillance require the same type of warrant as other spying?

My guess is that the lower courts would see this as looking in a window. They would take the attitude, if you don't want people looking in your peephole, then you should cover it. The higher courts may disagree, but unlikely.


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

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: funkyjunky]
    #6356891 - 12/11/06 06:37 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

just keep it covered up. you really shouldn't have anything in view anyway. it's probably the number one cause of drug busts in homes of casual users, reverse peephole or no.

i don't think that the courts would see using a lens to look into a peephole in the same way they would see looking in a window. the police would probably need a warrant.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOJK
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 06/08/03
Posts: 10,629
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Koala Koolio]
    #6357039 - 12/11/06 08:26 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Koala Koolio said:
It's a circular piece of glass, about a centimeter in diameter on a door.

It's curved on the outside convexly, so that someone on the outside can't see in as the light is scattered, but from the inside you can see who is out there. The curve makes it possible to see pretty far to the sides of the area outside your door.




whooah!

clever!

Thinking about it, I guess I have seen those before in North American films and TV :o

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKoala Koolio
TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG

Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 7,752
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: OJK]
    #6357227 - 12/11/06 09:53 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Yep, "we" are big fans of having the peephole camera view in movies. Actually, when doing a movie in highschool we used it. Actually just put the camera up to the peephole and it worked out really well.

Anyway, it's true that you shouldn't have anything in view of the door in the first place. People tend to be curious when walking by, and peep a look when the door is open. Especially if you're that guy who's always up to something in his apartment and never communicating with the neighbors. :wink:


--------------------
You're not like the others. You like the same things I do. Wax paper, boiled football leather... dog breath. We're not hitch-hiking anymore, we're riding!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Koala Koolio]
    #6373244 - 12/15/06 09:11 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

No, using this without a warrant is highly illegal.

In your home, you should expect a reasonable degree of privacy. The degree lessens when you open a window or open your front door.

A peephole is designed to make it unviewable from the outside.

Using devices to circumvent that protection and view the inside of a home would be considered illegal. Binoculars do not circumvent designs meant to protect your privacy; therefore they are legal to use.

Same applies FLIR scans. Even though its just the heat that naturally radiates from the home, it still circumvents the privacy afforded by the walls surrounding your home.

Any competent lawyer could easily get the evidence gathered from such a investigation thrown out of court.

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]
    #6382237 - 12/18/06 04:53 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

> Any competent lawyer could easily get the evidence gathered from such a investigation thrown out of court.

I think "easily" is a bit too optimistic.  I wouldn't bet my freedom on it.  Police are allowed to look in windows.  I don't see how a peephole is any different.  If you don't want somebody looking in, then cover it up.

> Using devices to circumvent that protection and view the inside of a home would be considered illegal

Cool.  Please site the releveant public law.  Thought so...  :rolleyes:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Seuss]
    #6382354 - 12/18/06 07:27 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Seuss, you seem a bit jumpy and rude...

> Cool. Please site the releveant public law. Thought so... :rolleyes:

You apparently dont know public law. I would do your homework for you, but please get a grip and clue before you open your mouth.

"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."

Its already been held up in the supreme court, same principle. Please, get a life and an education before you become such a self righteous smartass.

"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...

Christ you say the dumbest shit sometimes Seuss...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6382360 - 12/18/06 07:31 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Seuss - are you really that stupid? You really cant see the difference between an open window and using tools to monitor a home?

Do you even have your JD? How about a BA or BS? Have you even taken a introductory civics, pl, or cj curriculum?  :rolleyes:

Maybe before you give advice that could hurt people, you should know what your talking about? You dont even have the credentials most uneducated police officers have, and your interpreting law?

When the supreme court has upheld numerous cases dealing with unwarranted searches based on the exact same collection criteria, it is law. Hence, supreme court. Would you like the case #'s?

Youve hit your limits on drugs my friend... take a break and step away from the pipe...  :bouncysmoke:

Edited by Bluemoondreamer (12/18/06 08:09 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6382427 - 12/18/06 08:27 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

FYI - your referring to the division of constitutional law, not public law as a whole. Your also trying to interpret law that has already been interpreted and upheld numerous times in the supreme court.

Here you go - Ill do a little bit of your homework for you -

No. 96-30333

[o]ur fellow circuits have, we think, misapprehended
the most pernicious of the device's capabilities. The
machine intrudes upon the privacy of the home not
because it records white spots on a dark background
but rather because the interpretation of that data
allows the government to monitor those domestic
activities that generate a significant amount of heat.
Thus, while the imager cannot reproduce images or
sounds, it nonetheless strips the sanctuary of the
home of one vital dimension of its security: `the
right to be let alone' from the arbitrary and discre-
tionary monitoring of our actions by government
officials.

No. 85-1027

"Probable cause is required to invoke the "plain view" doctrine as it applies to seizures. It would be illogical to hold that an object is seizable on lesser grounds..."

Edited by Bluemoondreamer (12/18/06 08:33 AM)

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]
    #6382446 - 12/18/06 08:40 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

before you give advice that could hurt people

I don't see how advising people to cover their peephole, just in case, is bad advice or likely to get anyone hurt.

Quote:

If you don't want somebody looking in, then cover it up.




You don't need a JD to see the sense in that ^^^ suggestion.

And all legal technicalities aside, I think we all know that cops frequently break the law. They may not be able to directly use all the information they garner through illegal surveillance (looking in your peephole, for example), but that information can tip them off and subsequently lead to legal and sanctioned surveillance that will hold up in court even if the surveillance that started the ball rolling won't.


--------------------
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
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6382457 - 12/18/06 08:47 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Finally, borescopes (what you call people looking in your peephole) have been used in law enforcement for ages, and are classified under surveillance - and require a warrant to use. (have required warrants to use since its introduction)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Bluemoondreamer]
    #6382462 - 12/18/06 08:51 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Obstructing windows, mail slots, and peepholes generate suspicion quicker than hearsay could. Its commonly referred to and viewed as criminal activity.

In fact, thats in the top ten list distributed by the dea on how to spot grow ops etc. Ill pull the exact pamphlet after class.

*so yes, that information could gravely hurt another individual, especially if they are not under investigation. If a peephole is covered prior to executing a search warrant, it could wind up with the inhabitants shot and killed. If you dont understand how this could happen, Ill gladly explain.

Covering up a peephole is asking for trouble. And a covered peephole is easily and legally discovered from a good distance from the entrance of a home.

Edited by Bluemoondreamer (12/18/06 08:58 AM)

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]
    #6382555 - 12/18/06 09:33 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Obstructing windows, mail slots, and peepholes generate suspicion quicker than hearsay could. Its commonly referred to and viewed as criminal activity.

I don't buy that for one minute. Lots of peepholes come equipped with a sliding cover. 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.

Same goes for curtains obscuring the view through your windows.

Now, if you're ALREADY under surveillance, then I can see how extraordinary efforts to conceal your home can raise suspicion, but by that time, you have bigger problems than an open peephole.


--------------------
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
OfflineBluemoondreamer
Stranger
Registered: 02/11/05
Posts: 107
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: Diploid]
    #6382794 - 12/18/06 11:11 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Over simplifying it like a covered peephole will get you investigated and shot, sure, you would be fool to think like that.

Im not going to argue by playing on words, but if the DEA specifically lists Obstructed windows, mail slots, and/or peepholes as a top sign of illegal activity going on, it isnt the smartest thing to do without any justification.

And yes, some homes come with peep hole covers. Most apartment complexes, low income housing, and condo's do not. Covering immidiately makes it stand out by simply glancing over one wall of apartment door covers.

Curtains obscuring your windows, and blacked out windows are different things, again, an over simplification of the subject does not apply.

If the DEA specifically lists obstructed windows, mail slots, and peepholes as key indication of grow-ops, why the hell would you say its a smart thing to do?

Allow me to over simplify your statements. Put duct tape on your peephole, place duct tape over every seal on your doors (because if police break the law all the time as you say, they will just simply use a fiber optic camera through the seals of the door once they see the blocked peephole), and blackout all your windows so that not a single pinhole of light escapes your place (because after all, thats all they need for a fiber optic camera, and by your words, they break the law regularly when using surveillance tools).

That would completely stupid and would get anyone busted. If you live in a place like a uniformly built apartment complex, condominium, or housing project, dont do something stupid like covering your peephole. If they ever have a reason to look at you, thats one more reason to keep on looking. That is received as paranoid behavior, and while it occurs in people who are not breaking laws, it will justify the reasons why they may have reason to look at you.

If they cant look in your peephole without warrant, just the same as using fiber optic camera's under your door or through a window corner, its a paranoid step that simply very few people take, and could possibly hurt someone in the long run.

That is all I stated and I back it up with alot more than just my feelings. No one said window curtains will get you shot or investigated, that was a horribly inept response. And yes, if you do anything illegal, you run a risk of being searched. And if your searched, and they shoot you, they have a simple excuse - "The place was blacked out, we had no way of seeing what was occuring at the time of entering, that playstation controller sure looked like a gun to me"

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. If you think a covered peephole protects you in any way shape or form, it doesnt. If they want to illegally look in there, they will do it peephole or not. If you get shot during a raid, obstructing the view and officers safety will be used as their excuse, and has already been accepted as a defense in legal procedings. Ill post two cases I know of if interested.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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
OfflineXTCollection
Stranger

Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 340
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: XTCollection]
    #6418344 - 01/02/07 01:47 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

Or is it unimaginable that two people, could live together, go to the same school, and share the same hobbies?

Exactly. Next time a member picks a fight with you, know your facts before you pull other members who have nothing to do with it into it, you dumb piece of shit.

Edited by XTCollection (01/02/07 01:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleadrug

Registered: 02/04/03
Posts: 15,800
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: XTCollection]
    #6418397 - 01/02/07 02:00 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

Its called a puppet tracker. The bulletin board software tracks accounts based on your IPs to make sure that users are not creating multiple accounts for malicious purposes. If your IP addresses are the same, then the puppet tracker assumes one of you is a puppet, unless you tell an admin otherwise. Exceptions are usually granted for siblings or other people who live together.

So don't get your panties all in a wad. Swearing at Seuss and calling him 'stupid' right at the starting gate doesn't exactly make you look like the best debater. Especially since anyone who has been around here for awhile knows that he is far from stupid. If you cannot back up your arguments with facts, then don't get upset when people don't believe you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXTCollection
Stranger

Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 340
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: adrug]
    #6418404 - 01/02/07 02:03 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

adrug said:
Its called a puppet tracker. The bulletin board software tracks accounts based on your IPs to make sure that users are not creating multiple accounts for malicious purposes. If your IP addresses are the same, then the puppet tracker assumes one of you is a puppet, unless you tell an admin otherwise. Exceptions are usually granted for siblings or other people who live together.

So don't get your panties all in a wad. Swearing at Seuss and calling him 'stupid' right at the starting gate doesn't exactly make you look like the best debater. Especially since anyone who has been around here for awhile knows that he is far from stupid. If you cannot back up your arguments with facts, then don't get upset when people don't believe you.




Who is debating? Im not.

"If you cannot back up your arguments with facts, then don't get upset when people don't believe you." Exactly, thank you for agreeing with me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleadrug

Registered: 02/04/03
Posts: 15,800
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: XTCollection]
    #6418413 - 01/02/07 02:05 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

I think you misunderstood...

Go figure.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXTCollection
Stranger

Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 340
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: XTCollection]
    #6418418 - 01/02/07 02:07 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

No it is not as puppet traker. He banned Bluemoondreamer after I left him a negative rating, claiming him and I were the same. If we used the same site for two years now with no problems, dont pawn it off as an automatic thing. Suess did it because his "panties are in wad" as you so politely put it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXTCollection
Stranger

Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 340
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: XTCollection]
    #6418427 - 01/02/07 02:09 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

BMD was entirely right. So let me guess, I did something wrong now?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXTCollection
Stranger

Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 340
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: XTCollection]
    #6418448 - 01/02/07 02:14 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

First thing - adrug, you came in here saying it was a program and not Suess who banned me, right? Entirely wrong.

"If you cannot back up your arguments with facts, then don't get upset when people don't believe you."

I just presented facts proving him and I werent the same person, or did you miss that?

"Its called a puppet tracker. The bulletin board software tracks accounts based on your IPs to make sure that users are not creating multiple accounts for malicious purposes."

So as you stated, this was automatic and not an action on Suess's part, right?

I have an email from BMD saying Suess banned him, from the shroomery. Does the shroomery site make mistakes too, even though its automatic?

adrug, please stay out of this unless you know what your talking about.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleadrug

Registered: 02/04/03
Posts: 15,800
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: XTCollection]
    #6418459 - 01/02/07 02:17 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

XTCollection said:
First thing - adrug, you came in here saying it was a program and not Suess who banned me, right? Entirely wrong.

"If you cannot back up your arguments with facts, then don't get upset when people don't believe you."

I just presented facts proving him and I werent the same person, or did you miss that?

"Its called a puppet tracker. The bulletin board software tracks accounts based on your IPs to make sure that users are not creating multiple accounts for malicious purposes."

So as you stated, this was automatic and not an action on Suess's part, right?

I have an email from BMD saying Suess banned him, from the shroomery. Does the shroomery site make mistakes too, even though its automatic?

adrug, please stay out of this unless you know what your talking about.




I never said it was the tracker that banned you, it just detects multiple accounts from the same IP address. If the puppet tracker says you're a puppet, then you're going to get banned. Now, Seuss might not have bothered to check your status until you started acting like an ass, and that's probably why you didn't have any issues until this thread.

Now please shut up unless you know what you're talking about.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebluemoonfvr
Stranger
Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 2
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: XTCollection]
    #6418476 - 01/02/07 02:22 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

Dont even bother with it man. Let it go. Any intelligent reader can see how words from the start of my arguements were twisted and misrepresented.

Now XTC comes in here proving were not the same person and someone else has to jump in saying a lot of things that have no relation to what XTC said.

XTC was never debating, this is clear to anyone with an education above the 3rd grade.

I posted several links to state run websites showing my side of the original arguement.

But yet not a single "elder" user out of the three that has come to seuss's resuce, have posted a single link refuting any of it.

If the admins hate two people that much, regardless of how much XTC or I may have contributed, than just say so.

And I would like to point out the nazi-istic like handling of the entire matter. If we can prove him wrong, shut him up, discredit him, for the sake of anothers image.

Thats a very deadly game these elder users are playing, and will happily remove myself from this board permanently.

Ive never done anyone wrong, so I dont know why Seuss and his friends are bullying up against another user.

You guys got it, ok, Im gone. Ill delete my account now.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLana
Head Banana
Female

Registered: 10/27/99
Posts: 3,109
Loc: www.MycoSupply.com
Re: Reverse Peephole [Re: funkyjunky]
    #6418487 - 01/02/07 02:26 PM (17 years, 4 months ago)

This thread has been closed.

Reason:
This thread has gone off topic.

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

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Bulk Substrate   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 0.044 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.