Saturday, August 19, 2006

Once Upon a News Group...

Beneath the surface details of the People v. Brown lies a subculture of sorts; a back story about the participants in the online dialogue of the case that dates back many years.

Before any of us had ever heard of Cameron Brown or Lauren Key there was a group of posters from the newsgroups (now called “Usenet”: a conglomeration of mostly uncensored discussion groups that sprout like mushrooms on manure) who had been posting together on various topics including law, politics, elections, religion and pop culture. One of the ubiquitous posters was Ted Kaldis, a thoroughly repulsive individual whose racism, bigotry, religious fanatacism, misogyny and hypocrisy rival the most boorish character in a Charles Dickens novel.

My introduction to Usenet was through CountryGirl, who sent me a link to an interesting discussion on the “alt.fan.bob-larson” group last July regarding the Brown case she had come across. I was vaguely familiar with Usenet and had occasionally viewed threads in there to read about true crime stories I was following at one time or another, but I had never posted there. I had my own blog where I had followed the Peterson case and a few other murder trials in California and made no secret of my disdain for Mark Geragos. My interest in the Brown case stemmed almost exclusively, at first, from the fact that Geragos had signed on as Brown’s attorney. As I became more familiar with the facts, I found the case to be extremely compelling for me on a deeper level than merely chronicling another potential Geragos catastrophe.

I joined the news group and began posting some of my opinions and research about the Brown case, and was welcomed by a number of “regulars” there – kind of like the bar, “Cheers”, including Ken, Kent, Wayne, and Dane. I learned that their mutual nemesis, Ted Kaldis, was related by marriage to the defendant, which was an interesting twist. Needless to say, because I was obviously in the camp that believed Brown was guilty as sin, Kaldis was rude and aggressive to me from the outset. That didn’t faze me too much, since running a blog for three years had inured me to trolls and ad hominem attacks. You have to have a pretty thick skin to run a blog with 400 comments a day from so many virtual strangers, including all manner of idiots, nutcases and apologists for the defendant.

Within a week or so, a new poster joined the group calling herself “Interested”, who, it seemed, was a lot more interested in attacking me than she was in the case. “Interested” was rebuffed by some others in the group after her comments became more bizarre and insulting. Some of us believed she was working for Team Cam because of her tendency to argue rather obscure and sometimes obtuse issues. Suddenly, she left, only to reincarnate a few weeks later as “Just Amazed”; and I was certainly quite amazed at what happened next.

To be continued.

14 comments:

Ronni said...

So was I.

~bated breath~

Ronni said...

Dang. Loretta! It's late! I realize this blog is on California time, but you're not!

I'm all wound up from Strike at the theater; what's your reason?

CountryGirl said...

Checking in from the hotel and I see Loretta must have carpal tunnel finger from deleting.

Hi Ronni, I'm on Nevada time. Won some, lost some, we're leaving in the morning.

Ronni said...

Safe trip home! I hope you had fun!

ken said...

They're creepy and they're kooky,
Mysterious and spooky,
They're altogether ooky,
The Kaldis Family!

http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tedbundygc6.jpg

Subject: Re: It Really IS About Ken Smith ...
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:03 -0500
From: John Hattan [john@thecodezone.com]
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.fan.bob-larson

"Theodore A. Kaldis" [kaldis@worldnet.att.net] wrote:

>I have never expressed malice, online or otherwise.

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are
dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Hey, they let ragheads and towelheads and slapheads and camel jockeys
in. Why shouldn't they let me in? At least I'm not from a completely
alien culture.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Darling, you're just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly
what'll loosen you up.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and
no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis

What other words are there? "Gook". "Slope". "Slant-eye". The list
continues further downhill from here.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

BTW, you're not ugly, or a fat chick, now are you?
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I do not use the word "nigger", nor do I use the word "coon"
--Theodore A. Kaldis

At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million
blacks in the U.S. (and I don't know what the exact figure is, but I
would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get
between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be
"nigger rich".
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I've already been assaulted a couple of times, but both times by Guido's
rather than by coons.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Raghead women are too ugly to become flight attendants.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

That's easy. This is yet another example of feminine ``logic'' (truly
an oxymoron if ever there was one).
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Ragheads, towel heads, camel jockeys, and other swarthy types not
allowed.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

The Dick-suckin' Chicks are toast.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the Holy Spirit to lead me into all the truth and righteousness.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com

"On the USENET squats the Kaldis; he's a liar by his trade,
Google carries the reminders
Of every word that laid him down
Or cut him 'til he cried out -- in his anger and his shame --
'I am leaving, I AM leaving [and disconnecting Port 119]'
But the Kaldis still remains....

Lie, lie, lie!
Lie, lie, lie, lie! Lie, lie, lie!
Lie, lie, lie!
Lie, lie, lie, lie! Lie, lie, lie!
Lalalala LIE!"


To answer Brian's question from the last thread, those of us who feel threatened by Ted Kaldis recognize that he is not exactly working with a full deck, and are concerned that this trial is a "stresser" that could make him 'snap'. Ted's not the sharpest tool in the shed, and his substantive arguments are consistently unimpressive. But he has a criminal streak to him (as evidenced by his admission that he participated in a mugging and even bragged about it), and the combination of criminal and stalking tendencies is a volatile one.

ken said...

Damn! Sorry I missed you, CG-- was just at Caesars' a couple of days ago, albeit just passing through.

I don't talk about my travels beforehand or while they are going on, mostly on account of Ted's stalking tendencies (he tends to announce it when I am on the road, which effectively invites burglars to visit -- and I had a break-in while I was in Australia several years ago, when Ted's mentor announced that I was not home).

And yet, people wonder why I despise Ted?

Kent Wills said...

loretta wrote:
Needless to say, because I was obviously in the camp that believed Brown was guilty as sin, Kaldis was rude and aggressive to me from the outset.

That you believed Cameron guilty had little to do with it. In time, Ted would have treated interesTED the same way. Ted has almost no use for women. Outside of being available for sexm (when it's not too much of a bother), they serve no purpose in Ted's life.

ken said...

Kent wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/ted_is_wrong/atm.jpg

On the face of it, it's a pretty obvious fake, Kent. Shame on you. First off, 9/19/06 hasn't happened yet. Second, ATM receipts don't usually print names, for obvious security reasons. Third, one wouldn't expect anyone to have that kind of balance in a simple savings account (although it *is* possible). Finally, you'd expect that Lin would insist upon that being a joint account. :)

And after all that, it proves nothing. It could have been proceeds from a loan, which are in a sense spoken for.

In Kent's defense, he did send me a postcard from Aruba, which appears totally authentic. But this one doesn't pass the smell test.

Time to go back to Photoshop, Kent. :)

loretta said...

Kent, no way am I going to give one of those hate blogs any new readers, so refrain from linking them here.

They are idiots. Ignore them.

loretta said...

Besides, we haven't gotten to that part of the story yet, so don't ruin it for the newcomers.

Keep with the story line and support the events as they occur, with anecdotal evidence and commentary. But, don't spoil the suprise!

Ronni said...

BTW, Ken, I like the "Boxer" parody!

loretta said...

Continuation of "Once Upon a News Group" above. ^^^^

Kent Wills said...

At one time, ken wrote:
On the face of it, it's a pretty obvious fake, Kent.

I tried. The scan is of the actually ATM reciept I got yesterday.


Shame on you. First off, 9/19/06 hasn't happened yet. Second, ATM receipts don't usually print names, for obvious security reasons.

That part was not altered in any way. Every receipt I get from my bank's ATMs has my name on it. When I get funds from the join account, it has mine and Lin's names. Actaully, it reads, "[Lin's real name} and Kent Wi" since it can only print so much.


Third, one wouldn't expect anyone to have that kind of balance in a simple savings account (although it *is* possible).

It's a *checking* account :P

Subtract $200,000.00 and you'll have the real total.

Finally, you'd expect that Lin would insist upon that being a joint account. :)

She has her own personal account as well.

And after all that, it proves nothing. It could have been proceeds from a loan, which are in a sense spoken for.

In Kent's defense, he did send me a postcard from Aruba, which appears totally authentic. But this one doesn't pass the smell test.

Faking the post mark would have been a real trick.


Time to go back to Photoshop, Kent. :)

HA! I didn't use photoshop. I used Irfanview :P

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:

Kent, no way am I going to give one of those hate blogs any new readers, so refrain from linking them here.

No problem. As I wrote, I won't complain if you remove the post.

They are idiots. Ignore them.

whimper... I like messing with the idiots.