below --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stan...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung no_reply@ 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.
But your moderator status doesn't give you that luxury if the FFL policy is being examined. I contend that it isn't a mountain out of a molehill, and that the act of doing look-ups as you have done is a modeling to FFL readers and posters that anyone can stalk anyone by any means and reveal all sorts of "private" information that can be found in the public domain to the readers here. Again, I ask, can I hire a detective to see what can be found out about your life's mistakes and post that info here? If a person is not "in the know about Internet stuff," and you think that that's a good enough reason to let them be victimized by yourself, hey, that fucking stinks. Most folks simply don't do their homework, and to them you're offering the very very geeky nerd excuse that it's okay for you to victimize them, because they don't have your talent for technical matters? You never contacted Nab privately about what you were going to do to him. I have owned computers since 1980 and only a few weeks ago did I notice that Yahoo lets a poster check a box to keep the IP address hidden from the likes of you. See? It's not that I'm not geeky enough; it's that only someone like you resonates with knowing such things....not that others are too dumb to be concerned. Frankly, you come off as one of these classic nerds who has no life except that one wherein he can lord it over others about his insider techno-savvy. Fine, have your life if that's the case, but it's fucking snobby and elitist IMO. > > > 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. Well, let's balance things with me saying that you've shown almost no heart values here, and thus, I surmise that you are incapable of emotionally knowing the difference between a mountain and a molehill when it comes to the feeling level impact either may wield. To Nab your exposure of his location was egregious and harming, yet you have yet to recognize his emotions as "really existing," and that your actions had something to do with that. Not that Nab isn't responsible for handling his feelings, but for you to purposefully trigger him without consulting him privately first, seems to point to an anti-Nab agenda that you found a way to express, and you thought you had complete deniablity about it. I call you on it, and the next thing I know you're belittling me for being concerned more than your heart is allowing you to be about the core issue of stalking and having an agenda to cherry pick and present a negativity. I do admire your stated morals about how you do keep private things private. My only beef with you is that acquiring public info and using if for an agenda is a breach of privacy by today's standards. Again, I may have my drapes pulled back and passersby can see inside my home, but if I catch them staring, then I've been invaded to some degree. You're saying that I can stare at anyone's life here by any means and, especially if it's googlable, it can be posted here. Wrong. Bad. And, you as a moderator are at some risk if someone posts something here about another that is false and you allow it because it's merely "googlable, not truthful." It might be that you are sued for this kind of infraction. Take care. Not that you'd lose in court, but it'll cost buckazoids to defend yourself. Maybe Nab is a super geek beyond your abilities who's found a way to mask his location by some sort of IP spoofing, and your revelation about his location is not only wrong, but puts others that much closer to finding out that he's spoofing and perhaps becoming more locatable than he's comfortable with. He may be living next door to you and hoping to fool others he's in Norway, but your look-up now has someone else here trying to pierce Nab's techno-veil. Long odds, I know, that Nab's a techno, but I'm just sayin' -- you're playing loose with dynamics that could be a big deal whereas this present example merely shows the concept as it has manifested herein in an insigificant-as-far-as-Alex-knows manner. Hey, I just hired a detective, and he found out that you went to buy a Penthouse magazine yesterday when you were in the public's view. Is the above true? Am I a liar? Am I truthfully reporting what my detective said, but it turns out it's a lie the dectective told me? Did I really hire a detective? Were you buying the Penthouse for a bedridden friend? Did you buy the Penthouse to see what the latest low-bar standards are for soft-porn? Are you merely an investor who's got all the Penthouses ever printed, and you never read them but are counting on their value to increase because you've got a pristine set that's never been opened? And on and on it goes. This shows that your motivations for looking up Nab's info, can come from many angles, and FFL guidelines do not guide us about such. I call for clarity, and you dismiss me as a time waster. > > > 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. Bingo! You're a classic geek snob. Do you hate non-Trekkies? Are you a die hard D&D fan? How many Magic card decks do you own? Do you weigh more than 78 pounds? When's the last time you had anything to eat but pizza at your keyboard? Is your favorite TV show The Big Bang Theory? If not, it should be -- your twin is on the show. Edg >
