Anti-Stomp Website
-
woohooo!!!! upz the webmaster
-
Updated on the web...
LOL... Resistance is futile...
-
wow, so many forums.
anyone in sgforums, active in other forums too?
-
the stomp webby will still be there no matter what..
-
Originally posted by Cowbaycowboo:
for fark
*wink at Mau Mau*dont anyhow wink. i will scared one.
-
internet people VS internet people
in real life everyone suck thumb and diam diam
-
Originally posted by Plastic Bag:
Wah what took this so long haha. later kena sued by sph.
kena sue? i think its more like we sue them. because nobody can take picture of others without permission if i'm not wrong
-
Originally posted by Dead_Man_Inc:
kena sue? i think its more like we sue them. because nobody can take picture of others without permission if i'm not wrong
Actually..... that's not how it works.
Copyright of photographs belongs to the photographer and not the subject. In other words, if someone takes a photograph of you without your permission, you have no right to order him to surrender it unless if he breaks other laws by taking that photo (e.g. the picture is pornographic, or is in a restricted area).
Then again, if the subjects in the STOMPers photos want to file a lawsuit for slander, they may well have a case. After all, a lot of the STOMPers have effectively used their photographs to create an online smear campaign against them.
-
Perhaps the only way to make the Stomp server go offline is to plant explosives at the servers location and/or their main office.
Or, how about a combined DDOS(distributed denial of service) Attack against STOMP?I believe this can strain the servers leading to a breakdown..but this aint permanent
-
woo hoo
lovely.
antistomp is here finally
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
Actually..... that's not how it works.
Copyright of photographs belongs to the photographer and not the subject. In other words, if someone takes a photograph of you without your permission, you have no right to order him to surrender it unless if he breaks other laws by taking that photo (e.g. the picture is pornographic, or is in a restricted area).
Then again, if the subjects in the STOMPers photos want to file a lawsuit for slander, they may well have a case. After all, a lot of the STOMPers have effectively used their photographs to create an online smear campaign against them.
hmmm no wonder they have no problem so far...
-
Originally posted by Dead_Man_Inc:
kena sue? i think its more like we sue them. because nobody can take picture of others without permission if i'm not wrong
In addition to what fudgie said... i believe this is overlooked by many, stomp has the potential to Insult the modesty of women...
Penal code Cap 224 Sec 509
Word or gesture intended to
insult
the modesty of a woman.
Whoever, intending toinsult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes
any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such
word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall
be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one year, or with fine, or with both.In other words, you do anything TO a woman that made THE WOMAN feels that her modesty was insulted, falls under this section.
-
Originally posted by ceecookie:
Perhaps the only way to make the Stomp server go offline is to plant explosives at the servers location and/or their main office.
Or, how about a combined DDOS(distributed denial of service) Attack against STOMP?I believe this can strain the servers leading to a breakdown..but this aint permanent
Reminds me of the clickclickclick saga... everyone enters the website at the same time tio server caught on fire...
-
If the STOMPers were to stick to innocent things like posting photos of waterspouts off Changi and rare wildlife at MacRitchie, then there's nothing wrong.
What I'm totally against is them taking photographs of ordinary people, posting them online, and starting what is basically an online smear campaign against the subjects in the photograph (or related to the photograph in question).
Let's have a hypothetical scenario: I fall asleep on an MRT train because I'm down with the flu, and chlorpheniramine makes me really drowsy. Then while I'm sleeping, an old woman stands in front of me without my noticing it. Then some fella with a camera phone snaps a photo of me dozing away, uploads it on STOMP, and claims that I'm being 'very inconsiderate' for not giving up my seat to the old lady.
It's a totally hypothetical scenario, but viewing some of the entries in STOMP, I'd be surprised if such a thing has yet to happen to other people.
It makes me shudder to think that a complete stranger can wage an online smear campaign against me in the guise of 'citizen journalism'.
-
wat's up doc?
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
If the STOMPers were to stick to innocent things like posting photos of waterspouts off Changi and rare wildlife at MacRitchie, then there's nothing wrong.
What I'm totally against is them taking photographs of ordinary people, posting them online, and starting what is basically an online smear campaign against the subjects in the photograph (or related to the photograph in question).
Let's have a hypothetical scenario: I fall asleep on an MRT train because I'm down with the flu, and chlorpheniramine makes me really drowsy. Then while I'm sleeping, an old woman stands in front of me without my noticing it. Then some fella with a camera phone snaps a photo of me dozing away, uploads it on STOMP, and claims that I'm being 'very inconsiderate' for not giving up my seat to the old lady.
It's a totally hypothetical scenario, but viewing some of the entries in STOMP, I'd be surprised if such a thing has yet to happen to other people.
It makes me shudder to think that a complete stranger can wage an online smear campaign against me in the guise of 'citizen journalism'.
i never thought of it that way.
but i agree, i don't like the idea of ppl taking pics of ordinary citizens, just because others don't do things their way.
-
i can't help but laugh at the stomper
http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/singaporeseen/viewContent.jsp?id=27205
stomper at his best!
-
Originally posted by Dead_Man_Inc:
i can't help but laugh at the stomper
http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/singaporeseen/viewContent.jsp?id=27205
stomper at his best!
Man expect woman to give up seat for him... cut his balls lah...
-
man u shld know stomp is a place for ppl with pea brain
-
Originally posted by FBI:
man u shld know stomp is a place for ppl with pea brain
But the problem is... the pea brain idiots has a lot of influence in the media...
-
Originally posted by Dead_Man_Inc:
i can't help but laugh at the stomper
http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/singaporeseen/viewContent.jsp?id=27205
stomper at his best!
Wah lau.
He makes the rest of us men lose face.
No strength to carry his own baby.
No balls to even ask whether they could give up their seats for the baby.
In fact.... I'm seriously wondering how he can carry his baby and take photos of those ladies with his camera phone at the same time.
-
STOMP has enough entertainment.
Anti-STOMP will bring even more entertainment when we see the 2 groups fight.
LOL
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
Wah lau.
He makes the rest of us men lose face.
No strength to carry his own baby.
No balls to even ask whether they could give up their seats for the baby.
In fact.... I'm seriously wondering how he can carry his baby and take photos of those ladies with his camera phone at the same time.
why didn't he aim at men for not giving up seats for him instead?
maybe he had something against women
-
Its About time.
-
Originally posted by Dead_Man_Inc:
why didn't he aim at men for not giving up seats for him instead?
maybe he had something against women
That's another thing to consider.
It can't be that all the seats in the carriage were taken by women. Surely at least some of them were taken by able-bodied men.
And if he can carry his baby while taking a photo of those two women with his camera phone, it shows that he is NOT in dire need of a seat.
And by snapping those two women, posting the pic online and smearing them like this.... that is NOT the mark of a gentleman!
If anything, if those two women wished to do so, it might in fact be possible for them to lodge a police report under Penal code Cap 224 Sec 509, as stated by MohamedF.
That fella really slapped the faces of all of us men.