--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Alex/Rick,
> > > 
> > > You guys still have not addressed the issue of "stalking."
> > 
> > I haven't because IMO, it's just another case of you going off
> > on a tangent. The issue here is whether or not message headers
> > are public information. In fact, they ARE public information.
> > End of story. If a case of actual stalking happens in the context
> > of FFL, and not some bogus accusation of stalking, like the one
> > made against Judy, I may be inclined to address that issue.
> 
> Alex,
> 
> So instead of addressing the issue, you're calling it a tangent
> and that's how you're going to debate?

>From my perspective, there is no debate.
 
> Isn't this a case of FFL needing to examine its "stalking policy"
> and to definitively handle it? 

Not in my opinion.
 
> And, so what's so fucking wrong with going off on a tangent? Show
> me a thread here that doesn't evolve into other issues and nuances.

There's nothing wrong with going off on tangents. What I object to is the 
insistence that I participate in the discussion of them.
 
> Can I ask you to examine your feelings towards me in the above
> regard?  Am I wrong that "reading between the lines" of your
> replies it can be surmised that you see me as some sort of "time-
> wasting twit of little brain who's making mountains out of
> molehills all the time?"  Like that?  Is that your bottom line?  

Out of that description, I agree with "making mountains out of molehills" and 
"time wasting". I don't think you're little-brained or a twit. I see you as 
needlessly over-emotional and constantly striving to find things to be upset 
about. Engaging you in that particular drama is of no interest to me.

> I attacked your use of public information and I think it stung ya
> -- man up and handle the issue.

I am not stung. I am annoyed by the constant whining of people who can't accept 
the technical realities of the online world.

Reply via email to