Re: ????Dragon Lady???

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:02:12 GMT, Rack Jite <rackjite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>This is a reply to "Dragon Lady" <allthatjazz@xxxxxxxxxxx> who probably wont
>like what I have to say.:
>
>>"Juba" <juba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:dpuipg$tnf$7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Dragon Lady" <allthatjazz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:PTxwf.27427$0y2.9587@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> You just can't compare revealing court record and reporting someone
>>>> to the DEA to posting an address that's already public domain.
>>>
>>> They are both wrong. It's only a matter of degree. The posting of an
>>> address is done to intimidate, just like everything else these people do.
>>
>>No, that's not the only reason an address is posted. Perhaps that's the
>>reason it's been done here, but it's not the only reason.
>
>You have me stumped, what other reason is there for someone in a newsgroup to
>post someone elses real name and town and address or whatever without their
>permission? I dont understand that.
>
>>> If someone chooses to post with a nym, they are trying to protect their
>>> privacy. If someone else gets pissed off and figures out their real name,
>>> that gets posted. Then comes the address. The phone number. And on and on.
>>
>>Protect their privacy or protect their identity? I'm thinking along the
>>lines of why would a robber wear a ski mask?
>
>You mean like you have chosen to do here as Dragon Lady.
>Or the other 98% of us who have chosen to not use our real names because their
>are just too many nuts per cookie in this medium, espeically around here.
>
I bet if you asked her to tell you what her real name is she just
might comply. Perhaps not openly in the group, but just maybe via an
e-mail. A while back Juba thought he would be cute and asked me to
post my real name & address even though he already knew what they are.
I think he was a tad stupefied when I fulfilled his request.

Using a pseudonym on Usenet is a very old convention going back to the
very first days of it, as are flames. In this group only one person
has ever challenged another to find out who they really are. It was
yuck's city as many tried and failed in the endeavor. Sort of burst
his bubble when it actually happened and somebody got it right.

>>> Note: you'll see me refer to LC as being "Nicky" from time to time.
>>> "Nicky" is just another nym, not his real name. Meanwhile, you'll see him
>>> and several others using my real name as much as possible. They want that
>>> in the archives as many times as possible. It's just another form of
>>> harassment.
>
>>Only if you let it be.
>
>Thats not true. There is no letting your daughters phone number up asking give
>bjs. Which is why the squealers squeal that info. So someone will go after their
>family members and bring them into their world of vengeance.
>>
Although it is rather interesting when a situation very similar to
that happened to me. You certainly showed no moral outrage or
condemnation of the offender. Guess it is case dependant huh?

>>> I have put a couple of people's real names on my Kook site who normally go
>>> by nyms, because they've been posting my real name here. Unlike what is
>>> posted here, I can remove those names from the Kook faq at any time and
>>> there will be no record of it for some *** to dig up and use later.
>
>>I've seen the Kook site, and I agree that there's more control over things
>>that way, unlike the nasty comments that were made about RJ's kin. I don't
>>know why people feel they have to say such things.
>
>Because they are control freaks, and squealers and informers plying their hate
>and vengeance in whatever lowball way they can, its their nature.
>
And you are a what, whining complainer who has on more then one
occasion refereed to people in less then glowing terms. Another case
dependant situation huh?

>>> And to these people, anything accessible online is in the public domain
>>> and suitable for posting in a newsgroup to hurt to try to silence someone
>>> else.
>
>>So what are your options?
>
>To at the very least, STAND UP and be counted to say what they do is wrong and
>they are shithead little losers for doing it. :)
>
However, it is only to be performed selectively right? Not the exact
same rules for everyone.

>WITHOUT falling in the gutter with them and doing it back to them in an endless
>circle of vengeance. Thats why they really nailed that guy to a tree you know,
>he was trying to break that endless circle of revenge through love, peace,
>acceptance and tolerance. Same reason Ghandi, MLK and RFK got bullets in the
>head.
>
Oh really? Not falling into the gutter with them huh? So I guess
Poopy Pants, Modem *** and telling a woman she has bad feminine
hygiene are all terms of endearment in your book?

Now it was over power. Those who've got it like to keep it. Those
who don't like to obtain it. I'm not 100% sure about Gandhi, but JFK
& RFK got bullets to the brain pan for not living up to the deals that
they had made with the devil.
--

"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)
.