Bandit sign bonanza!

[ArcticSplash]

Classy use of assume their dawg. But you did come on here and gloat about it. Calm down man, what you are doing is good, but being a pr*ck about it isn't.

Because of the photo I posted? Explain.

I'm mostly responding to the usual trolls (not you): LIN and Shosh.

[lemko]

LOL quick call 911 and report me because you ASSumed on the Innerwebs that I "stole" bandit signs off a guy.

The PPD already knows what occurred:

Kudos to whoever caught this creep!

[ArcticSplash]

Kudos to whoever caught this creep!

Well, it was just the workerbee, not the actual dude responsible for this crap. The cycle with this sign seems to be about every 2 to 3 weeks.

On top of that, the identity for this phone number is actually stolen. I had pulled the ID on this phone off my website after my lawyer and I had a conversation with the dude we traced the phone number to. Mr. Junk Car guy used a stolen ID to register this cell phone. Been trying to get the ID-theft victim to contact Sprint repeatedly to get the phone shut off but so far no success. There is a police report for the stolen ID, oh well.

Mr. Junk Car guy got a HUGE wake-up call when his box 'o signs were intercepted on the street, though.

[Captain Awesome]

Good. I'm glad you didn't steal someone's mail.

[loveisnoise]

Wow. Talk about "ASSuming"? This idiotic email is full of them, and is why politicians and inspectors become more annoyed than vigilant with crap inner web slayers constantly pound them with. And as for blaming someone else for "ASSuming"? Arctic Splooge put it out as 'we', and 'a volunteer', as if he and his hitler machine was part of it to make us all safe at night.... amazing how he always takes all credit, yet none.

LOL quick call 911 and report me because you ASSumed on the Innerwebs that I "stole" bandit signs off a guy.

The PPD already knows what occurred:

[Tartan69]

AS -- all people were asking for on this thread was transparency, accountability, context, and for you to explain what happened. Instead you get worked up and lash out. That is not the best way to respond if you wish to keep credibility. People want to support you (I suspect even LIN) as I'm pretty sure people agree that your efforts are a good thing. But nobody wants to support someone who is arrogant about their cause and thinks they are above the law.

[ArcticSplash]

AS -- all people were asking for on this thread was transparency, accountability, context, and for you to explain what happened. Instead you get worked up and lash out. That is not the best way to respond if you wish to keep credibility. People want to support you (I suspect even LIN) as I'm pretty sure people agree that your efforts are a good thing. But nobody wants to support someone who is arrogant about their cause and thinks they are above the law.

How would you like me to respond?

[Tartan69]

How would you like me to respond?

First of all, let me rectify my prior use of "lashed out", as that was a bit of an oversimplification on my part. That said, the "ASSume" verbiage is really what I was talking about. Using it was a pretty direct implication of what your thoughts were on being questioned on this, and set the tone for responses.

Also it's clear now that you weren't the one who did this. But that wasn't clear from the original post. Hence some of the questioning. A lot of that probably is just due to timing (e.g. lots of speculating occurred before you had a chance to come back and answer the initial questions)

Lastly, and most importantly, the question is still out there regarding the overall legality of confiscating signs prior to them being put on the poles. Yes you emailed the PD and Brian Abernathy, but that doesn't answer whether this was above board. By trumpeting the actions of the volunteer, you've firmly planted your flag on the side of "results at all costs", which is definitely going to receive some flack from those that hold people accountable.

As I've said before, you're doing great work. Keep it up. Just remember that you'll get more flies with honey on here than you will with vinegar. Just because people are asking questions don't mean they're trying to troll you...and some that are trolling might just be doing it solely because you've made it easy for them.

[loveisnoise]

All of his behavior is pretty typical of megalomania. He plainly included himself in the original post. I also just don't buy the story. The only way someone 'apprehended' these signs from a 'bandit sign poster' and then interviewed him for information is if they faked their credentials or impersonated an officer. Think about it-these guys spend their entire day acting shady but they're just going to let some one take their livelihood and then chat with them about how they get paid, where they get paid, etc? Bull****.

I also love how anytime people bring up possible legalities, all of a sudden he invokes "his lawyer" into the conversation. Any lawyer who is dealing with this daily nonsense is either getting paid an insane amount or is pro bono for the mentally ill.

Oh-and it is illegal for any private person to be getting phone information from Sprint or any other company-another case of sounding like they're impersonating an officer.

First of all, let me rectify my prior use of "lashed out", as that was a bit of an oversimplification on my part. That said, the "ASSume" verbiage is really what I was talking about. Using it was a pretty direct implication of what your thoughts were on being questioned on this, and set the tone for responses.

Also it's clear now that you weren't the one who did this. But that wasn't clear from the original post. Hence some of the questioning. A lot of that probably is just due to timing (e.g. lots of speculating occurred before you had a chance to come back and answer the initial questions)

Lastly, and most importantly, the question is still out there regarding the overall legality of confiscating signs prior to them being put on the poles. Yes you emailed the PD and Brian Abernathy, but that doesn't answer whether this was above board. By trumpeting the actions of the volunteer, you've firmly planted your flag on the side of "results at all costs", which is definitely going to receive some flack from those that hold people accountable.

As I've said before, you're doing great work. Keep it up. Just remember that you'll get more flies with honey on here than you will with vinegar. Just because people are asking questions don't mean they're trying to troll you...and some that are trolling might just be doing it solely because you've made it easy for them.

[ArcticSplash]

First of all, let me rectify my prior use of "lashed out", as that was a bit of an oversimplification on my part. That said, the "ASSume" verbiage is really what I was talking about. Using it was a pretty direct implication of what your thoughts were on being questioned on this, and set the tone for responses.

Also it's clear now that you weren't the one who did this. But that wasn't clear from the original post. Hence some of the questioning. A lot of that probably is just due to timing (e.g. lots of speculating occurred before you had a chance to come back and answer the initial questions)

Lastly, and most importantly, the question is still out there regarding the overall legality of confiscating signs prior to them being put on the poles. Yes you emailed the PD and Brian Abernathy, but that doesn't answer whether this was above board. By trumpeting the actions of the volunteer, you've firmly planted your flag on the side of "results at all costs", which is definitely going to receive some flack from those that hold people accountable.

As I've said before, you're doing great work. Keep it up. Just remember that you'll get more flies with honey on here than you will with vinegar. Just because people are asking questions don't mean they're trying to troll you...and some that are trolling might just be doing it solely because you've made it easy for them.

I consider the legality question to be moot, since no crime was actually committed. The box was turned over voluntarily and not under duress. But I'll let the Internet armchair troglodytes continue to harp to the contrary.

To elaborate even more; the box of signs were turned over from the workerbee putting them up. The volunteer (we'll call her Kim for brevity, since she is on PhillySpeaks), was the one who questioned the workerbee. She then called me on my cell and I spoke to her, and then asked questions on the phone to the guy with the staple gun and the box of signs. Staple-gun guy didn't know the signs were illegal, or that what he was doing was illegal and carries a fine (per sign), and the onus would be on him to pay it, so he said "screw it" and handed the box over.

He also supplied answers to some other questions (not posted here). Kim then promptly TXT'd over a cache of photos. I picked the one you saw on this thread and used that one and posted the two-liner. I just checked that post again and I see nothing wrong with it. The two sentences are quite valid. I went about my business while the usual internet trolls on PhillySpeaks went about their businesses, including two of them using a grossly defamatory characterization that I, somehow, am a "criminal" because of this. Quite classy.



Look; I'm not going to kowtow to Internet troglodytes (LINShosh). They're both on ignore and the only time I'm forced to read the crap they write is when someone quotes them. Sorry if I didn't catch the speculation-fest that the trolls egged on and pour water on it earlier.

[Politburo]

Oh-and it is illegal for any private person to be getting phone information from Sprint or any other company-another case of sounding like they're impersonating an officer.

He never said he got any information from Sprint. Now you're just doing the same thing that you're accusing him of.

[ShoshTrvls]

Look; I'm not going to kowtow to Internet troglodytes (LINShosh). They're both on ignore and the only time I'm forced to read the crap they write is when someone quotes them. Sorry if I didn't catch the speculation-fest that the trolls egged on and pour water on it earlier.

Since no one quoted anything I posted, how would you know what I posted? And as I look at the post count, LIN and I were hardly the only ones who questioned what was done. In fact, 4 or 5 people did so before I even posted on the thread. No, your issue with us is that we dare to peek behind your curtain, dear wizard, and show others what's back there.

[ArcticSplash]

He never said he got any information from Sprint. Now you're just doing the same thing that you're accusing him of.

That's typical of him.

The subscriber's phone number was originally registered with Sprint. Try this with your own phone -> Fone Finder query form It tells who is the Telco OP that owns that PSTN number.

[Gladys]

All of his behavior is pretty typical of megalomania. He plainly included himself in the original post. I also just don't buy the story. The only way someone 'apprehended' these signs from a 'bandit sign poster' and then interviewed him for information is if they faked their credentials or impersonated an officer. Think about it-these guys spend their entire day acting shady but they're just going to let some one take their livelihood and then chat with them about how they get paid, where they get paid, etc? Bull****.

I also love how anytime people bring up possible legalities, all of a sudden he invokes "his lawyer" into the conversation. Any lawyer who is dealing with this daily nonsense is either getting paid an insane amount or is pro bono for the mentally ill.

Oh-and it is illegal for any private person to be getting phone information from Sprint or any other company-another case of sounding like they're impersonating an officer.

Hey leave mentally ill people out of this. They deserve good representation too.

[Gladys]

That's typical of him.

The subscriber's phone number was originally registered with Sprint. Try this with your own phone -> Fone Finder query form It tells who is the Telco OP that owns that PSTN number.

interesting but mine came up with 70 something choices.

[loveisnoise]

He never said he got any information from Sprint. Now you're just doing the same thing that you're accusing him of.

Wowsers. So I misread. Geesh.

OK-let's look at the scenario:
"the identity for this phone number is actually stolen. I had pulled the ID on this phone off my website after my lawyer and I had a conversation with the dude we traced the phone number to. Mr. Junk Car guy used a stolen ID to register this cell phone. Been trying to get the ID-theft victim to contact Sprint repeatedly to get the phone shut off but so far no success. There is a police report for the stolen ID, oh well."

This whole scenario is absolute b.s., and makes no sense whatsoever.

First-no identity was stolen. AS used his little stalking methods and paid intellius or a similar company money to find the 'owner' of the phone number. Such databased information is dated and often wrong, as Gladys pointed out. So what really happened is that AS put incorrect information on his website, and that caused an unrelated party to get hurt. This is exactly what inner web stalking does. No one used a stolen ID to register their phone with sprint-hell, if the guy wanted to be so anonymous then he could have just gone with a cheaper anonymous preplan option.

[loveisnoise]

The rest of this story is just lashing out and backpedaling. Anyone can see how he will get pissy with anyone who dare question the bandit sign king!! Even if it is one of his followers. True McCarthyism.

Then, when pressed enough it is just amazing how the story evolves.

[save19115]

That's typical of him.

Try this with your own phone -> Fone Finder query form It tells who is the Telco OP that owns that PSTN number.

FYI -- I changed carriers @3 years ago and the old company is still showing. It may be that they always will own that number, but I have a different provider now.