Re: For Tiny: Men Vs Women Fearing Walking The Streets At Night

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:01:10 -0500, nimue wrote
(in article <47b87660$0$17328$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

Amy Guskin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:27:30 -0500, nimue wrote
(in article <47b7c5be$0$7019$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

Michael Snyder wrote:

- but does that make it OK to look up the info and email
it around to anyone who asks for it?

Again, tiny didn't post email any info about you, right? So what
are you talking about? <<

It may not be _exactly_ the same as posting personal information,

May not? May not? It IS not -- it's not the same AT ALL. <<

Calm down, willya?! It's just a figure of speech.

but
the _intent_ is the same: to hurt and potentially ridicule, to "get"
the person in some way that you expect will upset them.

Oh, there is a big difference between the two, as you would know if it
happened to you. Let me ask you a question -- would you rather someone
emailed a picture of you that YOU had posted and said was you already OR
would you rather someone posted your real name, address, and phone number
when you never did ANYTHING to reveal that information? <<

Straw man. We're not talking about me and how I'd feel and what I'd prefer
(and for the record, I have a very, very public internet presence, and my
address -- and photos, and phone number -- can be easily found, in case
anyone wants to send flowers or chocolate or a Prius). We're talking about
intent behind actions, and I believe that both were done with malicious
intent. Tiny Dancer sent the picture of Michael around to make sport of some
kind -- not because he's her bestest fwend evah! and wanted everyone to see
him 'cause she thinks he's such a neat guy. And the person who posted what
may or may not have been Tiny's real life name and address did so with
malicious intent, too.

Which would scare you more -- really scare you? Do you think the person who
does the former has the same ethics and intentions as the person who does
the latter? Which person do you think is more dangerous? If you had to
choose, which would you rather have done to you? <<

Yawn. Again, we're not talking about my feelings. We're talking about
whether Tiny Dancer did something malicious to someone here, too. As I said
in my previous post, obviously the other person's actions were orders of
magnitude worse. Does that help you to answer those burning questions you're
so curious about? Do you need me to define "orders of magnitude" for you?

You don't
really think that someone net-stalking a person they know from a
newsgroup (i.e. going out onto websites and trying to find pictures
and personal information about them), and sharing around those
pictures of them with others, is doing it to say, "Hey, look at this!
I found these awesome pictures of that great guy, Michael Snyder,
from our newsgroup! Aren't they neat?", do you?

How do you know that that is what happened? <<

How does _anyone_ know _anything_ here? From reading posts, and deciding for
oneself -- based on other things posted by that person -- whether or not
their statements ring true. According to one post from someone whose
nickname I don't recall, Tiny Dancer's (possibly correct) real life
information was posted here. According to Michael Snyder, Tiny Dancer
e-mailed around a picture of him that she'd searched out online. According
to a subsequent post from Tiny Dancer, Michael Snyder may or may not have
actually posted the link to the original photo himself, but then she went and
dug up other photos he'd posted online, so in _her own words_ she did that
cyber-stalking thing I mentioned.

I don't know what happened,
until I know all the details, I can't judge. <<

Well, you have fun doing that investigation. It seems pretty clear from the
posts here that all of the information is already available.

I can judge what
sharonpo/richard did to tiny and me, however. I DO know that
sharonpo/richard posted what she thinks IS tiny's RL information. I DO know
that sharonpo/richard also posted what she thinks is MY RL information.
Where is your damn outrage about THAT, huh? <<

See "orders of magnitude worse." Or would you only feel that I was properly
outraged if I POSTED IN ALL CAPS from time to time when speaking about it?

Why are you discussing
something you don't have all the information for and ignoring what has
actually happened? <<

I'm discussing something based on the information that's been posted here,
which is plenty. And as for "ignoring what has actually happened," you
really need to take a chill pill. I'm not the first person here you've
accused of NOT CARING ABOUT THE HORRIBLE THING THAT'S BEEN DONE TO TINY who
actually _has_ posted a comment to the effect that the poster of the real
life information was wrong, and bad. But apparently it only counts if the
person posts their disapproval in the histrionic manner of which you are so
fond.

Obviously, someone posting the real name and address of someone who
doesn't want that information posted is orders of magnitude worse,

Yeah -- so why you don't respond to the different posts where
sharonpo/richard does that to me and tiny? <<

Er...isn't this a response? Isn't the thing I said in my last post a
response? Does it only count if I say "poster of real life info of Tiny is
BAD!" as a direct reply to that person's post? How about if I didn't want to
end up in the crosshairs of an obviously crazy and unstable person who goes
around posting people's private information online? Maybe I specifically
_preferred_ to address the matter via someone else's post. Maybe I don't
feel I have to vomit up every word and comment and reply that comes to mind
while I'm reading the newsgroup, and only post a response when I feel like I
have something to _add_ to the conversation?

but I don't think those other actions can be completely whitewashed.

Again -- there is no way I can decide anything about other actions when we
don't have the facts about the other actions. <<

Good luck with that.

Amy
--
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George
W. Bush, May 24, 2005

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Man accused of giving girl toxic fluid
    ... Michael Snyder wrote: ... > (piled high with printed articles about men murdering and ... Picture Michael, stalking Tiny, jerking off over all these assualts on ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Man accused of giving girl toxic fluid
    ... > Michael Snyder wrote: ... > Picture Michael, stalking Tiny, jerking off over all these assualts on ... the sick words seem to be coming from you... ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Hobbas misconceptions
    ... >> Quantifies the magnitude that results from certain 'physical' ... But F = MA has no meaning except that which ... like x 'because' his picture looks like x. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I give up
    ... Luigi Topolino wrote: ... happens *here* into real life? ... My god, didn't you see the picture? ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... busy with real life? ... Maybe he doesn't have time to educate you in basic logic? ... It makes me picture a tall ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading