This holier-than-thou horseshit from the person who has (falsely) associated my name with "predation" in dozens of posts, and continues to do so. Never an apology, never even an admission that NO ONE on this group ever agreed with his initial projection onto me of his own fantasies, nada.
As usual, Edg is pontificating and being holier-than- thou from a position of sheer and utter hypocrisy. As I remember it, he never even thanked me for stand- ing up to the person who was threatening to do to *him* (and Marek) *exactly* what he rails against -- dig up dirt on him and post it to the Internet. As it turns out, that was the same person who posted porn to FFL in an attempt to get it taken down, and the same person who more recently tried to "assist" an FFL member in committing suicide, something he had never suggested he was even contemplating. I don't remember Edg getting up on his high horse over that one, either. As far as I can tell, "morality" for Edg Duveyoung consists of "That which enables me to believe that I have the right to preach to others about how much lower than me they are." Fuck you and the tricycle you rode in on. --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Alex/Rick, > > You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking." I pointed out > that I could sic a detective on someone and get "only public knowledge about > them" and then do them a major disservice by publishing that info. > > Who wants an entire lifetime's mistakes to be researched and, accumulated and > cherry picked by a person with an agenda have that "summation" made public, > and then, with one -- now thoroughly "done" with the past's incorrect notions > -- having to explain him/herself for all the past which may be replete with > "one time only mistakes." > > I know someone who had a one-time stay, voluntarily, in re-hab for an anxiety > disorder. Then that person got a divorce, and in that action, the marriage > partner exposed this person's past to the divorce proceedings in an attempt > to besmirch. The judge saw the obvious attempt to manipulate the court's > opinion, noted that in the final paperwork, and then went on to give both > parties a fair and equal splitting of marital assets. Fine, justice > prevailed. But, the marriage partner decided to appeal the ruling, and thus, > the whole shebang was sent to an appeals court that let the ruling stand. > Now here's the important part, all of the appellate court's proceeding are > googlable. Now, if anyone puts in the name of the person, up comes a > complete history of the one-time stay in re-hab for a malady that was not > related to drug or alcohol addiction, but, now, this person must have that > brought up if ever a job is sought etc. The appeals documents are 100 pages > long, and to read the whole deal is necessary to understand that the person > was not a drug addict or alcoholic. That's a case of public info that was > put into the public without the person's permission -- as the result of an > attack agenda -- and now it will be there forever. > > It's exactly the same sin that others here chided me for -- the simple act of > putting a person's name in a post's title that also had negative phrases. > Putting the name "Joe Smith" in a title with the phrase "child molester" for > instance was said to be a harm in that google will not sort out all the > wrongful and vicious agendas to put those pages lower on its listing. > > Again, I ask, what are you limits on how much a poster's past can be revealed > here and yet still be not a "stalking" that FFL is forced to abet. > > You may have personal morals to not do so, but will you let others here post > what is basically a "hit piece" on some other poster? > > I have posted, say, 5,000 blurbs on the Web over the last decade+, and I have > grown in that time to have changed my POV on many core issues (Thank You > Curtis, Marek, et al.) Yet, if I start posting at, say, a new trikking > message board, and someone "does a number on Edg," and then posts summations > about my rage and vitriol and new age thoughts etc., what has that to do with > my conclusions about trikking? > > Just so, I think Alex has modeled that "some simple look-ups" are harmless, > yet I don't see any reasoning provided by Alex or Rick that would show them > being uncomfortable with "stalking" as a concept....them seemingly saying, > "if it's in the public, anyone can use that info for any reason here at FFL." > > Yet, one poster uploaded porn to this group's file section and pretended that > FFL was morally responsible for the content of that section -- and note that > once uploaded, that porn was "public" and associated with "FFL" forever in > that the Internet's Wayback Machine and other sources will have spidered the > content and duplicated it on their servers. > > I think Alex and Rick owe us a high standard in this regard such that their > moderation is a notch more responsible. > > Edg > > > > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nabby and Edg, read this: > > > > http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/can-someone-find-me > > > > > > > > > I knew all the above information already. > > > > > > Rick/Alex, what would be "going too far?" > > > > For me, going too far would be revealing non-public information that I > > received in my capacity as moderator. As I mentioned before in another > > post, I know Nabby's real name because he emailed me a couple years ago to > > try and figure out his huge mess of IDs and subscriptions. IMO, it would be > > a totally unacceptable violation of trust for me to make his name public. > > Similarly, I knew Offie's real name long before he posted it publicly to > > FFL because he used to occasionally try and post to FFL while logged in > > with his real life Yahoo ID, which is not subscribed to FFL, and as > > moderator, I receive all such postings. I also kept that info to myself. > > > > > I haven't had any satisfactory response to that question from you > > > two. May I hire a detective to work up a dossier on each of you > > > and post it here? Even if whatever was scrounged up by the > > > detective was benign, wouldn't you feel invaded to a great degree? > > > > It would depend on whether the information was public or not. Right now, > > there's a subscriber to FFL posting as alex52556 in a really lame attempt > > to impersonate me. So far, he's posted a link to an old xanga profile of > > mine and to the comments on a guruphiliac post where some idiot tried to > > provoke me with negative comments about our house and the fact that I used > > to have a Manhunt profile that contained an artistic picture of me in my > > underwear. Some years ago, I'd lost a lot of weight and started to work > > out, and I was proud of my transformation. So, I had a photographer friend > > of mine take some pics, one of which was posted on Manhunt. Sure, I was > > surprised that people other than the intended audience had seen it, but I'm > > not ashamed of it, and it's not like I didn't know that I was making that > > photo completely public. IMO, impersonating someone on FFL is certainly a > > greater "crime" than posting an IP address from the FFL public archives, > > but I'm not about to boot off my impostor for posting stuff about me that > > he dug up on Google. > > > > > one thing is pretty clear, those whose info was being revealed > > > were not give any veto power over that publishing of their info. > > > > Bullshit! From the very start, this Yahoo group has been set up to allow > > memberships to be configured with the "Hide my email and IP address from > > the group moderators" option, which in fact, hides the email and IP address > > from everyone. Additionally, people from their end can use proxies or email > > providers that don't reveal originating IP address. If people choose to not > > hide their IP addresses, that is their choice. However, I have no > > obligation to dumb down my skill set to pander to people who don't want > > their IP revealed but won't do a damn thing to prevent making their IP > > address public in the first place. > > >
