Bob Raymond was a long time and frequent troll in our comment threads. Based on their IP addresses, I suggest that Dr. Raymond as well as “Roberta Flack” are none other than Bill Quick.
UPDATE: The comments thread from this post of 23 July, have gotten long enough that I decided to update it. Anyone interested in the trolling of William Quick or the sock puppets he seems to have used, may wish to read the comments.
William Quick, a frequent troll here on TA, has begun sending comments via my personal email. He seems to believe that emails are copyrighted by the sender.
The irony of this is that Bill also raided a large collection of emails from the UW using a very inappropriate request under our state’s public disclosure act. As a result he made public correspondence that should have had a reasonable expectation of being private.
I have tried asking Bill to stop and informed him that any email I receive from him may be published. This is not working so I decided to simply post his emails here and, as more accumulated, in the comments thread. .
I apologize if this is a distraction but perhaps some attorney would like to comment.
1. William’s email:
Are you dense or are you demented?
This blogpost contains misstatements of fact about FOI, as well as reproducing a recent e-mail that I clearly indicated wasn’t for further dissemination. I too would like every attorney who reads this inappropriately-copied e-mail to comment about whether he has a right to post private e-mail in a public forum. Also, if any attorney wants to assist in a legal action against him for this and many other e-mails he has publicly posted, please contact me: wwq at swq dot com.
The phrase “You may not reproduce, adapt, modify, communicate to the public, reproduce or otherwise use any part of this email without my express written permission. Unauthorized copying of copyrighted works, including this e-mail, may be unlawful and may subject the violator to civil penalties” is in the public domain, so I don’t see how he can copyright that. He can argue the phrase “Are you dense or are you demented?” is an original literary work, but there’s probably at least 10 million authors who could argue, with equal vigor, that he plagiarized it from them. This case might be worth a penny for damages in a court of law.
Tx. Roger. Having the wisdom of the Rabbit is welcome! Inter alia, Bill has threatened ot bring me to court.My atrorney ahs nformed me that such ana ction would be well worth my financial while.
With respect to Stephen’s erroneous statement that I received UW e-mails by an “very inappropriate request under our state’s public disclosure act. As a result he made public correspondence that should have had a reasonable expectation of being private”, please note the following from an e-mail received from Jack G Johnson, chief counsel for the University of Washington:
“The University is a public agency of the state of Washington. All records, including emails, in its possession that in some way relate to University business are “public records,” subject to disclosure under the state’s Public Records Act. (See http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56.) We cannot promise to keep any such records confidential.”
Sure enough that is the law. Like most laws public disclosure can be abused by bad people.
Bill went after emails presumably in search of some scandal about me). This search was not at all limited to my emails but, the way such things are done, dragged in other folks’ emails without their knowledge or consent.
As far as I now Bill did not find anything but, the result was that a number of conversations are now in the public domain for anyone to see.
In the world of sex, such behavior in a locker room or outside a shower where someone else is bathing is “prurient interest.” The law is hard to write to protect against this sort of thing but at least, as in this case, we can “out” the perpetrators.
It’s interesting that Stephen now attempts to besmirch the concept of FOI with his bizarre statement that “In the world of sex, such behavior in a locker room or outside a shower where someone else is bathing is “prurient interest.”” What he hasn’t mentioned is how many times he himself has written to the FOI office at UW seeking information. For what it’s worth, he has requested information through FOI from the UW on at least four occasions.
To be clear, I do not think that Stephen’s repeated requests for FOI information have anything to do with sex, locker rooms, showers, or prurient interest.
And the fact that anyone repeatedly requests FOI information does not mean that they are abusing public disclosure, nor that they are “bad people.”
For the record. Three of those four were used to determine who was seeking my emails under the FPO act. The other was to investigate a UW vice provost who was involved in multiple acts to target myself and other dissident faculty.
As for Bill, he is welcome to explain why he submitted an FOI request. I will affirm that it was nor because of any prurient interests he has other than his odd obsession that THE Ave has published material critical of sexualization of young females in beauty pageants.
William Quick
Steve:
==================
NOTICE: This e-mail is copyright by its author. You may not reproduce, adapt, modify, communicate to the public, reproduce or otherwise use any part of this email without the express written permission from the author. Unauthorized copying of copyrighted works, including this e-mail, may be unlawful and may subject the violator to civil penalties.
==================
At http://handbill.us/?p=57094&cpage=1#comment-343642, you include the word “prurient” when referring to me. Please note the following definition of prurient:
adjective
having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters.
“she’d been the subject of much prurient curiosity”
synonyms: salacious, licentious, voyeuristic, lascivious, lecherous, lustful, lewd, libidinous,lubricious; formalconcupiscent
“For the record. Three of those four were used to dtermne [sic] who was seeking my emials [sic]under the FPO act. The other was to investigate a UW vice provost who was involved in multiple acts to target myself and other dissident faculty.
As for Bill, he is welcome to explain why he submitted an FOI request. I will affirm that it was nor because of any prurient interests he has other than his odd obsession that THE Ave has published material critical of sexulization [sic] of young females in beauty pageants.”
==================
NOTICE: This e-mail is copyright by its author. You may not reproduce, adapt, modify, communicate to the public, reproduce or otherwise use any part of this email without the express written permission from the author. Unauthorized copying of copyrighted works, including this e-mail, may be unlawful and may subject the violator to civil penalties.
==================
The last sentence clearly indicates that you think I DO have prurient interests, and is entirely inappropriate and extremely damaging to my reputation. I demand that you remove that sentence immediately, and let me know by return e-mail that it has been deleted.
Thank you.
Bill Quick
Bill
Again, as you have been told, your emails are not protected by copyright.
Moreover, the sentance you refer to “I will affirm that it was not because of any prurient interests he has other than his odd obsession that THE Ave has published material critical of sexaulization of young females in beauty pageants.”
Sorry, but I do worry about anyone obsessed with others who criticize pageants where girl children, often down to toddler age, are sexualized. I have no idea why you got so obsessed with those posts but do ntoe that you used it as part of your complaints ot the UW as well.
Tou are more than welcome to use this commetn thread to explain why you feel such pageants are not similar to other sexual abuses if women,
William Quick (sent to my wife and family).
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: “William Quick”
Date: Jul 24, 2015 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Demand to immediately remove inappropriate comment
To:************************
Will someone in Steve’s immediate family please get him to reconsider, and to take down the offending sentence as I requested — instead he chose to publish my entire e-mail below despite my request not to do so.
His mischief-making has turned to total and vile disrespect, and that’s simply unacceptable.
Thanks for listening!
Bill
Bill,
The history of harassing emails fromm you is a reason I now respond this way>
You are not doing yourself any good this way,