Now this is an investigation

[cartman]

The Smoking Gun has tracked down and exposed the supposedly anonymous members of a group that has been behind the rash of folks prank calling business and getting people to do things like destroy hotel rooms or trash restaurants. Pretty impressive, and the cretins making the calls don't like that now the shoe is on the other foot.

Telephone Terrorist - August 4, 2009 (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0803091pranknet1.html)

[Greyroofoo]

Uh guys? I might have to disappear for a while...

[DaddyTorgo]

I wish they published the name of the Moe Lester guy on Nantucket...seems pretty bullshit they outed everyone else but not the guy who was calling people threatening to rape them and kill their kids just because he lives on nantucket or whatever.

bunch of douchebags

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Wow. That was really fucking cool. Way to go, TSG.

[Big Fo]

That was a good read. Man there are some weird folks out there...

[RainMaker]

I wish they published the name of the Moe Lester guy on Nantucket...seems pretty bullshit they outed everyone else but not the guy who was calling people threatening to rape them and kill their kids just because he lives on nantucket or whatever.

bunch of douchebags

Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. They said his business could be hurt so I wonder if they feared a libel lawsuit if the guy had some money and potentially something he could lose by this getting out. Still a pussy move not to post it considering the stuff he did.

The rest of the article was pretty epic. Not sure if I'd call it investigative journalistm or vigilante journalism. Hope the FBI or Canadian authorities charge those fucks.

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. They said his business could be hurt so I wonder if they feared a libel lawsuit if the guy had some money and potentially something he could lose by this getting out. Still a pussy move not to post it considering the stuff he did.

The rest of the article was pretty epic. Not sure if I'd call it investigative journalistm or vigilante journalism. Hope the FBI or Canadian authorities charge those fucks.

the standard for libel is so high though, he'd have to prove that he actually didn't do those things, which i bet he couldn't do.

[DaddyTorgo]

oh maybe i mixed the guys up - the nantucket guy is the one who was talking about filing false police reports and such

[RainMaker]

This guy can't be serious.

Diboll man alleged to be prankster says it's not him (http://www.lufkindailynews.com/hp/content/news/stories/2009/08/06/prankster.html)

[Big Fo]

hahaha those pictures are rather similar

[RainMaker]

They have a follow-up on the guy too. Apparently he's a sex offender as well who raped a 5-year old years ago.

Another Pranknet Child Molester - August 6, 2009 (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0806091markle1.html)

[DaddyTorgo]

what a quality individual

the death penalty was tailor-made for assholes like him

[CraigSca]

He sounds very not nice.

[Big Fo]

They have a follow-up on the guy too. Apparently he's a sex offender as well who raped a 5-year old years ago.

Another Pranknet Child Molester - August 6, 2009 (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0806091markle1.html)

Only 30 months for that is kind of shocking. I know he was a minor at the time but damn.

[Tasan]

I really, really, really want to see these guys burn for this. I wonder how many jobs were lost to these guys antics. Not someone getting fired, but a company closing because they can't handle $50k in damages. These guys are starting to rank right up there with the child molesters, which is funny because apparently that is some of their day jobs.

[RainMaker]

Plus you never know what this could lead to. I mean they appear to be sociopaths in some form, and they seemed to want to make their pranks bigger and bigger.

[Izulde]

Great read. TSG rocks. :D

[flere-imsaho]

Awesome read.

[RendeR]

Just wow, just fucking wow. I hope they rip this guy and his cronies a new ass. Including the guy in Nantucket. If you pull shit like this it SHOULD damage your business.

[DaddyTorgo]

Just wow, just fucking wow. I hope they rip this guy and his cronies a new ass. Including the guy in Nantucket. If you pull shit like this it SHOULD damage your business.

exactly. i'm really curious, and if i could find an email for TSG I'd complain and bitch them out for not revealing him.

[RainMaker]

Wouldn't the guy in Nantucket be one of the worst? I mean threatening to rape people's children is pretty twisted. Especially when you consider he's doing this with a bunch of guys who do rape children.

[DaddyTorgo]

Wouldn't the guy in Nantucket be one of the worst? I mean threatening to rape people's children is pretty twisted. Especially when you consider he's doing this with a bunch of guys who do rape children.

no i messed that up. my bad.

the guy on nantucket was the one threatening to call the cops and file false charges of child abuse...i'm not sure it was the same guy.

my failure of reading comprehension

[cartman]

"Moe Lester" in Nantucket and the guy threatening to rape and kill are two different members of this group of imbeciles.

[DaddyTorgo]

"Moe Lester" in Nantucket and the guy threatening to rape and kill are two different members of this group of imbeciles.

right.

i'd be curious to know both of the douchebags are

[cartman]

I'm sure if they can positively identify more of them, they will have updates.

[gstelmack]

And shows like Crank Yankers aren't any better...

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Hm, I'd say judging by the lack of physical damage to people and/or property, that Crank Yankers is any better.

[MikeVic]

And shows like Crank Yankers aren't any better...

Where did this come from?

[lighthousekeeper]

Golden Girls wasn't much better either. But I vote: The Tanners

[Draft Dodger]

exactly. i'm really curious, and if i could find an email for TSG I'd complain and bitch them out for not revealing him.

The Smoking Gun: About (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/about.html)

[gstelmack]

Where did this come from?

I'm just amused at the hypocrisy of this board getting all up-in-arms at these pranksters while admiring shows like Crank Yankers, defending the NC State fools that took over WRAL's weather closings announcements (that's a thread from a few years back), or worse defending the woman that pranked a girl over the internet and goaded her into a suicide.

And for the record I think they all suck as human beings.

[Draft Dodger]

I'm just amused at the hypocrisy of this board getting all up-in-arms at these pranksters while admiring shows like Crank Yankers, defending the NC State fools that took over WRAL's weather closings announcements (that's a thread from a few years back), or worse defending the woman that pranked a girl over the internet and goaded her into a suicide.

And for the record I think they all suck as human beings.

I'm with you.

[cartman]

This board as a whole admired the woman that talked the girl into killing herself?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

WTF are you on about?

Because some people thought the woman that pranked a girl over the internet shouldn't be charged with murder, others (who are probably not the same people) can't find what these people are doing offensive?

I couldn't find anything about WRAL on this board that looked anything like what you were describing.

Are you having a rough day?

[gstelmack]

This board as a whole admired the woman that talked the girl into killing herself?

No, and I know we have a fair number of people who feel similarly to the way I do. I was surprised that we had not had anyone step up yet to defend these guys, while we have a fair number of folks who will describe similar incidents as funny and get all mad at the rest of us for being wet blankets on similar situations.

[DaddyTorgo]

i think when it crosses the line from "funny" to "emotionally and/or physically abusive or financially costly" that it stops being funny.

[gstelmack]

I couldn't find anything about WRAL on this board that looked anything like what you were describing.

Yeah, looks like that discussion went by the wayside with one of the board upgrades / moves. The short story was WRAL (local TV station) did not have any security / checking on its weather closing reports, and during a snow storm a few years back some NC State students figured out they could insert fake closings for joke businesses into the list. Lots of people found that "funny", while those of us actually trying to use lists like that did not appreciate choking it up with fake listings. And asking them to add security to it would greatly reduce the utility of it, not to mention being impossible to police.

[gstelmack]

i think when it crosses the line from "funny" to "emotionally and/or physically abusive or financially costly" that it stops being funny.

I believe most prank calls fall into the "emotionally abusive" category. Not to mention wasting the time of a stranger, hogging a phone line where someone may be waiting for an important call, or any of a number of other reasons why something that might seem "funny" could backfire. This case is certainly taken to an extreme, but prank calls as a whole are a horrible thing to do to someone. You just get lucky most of the time...

[gstelmack]

Are you having a rough day?

And to not ignore this one: no, prank calls, even the allegedly "harmless" ones, are just a pet peeve of mine.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It's a fine position to have, but accusing "the board" of hypocrisy in this way is nonsensical since we're all individual actors.

As a side note re: Crank Yankers. In order to use the prank call on the show, wouldn't they have to reach an agreement with the party they called? I would assume that they would offer a certain amount of money to use the recording. Of course, I don't know this, but they couldn't just use somebody's voice for monetary gain without some kind of a release being signed, right? And then, does that change the calculus at all if the pranked people agree to it?

[Big Fo]

I didn't mind Crank Yankers so much. Maybe I missed the episode where the person answering the phone wound up drinking piss.

[gstelmack]

As a side note re: Crank Yankers. In order to use the prank call on the show, wouldn't they have to reach an agreement with the party they called? I would assume that they would offer a certain amount of money to use the recording. Of course, I don't know this, but they couldn't just use somebody's voice for monetary gain without some kind of a release being signed, right? And then, does that change the calculus at all if the pranked people agree to it?

That typically happens after the fact, does it not? They only show the ones they got permission to? What about all the folks who got called and did not agree to it?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Probably true. I wonder what the ratio of successes to failures was for that. Regardless, I'm not fan of prank calls (at least once I turned 12) but still think these things have to be shaded to some degree and I definitely don't think it's as bad as these guys.

[heybrad]

That typically happens after the fact, does it not? They only show the ones they got permission to? What about all the folks who got called and did not agree to it?
What about anybody who has a joke played on them? Does that annoy you to or is it something about the phone being involved that throws you over the edge. It just seems a bit strange to me that you can't see that there is a line somewhere that may or may not be crossed.

[DaddyTorgo]

I believe most prank calls fall into the "emotionally abusive" category. Not to mention wasting the time of a stranger, hogging a phone line where someone may be waiting for an important call, or any of a number of other reasons why something that might seem "funny" could backfire. This case is certainly taken to an extreme, but prank calls as a whole are a horrible thing to do to someone. You just get lucky most of the time...

funniest prank i ever heard was a local radio show had an arabic host and he called a local golf course and was trying to get them to let him sleep in their sand traps cuz it "reminded him of home."

who's emotionally abused there?

[RainMaker]

I'm just amused at the hypocrisy of this board getting all up-in-arms at these pranksters while admiring shows like Crank Yankers, defending the NC State fools that took over WRAL's weather closings announcements (that's a thread from a few years back), or worse defending the woman that pranked a girl over the internet and goaded her into a suicide.

And for the record I think they all suck as human beings.
There is a huge difference in a prank phone call that does nothing but cause an inconvenicne for someone versus a prank phone call that is used to cause physical damage to property or individuals.

[cartman]

Yeah, it is not hypocrisy if a group of people don't share your pet peeve.

[gstelmack]

Yeah, it is not hypocrisy if a group of people don't share your pet peeve.

I'm not equating the two. Pet peeve is why this bothers me so much, hypocrisy is wondering where all the folks are that love to defend pranks so much. Not trying to say everyone is hypocritical as we do have plenty of folks who argue that pranks are not harmless, I'm more about the ones who think these things are usually funny.

[gstelmack]

There is a huge difference in a prank phone call that does nothing but cause an inconvenicne for someone versus a prank phone call that is used to cause physical damage to property or individuals.

In degrees maybe, but neither should be considered "funny". There are many reasons why a "harmless" prank can cause harm: the person may have a history where the particular joke may have a very bad reaction for them, folks may hide something that someone really needs that day, a person may have an emergency and really need a car that has been pranked, someone can get unintentionally hurt, etc. When that happens everyone gets all sheepish and apologizes but the harm has been done.

Yes, I believe that mild pranks between friends involving inside jokes are a different case as accidental harm is much less likely to happen and can be an integral part of bonding, but pranking strangers for kicks is a horrible way to treat your fellow human beings, whether it's a simple joke over a prank phone call, or causing physical damage like these folks did.

[Greyroofoo]

In degrees maybe, but neither should be considered "funny". There are many reasons why a "harmless" prank can cause harm: the person may have a history where the particular joke may have a very bad reaction for them, folks may hide something that someone really needs that day, a person may have an emergency and really need a car that has been pranked, someone can get unintentionally hurt, etc. When that happens everyone gets all sheepish and apologizes but the harm has been done.

Yes, I believe that mild pranks between friends involving inside jokes are a different case as accidental harm is much less likely to happen and can be an integral part of bonding, but pranking strangers for kicks is a horrible way to treat your fellow human beings, whether it's a simple joke over a prank phone call, or causing physical damage like these folks did.

:+1:

[RainMaker]

In degrees maybe, but neither should be considered "funny". There are many reasons why a "harmless" prank can cause harm: the person may have a history where the particular joke may have a very bad reaction for them, folks may hide something that someone really needs that day, a person may have an emergency and really need a car that has been pranked, someone can get unintentionally hurt, etc. When that happens everyone gets all sheepish and apologizes but the harm has been done.

Yes, I believe that mild pranks between friends involving inside jokes are a different case as accidental harm is much less likely to happen and can be an integral part of bonding, but pranking strangers for kicks is a horrible way to treat your fellow human beings, whether it's a simple joke over a prank phone call, or causing physical damage like these folks did.

I understand what you're saying. There is still a massive difference between someone calling and asking if their refrigerator is running vs calling and telling them they'll be over to rape their children. It's not black and white. We don't treat the guy who steals a candy bar with the same outrage as Bernie Madoff.

The key difference to me is that the regular prank call that many enjoy is done for humor. The callers are not doing it to extract physical and emotional pain from their victimes. They just want a good laugh and I'd imagine would feel bad if anything bad happened due to it. These other guys wanted bad things to happen. They wanted people to be physically and emotionally hurt. They wanted to cause dangerous situations and monetary damage.

[gstelmack]

I understand what you're saying. There is still a massive difference between someone calling and asking if their refrigerator is running vs calling and telling them they'll be over to rape their children. It's not black and white. We don't treat the guy who steals a candy bar with the same outrage as Bernie Madoff.

The key difference to me is that the regular prank call that many enjoy is done for humor. The callers are not doing it to extract physical and emotional pain from their victimes. They just want a good laugh and I'd imagine would feel bad if anything bad happened due to it. These other guys wanted bad things to happen. They wanted people to be physically and emotionally hurt. They wanted to cause dangerous situations and monetary damage.

For the most part I agree, and there are degrees here. For example, the law recognizes the difference between assault, battery, intent to commit bodily harm, manslaughter, and murder. Just because murder is so horrible doesn't make assualt okay.

Let me ask this: how many prank phone calls are there that can generate humor without requiring a negative response in the recipient, be it anger, embarassment, or feeling stupid? They pretty much all require creating some negative feeling in the recipient to be funny. Even the refrigerator running one generally leaves the recipient feeling stupid and annoyed for having their time wasted. The golf course / sandtrap one above is intended to cause frustration in the owner.

But yes, these guys took it to the nth degree, I don't disagree, and should receive harsher punishments than I might expect for something like the refrigerator prank.

[thesloppy]

Let me ask this: how many prank phone calls are there that can generate humor without requiring a negative response in the recipient, be it anger, embarassment, or feeling stupid?

Didn't Heinlein write a book about this? You could replace the words 'prank phone calls' with 'episodes of Three's Company', and the question would remain much the same, in a purely philosophical sense. 99.9% of humor is based on the suffering of others, but the inability to see the line between an actor, or a cartoon character on a screen, and a real person on the end of your prank (AKA empathy) is when things cross into the territory of sociopathy.

[INDalltheway]

TSG needs to send this link to the Pranknet leader's neighbor he steals his wifi from.. http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html

[DaddyTorgo]

hahaha - do it TSG!

[watravaler]

99.9% of humor is based on the suffering of others, but the inability to see the line between an actor, or a cartoon character on a screen, and a real person on the end of your prank (AKA empathy) is when things cross into the territory of sociopathy.
Agreed, on both points...

[Subby]

I'm just amused at the hypocrisy of this board getting all up-in-arms at these pranksters while admiring shows like Crank Yankers, defending the NC State fools that took over WRAL's weather closings announcements (that's a thread from a few years back), or worse defending the woman that pranked a girl over the internet and goaded her into a suicide.

And for the record I think they all suck as human beings.
You should try and speak in generalities a little more ;)

[sterlingice]

TSG needs to send this link to the Pranknet leader's neighbor he steals his wifi from.. http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html (http://www.ex-parrot.com/%7Epete/upside-down-ternet.html)


That trick is great :)

SI

[boberot]

Am I the only one who thought it was a bit egregious for TSG to post the recordings of so many of those pranks?

I can see the journalistic value of posting one or two of them up there to give a "sense" of what these guys did. But posting something like eight or more of them is really confusing to me. It's giving the "Dex" douchebag the kind of audience he's always yearned for.

I haven't listened to any yet. I would have a hard time telling myself that it's somehow OK to listen to these recordings -- and God forbid, laugh at them -- because "it's part of the investigation."

It feels like it would somehow would put me in the same category as these pud-pullers who were part of the prank community.

Reminds me of the keyhole-recording of the ESPN hottie . . . Erin Andrews? Couldn't justify watching it.

Maybe that's just 13 years of Catholic education talking . . . .

[DaddyTorgo]

Nah I think that's true boberot. But maybe they can defend it by saying it's for educational purposes, so that more people don't get tricked?

[FrogMan]

followup to the initial story:
First Pranknet Arrest - August 26, 2009 (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0826091slipknot1.html?link=rssfeed)

FM

[bhlloy]

Holy shit. Not to threadjack but you only get 30 months for raping a five year old? What the hell?

Hopefully they can get this asshole on some sort of probation violation and he's going down for a long time.