Attached Link: http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/0112/chatroom_suit_ctv.html

I found the article interesting. In the past, I've seen people threaten to sue others for online insults, mistreatment, libel etc......but this is the first case that I'm personally aware of where anyone's actually done it.

One thing about 'restrictive' posting policies -- such policies help to avoid the potential of situations like this one from developing on down the line.

And what forum/chat provider wants to be named as a fellow-traveller in a lawsuit? Bad for business.....and no fun.

Crazy

He voluntarily kept going back to the Chatroom after years of interaction. But it's someone else's fault???????

It's more than just chat:

*Gillespie alleges that the duo intruded into his "private affairs." The complaint states that Marlowe actually drove from Alabama to Ohio to photograph the plaintiff's home, which he then posted on the Web. He also allegedly went to the courthouse in Medina to dig up personal dirt on Gillespie, which he then also disseminated over the Internet.

The case is not simply "someone conversing in a chatroom" but also involves "harassing someone in Ohio," which gives Ohio courts jurisdiction, according to Gillespie's lawyers.

"Had the defendants stayed in the chatrooms, there would be no jurisdiction here, case closed" Gillespie's attorney Theodore Lesiak stated in the complaint. "Defendant did not."*

Dunno if that really happened or not, but I have seen cases where what happened on the Internet didn't stay on the Internet. A friend of mine had all four of her tires slashed by a woman who took exception to things she said online.

.

For what it's worth, my own advice is:

If you can't "take it", then you should stay away from certain types of online environments.

But on the other hand -- you never really know who it is that you're verbally sparring with on the other side of your plasma screen. There's always a risk that the person is a genuine nut.

Or someone that might be sue-happy......rare, but possible. Even if the defendant successfully fights off a lawsuit like this one -- they still stand a good chance of losing on certain levels. Financially and with great personal inconvenience -- if in no other way.

XENOPHONZ, In 2003 I got dragged into a lawsuit over things that were said in a Usenet newsgroup (I didn't say any of the things alleged in the suit, but got named as a defendant anyway). So it can and has happened. After about three months, the plaintiff amended the complaint, and I was dropped from the suit. It ended up costing me a couple grand that I didn't really have, and was told by my attorney that while I could try to recover my legal costs, the plaintiff had probably made sure that they didn't have any recoverable assets before they ever filed. For what it's worth, (and IANAL) from my understanding of the CDA, AOL should be immune from the suit. It doesn't prevent the suit from being filed, but they should get dropped quickly. Of course, if you're AOL, your defense cost is little more than a rounding error in calculating business expenses. For somebody who runs a site part-time, it's a bigger hit to the wallet.

@ almostfm --

AOL has the "deep pockets". That makes them into a juicy target.

But I tend to agree with you. I'd expect AOL to be quickly dropped from the suit. HOWEVER -- with our legal system's endemic craziness: you never really know what the courts will do until they do it.

Sorry to hear about your own experience. I'm sure that such things have happened: it's just that I'm personally unfamiliar with them (fortunately).

if you want to sue someone all you have to do is fill out the paperwork. It has nothing to do with being right, nor what the courts will do. In the end most dont go to court they settle out of court. especialy if what the person is demanding costs less than going to court (win or loose)

Good. I hope he wins. There are so many idiots that hide behind their computers and do and say things that they wouldn't dare do or say in person. It's about time a precident is set showing these nuts that they're accountable for their actions regardless of which medium they happen in.

Attached Link: http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

I once had someone tell me my life had less value than a fruit loop in the OT forum. That member is still active here.

Hmmm. I wonder if I could get enough off that to buy Poser 6 and Carrara? The fact that I still remember it clearly indicates the level of deep scarring that this annoyance left. [grin] --edited to add [grin]--

Message edited on: 01/12/2006 14:18

It's long past time for the US to join the rest of the civilized world with "loser pays". Won't happen, of course. The %$#%$^%$^%^&&^(%$&^#%@%#@%^&%^&&^^^**&#;^ lawyers don't give a happy horse$$@^%$^$%#^%$& if they drag down the whole country into bankruptcy; they can always find another country to kill for fun.

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

Hmmmmmm......I wonder if SPAM would qualify as an annoyance?

I'm not familiar with that law. But it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out. I'm willing to bet that it'll be found to be unConstitutional, and thrown out.

But as mentioned earlier -- you never know what the courts will do with something like this. Online stalking is a problem.

This bill doesn't sound like Bush's baby. It sounds more like Sen. Arlen Specter's baby. As the article mentions, it was surreptitiously slipped into a must-pass bill by it's sponsors: thus making it semi-proof against political challenge.

Oh, well.....there goes the neighborhood.......

Attached Link: http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2002/12/20/story81537.asp

It's been a federal crime for some years - also supported by the UK - to send a "threatening communication", which includes threats or harrasment by use of the internet.

Message edited on: 01/12/2006 15:28

I'm sueing everyone involved with this post for wasting my time! Kindly post your name, address and phone number so my lawyers can contact you.

Message edited on: 01/12/2006 15:34

I'm sueing everyone involved with this post for wasting my time!

Perhaps we'll counter-sue for you wasting ours......

;)

You joke. But cyber stalking/harassment is a serious issue. My life was turned upside down for months when some crazy zeroed in on me and used his job resources to harass me on and off the net. It's not so funny when it happens to you :(

@Acadia --

No, it wouldn't be funny. Not at all. And I can't blame you for having strong feelings on the subject as a result of your personal experience.

sigh Where to strike the balance between "free speech" and someone going too far online -- not to mention a nutcase outright stalking someone?

Nutcases = a very strong reason to maintain personal anonymity online.

Attached Link: http://www.cyberangels.org/

Oh yeah! And after having done much research on it, you would be totally surprised at how little someone needs in order to find you. There is no such thing as "annonymity" on the internet, despite what many might think.

Cyber stalking is so prevelant, that there is a group set up that helps people locate cyber stalkers. Message edited on: 01/12/2006 16:01

Good for him, No one should have to put up with abuse.

"If you can't "take it", then you should stay away from certain types of online environments." I tend to agree with that to some extent. There are always going to be places that you just shouldn't go into unless you carry brass knuckles and know how to use them. At the same time, there should be a some expectation that most places will be reasonably safe and civil most of the time, otherwise you have anarchy. As Acadia says, the web's sense of anonymity leads to a lot of abuse that in the "real world" is discouraged by the prospect of a punch in the snoot. As more and more of life moves online, we really need to find some way of trying to have a reasonable level of civility in cyberspace.

"Here's the shameless propagation of a Matt Drudge link." If someone tries to shame you for that, please contact Cyberangels, especially if it's Matt Drudge. ;-) Real cyberstalkers who harass are creeps and it's right to deal with them legally, but who gets to define civiility? Partisan politicians? I think there are some common sense answers to some of these issues. If it crosses the line into offline life or is disruptive of a person's online rights to participation and privacy, then it's not much different from offline harassment and stalking. It's a serious issue but on the more positive side, it seems like most online venues establish their "civility level" pretty well whether by staff moderation or self-moderation, or lack thereof. I just wish some people didn't treat this forum like alt.flame.Poser.sucks.sucks.sucks sometimes. :-)

"...but who gets to define civility?" The same folks who always do--all of us. The internet presents the extra dimension of being pervasively international but there are still standards of behavior that are pretty much universal. Whether the pols get involved depends on whether enough voters want them to. Sometimes they get a little carried away ala Schiavo, but usually, if they don't smell votes, they lose interest. Personally, I prefer as little control as possible by America's 'only native criminal class,' especially the currently predominant group. I am concerned about the longterm effect cyberlife will have on society though; things only science fiction writers can predict at this point. I suppose if people start actually saying 'LOL,' instead of laughing, we're in trouble.

LOL

sheesh..this is why the Tavern, The C&D Forum, the OT forum..etc., are all gone..and there were some red-hot debates in all of them (well, except the Tavern, I didn't think deleting it was a fair cop..but that's me..;)
I don't know about 'annoying' someone as a legal term or not; I've found that as I get older, my BS detector seems to get more sensitive..of all they say, there may be something, but there isn't something in all they say..;)

If you can't "take it", then you should stay away from certain types of online environments."<

Yeha I don't know about that. Do we stop sending kids to school who are harassed or should harassed women stop going to work if they can't "take it"?

I look at it as there are rules in place so civilized society can fuction. And rules are in place for those who cannot exercise resposibility and good judgement on their own.

I think too many online suffer from what I call "dear Diary" syndrome, where interactions online become a sort of video game and the poke people for points.

After reading the whole article, I think the courts are there for just this reason, to decide if it is valid. Most cultures frown on using people for sport and entertainment.

Message edited on: 01/13/2006 01:30

byAnton is right. While it's true that some online forums - like the long dead Complaint and Debate forum here - are known as "put up or shut up" places, web forums in general, or chatrooms in general are not. And C&D never had warnings posted about the atmosphere - newbies were expected to somehow know. Saying "If you can't "take it", then you should stay away" is blaming the victim.

It just seems like there's better ways of dealing with this than the court system. Namely due to the expense. If they were harassing him, why not just notify the AOL mods? IMO, they are very good at dealing with online abuse. I run a small message board on my Web site, and a couple of times, I've had to ban AOL members for posting abusive messages. IP banning doesn't work well with AOL, because they're so large and they use dynamic IPs, but an e-mail to AOL gets the perpetrator suspended from AOL for two weeks, which usually fixes the problem. (Especially since they're usually kids, and when the parents find they can't log on because of what Junior's been up to, the hammer comes down.)

One of my other hobbies is tropical fish/plants. There was a guy who ran an online business selling them. He didn't do a good job, generating numerous complaints on mailing lists, message boards, Usenet, etc. Rather than trying to fix the problem, he slapped everyone who complained with a lawsuit. He bragged to his local paper that it was his hobby. He lived 5 miles from the federal court building in NY, where he filed the papers himself, while the people he sued across the country had to hire lawyers and pay thousands of dollars to fly to NY to appear in court if they wanted to fight. Most of them ended up paying him thousands of dollars to settle, not because he was right, but because they couldn't afford to take time off work, buy the plane tickets, etc.

He also sued Google, because searching on his company name brought up massive complaints about his business practices and many messages commenting on the lawsuits.

Eventually, a lawyer in Alabama got fed up, and set up a defense fund. He asked for PayPal contributions (some people were added to the lawsuit just for contributing). Then he countersued in Alabama, and when the guy didn't show up to defend himself, won a default judgment of $50,000. The guy immediately claimed bankruptcy (having put his assets in his wife's and son's names), but the lawyer successfully took his domain name to satisfy the judgment.

Quote - It just seems like there's better ways of dealing with this than the court system.

What do you suggest? Going to the person's house and poking them in the nose?

No. What I said. Complain to the AOL chat mods. They are pretty responsive IME, and will take care of the problem.

I think a better way is for companies to better monitor the forums and chatrooms they host.

Moderation in all things. The best answer lies between the wild west/law of the jungle and a society that micro-manages and controls every human interaction. It's a tough call but these inline spaces are rapidly becoming the equivalent of the public square so there needs to be some minimal degree of decorum. I don't know what the answer is. I do know that over a period of a few months here in the relative staid environs of the Poser forum, I've seen much more rudeness and inconsideration than ever between people interacting in person. Personally, I don't see that as a good development for society. Unlike video games where abusing virtual characters may allow one to sublimate aggression, here the other characters are real. It's like aggressive driver syndrome. People feel isolated and encapsulated in a vehicle or behind a keyboard and their inner asshole comes out. I do agree that often, encouraging lawyers is little better than encouraging bullies. Lawsuits should be the last resort.

In many cases "moderating", "deleting posts", "banning" doesn't work, for the simple reason that it's "online consequences", just like the actions are "online", and to the perpretrator they just don't see "online" being a problem.

However, once you get the law involved, the reality of what they have been doing hits them in the face like a Mac truck and they realize... "Hey! I'm not as annonymous as I thought... my actions online are just as wrong as if they are done in person."

I just have zero tolerance and patience for those who hide behind their computers playing "School yard bully", which is exactly what they are doing. If I had more financial resources available to me, I'd contribute to the guys prosecution fund.

Message edited on: 01/13/2006 09:25

Saying "If you can't "take it", then you should stay away" is blaming the victim.

In a perfect world, anyone should be able to walk through Central Park in New York City after midnight without fear of being attacked or molested. But the realities of the situation are such that it just doesn't work thataway.........

One might contend that asking someone the question: "What were you doing walking around in Central Park at that hour?" constitutes a form of "blaming the victim". Regardless of that: it's an act of utter foolishness for a person to put themselves in such a place at such a time.

Advising someone that it's in their best interests to avoid Central Park after midnight isn't "blaming the victim". Rather: it's an example of compassionate suggestion.

"Don't go in there -- it's a dangerous place."

Anyone can argue all they like that muggers shouldn't do what they do. But they'll still continue to do it anyway. Likewise, internet bullies won't stop doing what they do. Call it "blaming the victim" if you like; but the thing is what it is.

As I alluded to in my first post: 'restrictive' posting policies enforced by admins are the equivalent of uniformed cops standing on the streetcorner. And certain people just don't like cops (or rules for that matter) -- but most people feel safer with such authority figures around.

Yeha I don't know about that. Do we stop sending kids to school who are harassed or should harassed women stop going to work if they can't "take it"?

No.....but places like Usenet aren't the equivalent of "must attend" places such as schools or offices. Usenet is more like a jungle filled with all sorts of dangerous animals -- or like the middle of the worst area of a major city.

It's not a good idea for the average person to casually saunter around in such places.

As for websites, AOL chatrooms and such -- see above. Solid rules enforced by admins are the way to go for those wanting a 'civil' environment online. And that's the approach that I advocate.

Chances are, a place with a name like "The Den of Evil Doers" isn't going to have a very civil online culture.........so: it's best to simply avoid it.

I look at it as there are rules in place so civilized society can fuction. And rules are in place for those who cannot exercise resposibility and good judgement on their own.

Largely true. But ALL of us need rules to function with others -- people that don't always agree with us. Even the "good" ones need rules.

Like traffic lights on the road. Just think what it'd be like if all traffic rules were to be suspended. Drive anywhere that you like, as fast as you like, and in any direction that you like. No restrictions.

That sort of "freedom" only leads to the worst type of slavery. Admittedly, such an environment can be a lot of fun for the strong ones. So long as no one else but me matters.

In many cases "moderating", "deleting posts", "banning" doesn't work, for the simple reason that it's "online consequences", just like the actions are "online", and to the perpretrator they just don't see "online" being a problem.

For most people, being cut off from Internet access is a "real life" consequence. Especially these days.

I just have zero tolerance and patience for those who hide behind their computers playing "School yard bully", which is exactly what they are doing. If I had more financial resources available to me, I'd contribute to the guys prosecution fund.

I wouldn't. I'm not sure he's the one wronged here. How can we be sure? The guy could be stark raving crazy. I seriously doubt anyone drove across the country to photograph his house, as he accuses.

I am definitely against cyberstalking...but there are a lot of paranoid and just plain crazy people who think they are being stalked when they aren't. Or who just want to make a quick buck. Or get off on harassing people with lawsuits, like a "schoolyard bully."

He wasn't on wild and woolly Usenet. He was on AOL. If he was being abused, he could complain and get his abusers banned from AOL. That would solve the problem...if the problem wasn't solely and wholly in his imagination.

Yes -- I wouldn't instantly assume anyone's guilt or innocence in this case. In theory, the courts will decide that.

There's this to consider, too: it's just possible that there aren't any "good guys" in this entire situation. Only a group of selfish people at each other's throats.

Who knows? I don't. It would be interesting to see a follow-up report once this situation has resolved itself.

From reading the first post it doesn't sould like the alleged "harrasser" did anythign actionable. AFAIK there is no law agaisnt taking pictures of peoples houses (as long as you don't tresspass to do it) and the documents he obtained from the court were most likely public record or he woudln't have been able to get them. I don't knwo about Ohio but in Illinois there is no Cause of action for "harrassment". There is "sexual harrasssment" but no action for plain vanilla "harrassment." Cases like this are very very few and far between that is why it they get so much attention. The error occurs when peopel with interests in curtailing our rights, lie and say that our courts are full of cases like this. They are not. These interested companies then lobby for legistlation making it difficult to acces the courts when you need them.

Quote - FAIK there is no law agaisnt taking pictures of peoples houses (as long as you don't tresspass to do it) and the documents he obtained from the court were most likely public record or he woudln't have been able to get them.

You also have to look at the context, not only the action. What was the person doing online to this guy prior to having gone to his house to photograph it and upload it to the net, or digging up personal information? It obviously wasn't random. He targeted that particular guy, and if he was harassing and "beating up" on the guy on the net in various ways, going and digging up the guys personal information and taking photos of his house and posting them on the internet could and should be viewed as threats, even if they are covert. It wasn't just anyone's house.... or anyone's court records, it was HIS, the object of this sicko's bullying obsession. The actions were obviously done in order to further harass the victim and let him know that "he's being watched and more".

Quote - I don't knwo about Ohio but in Illinois there is no Cause of action for "harrassment". There is "sexual harrasssment" but no action for plain vanilla "harrassment."

Laws can and do change, and rightly so. It wasn't that many decades ago where women were considered property and "non persons under the law", until some women stood up and basically said "screw this", and fought it, ultimately giving women separate status and the right to vote. Harassment is harassment, regardless of what "type" it is. Just because there is no "vanilla harassment" law in some places, doesn't make it right, and shouldn't be overlooked. It's those places that need to come out of the dark ages and step up into the 21st Century and get with the times of what is now, and not what was.

"Most cultures frown on using people for sport and entertainment." Maybe we oughta just make fun of plants or rocks or something, but somehow I just don't see the potential there. ;)

"In a perfect world, anyone should be able to walk through Central Park in New York City after midnight..." So by suing, this guy is doing the equivalent of a Bernie Goetz. Maybe he should have simply left (maybe he didn't want to be accused of "cutting and running"), maybe he should have called a cop, but he pulls out a deadly weapon and goes rooty-toot-toot. Even if the suit is dismissed, some of the muggers in AOL's Central Park will think twice now before leaping from the bushes. AOL, even in their incompetence, will probably put a few more cops on the beat as well. Now maybe that will chill the more colorful characters and perhaps the piquancy of AOL chat will be dulled but there's always, as you say, Usenet, where only the FBI and NSA are watching and as long as you aren't running a kiddy porn ring or an Al Quaida cell, they don't care.

Randym. AOL Community leaders no longer Exist. They were terminated about 6 months ago... Getting Notify AOL to do anything is like Pulling teeth. Ther are roving bands of punks literally harassing and kicking other members out of the rooms. I should know... I am a former community leader for AOL.

An online board, site, forum, community is only as good as the people who run and manage it.

Unfotunately too many of these places just don't care, and sometimes the mods who manage it are just as bad or worse than the people who post there.

When I had trouble with that guy, I did find out something rather interesting from talking to a friend of mine who is a criminal defense lawyer. He told me that if someone is being harassed and they've complained to the mods and site admin/owners, and the harassment is not curtailed, that the site has made themselves liable for a lawsuit because they are providing a medium for the harassment to take place, basically making them an accomplice to it.

Oh, and a statement of "this site has no rules so if you don't have a thick skin, don't enter", means nothing. Harassment is harassment. Joking around and good natured "razzing" is one thing, but some people have no clue when to stop, and when it starts to extend to intruding into someone's "real" life by going to their house or town and snooping for information on them... that is definitly crossing the line and has extended into harassment and stalking.

Message edited on: 01/13/2006 23:40

Rule #1 The Internet is not always a nice place. It is like Central Park: really neat in the daytime, but not the place an innocent defenseless mark human being wants to be after dark. Rule #2 If you go insulting people online, just remember that you are never 100% anonymous. You can be found, and odds are pretty good that there's a satellite photo of your house. Behave yourself unless you can defend yourself. Rule #3 If someone does something dumb and commits an actual real-life crime to 'get even' (like screws with your mail by using fraudulent means to do so), you don't cry and whine about it to a lawyer hoping to make money out of it. You call the proper authorities (Postal Service), press charges against the stupid punk (Mail Tampering and Mail Fraud). You let him whine and cry to the judge about it while he contemplates the loss of his reputation, career, freedom, and - oh - his Internet Access. Rule #4 If someone harrasses you in a chat room, flame his sorry ass into oblivion. Call his bluff. Dare the little asshat to reveal himself, and when/if he refuses, laugh at him. Then laugh at him every time he shows his greasy little nose in your presence, taking the time to point out to everyone else present what he's all about. Once he gets laughed at enough, he goes away. Bullies look for easy marks, and won't stick around for the ones they believe they can't 'get to' mentally. Rule #5 Someone threatens to show up at your house? Refer them to the exact, verbatim quote of local laws allowing you (in most places within the US) the perfect legal right to defend your home and property with any force necessary, including lethal force. If such laws are weak or non-existent, refer them to the penalties list from your local anti-stalking laws. Then dig up as much info on him as you can, in case the little yutz decides that his gonads really are bigger than his brain. In either case, call their bluff in public, in full detail - if the guy is serious, he'd do it without telling you, and otherwise, it drives the point home that perhaps they should get off of Daddy's 'puter for awhile and think it all over. Rule #6 If the mods/management doesn't give a shit and the harrassment is real, leave and don't return. You have no business demanding that a site admin do anything if he/she has demonstrated that no such remedial action will occur. Many a website and USENET newsgroup has fallen or withered to the point of obscurity due to bad management in this fashion. It's that simple, folks. This place is not Disneyland. Take it from someone who first got on the thing in 1991, and has been online almost consistently since 1995. This little flamefest that keeps the Internet nice and warm has been going on a very long time - ever since some brainless jackass had the temerity to claim that emacs was somehow superior to vi, as a matter of fact. So I strongly suspect that it ain't going to get any nicer anytime soon. /P

Quote - Rule #4 If someone harrasses you in a chat room, flame his sorry ass into oblivion. Call his bluff. Dare the little asshat to reveal himself, and when/if he refuses, laugh at him. Then laugh at him every time he shows his greasy little nose in your presence, taking the time to point out to everyone else present what he's all about. Once he gets laughed at enough, he goes away.

I refuse to adopt the very type of behaviour that I detest. All that does is make you just like them and I consider myself to be a better person than that and don't need to stoop to their level of mentality. One thing I know is that people like water, seek their own levels and that bullies tend to recruit those who are like minded and do their best to sway others to their cause. > Quote - Bullies look for easy marks, and won't stick around for the ones they believe they can't 'get to' mentally.

And there are many out there that are mentally unstable and if you push their buttons they could show up at your house and shoot you. No thanks.

"I refuse to adopt the very type of behaviour that I detest."

...then don't be surprised when you eventually get chased offline by every punk who knows they can chuff you. No skin off my nose; I firmly believe that the Internet is vastly overpopulated as it is in many aspects.

But, notice that I never mentioned that you need to specifically use foul language or even angry words. Sometimes, all it takes is enough sarcasm to let them know you're twisting the proverbial knife... and it sinks in about five minutes after they read it.

"And there are many out there that are mentally unstable and if you push their buttons they could show up at your house and shoot you."

Sure - some yutz halfway across the planet is going to board an airplane (whilst smuggling a weapon to do so), or drive halfway across the country while smuggling said weaponry, go allllll the way out to your house, and "shoot you" over something said online?

You'd have better odds at winning Powerball w/ a $1bn jackpot on it.

Seriously.

I've received exactly one half-assed death threat in all the years I've spent online. Most of my time was in making grand entertainment out of finding self-important idiots and slowly torquing them into a foaming ball of rage. There was even a whole pack of us in alt.nuke.the.USA, and we'd give each other as much of a hard time as we gave the rest of the planet. IOW, I actively went out and sought trouble. I pushed people's buttons like I was GIR on methamphetimines in front of a control panel.

sigh...

Sadly, trolling online in such a manner is IMHO a lost art. "Trolling" nowadays has become an arena where punk kids play the obvious and think they're clever. Damn, sometimes I wish there was a minimum age for online activity... but enough of nostalgia.

That one and only threat? Happened in 1997. It was dispatched of in less than a week by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (he lived in Newfoundland of all places), with a long, slobbering apology to conclude the episode (in an email openly cc'd to his ISP sysop, his local clerk of court, and my ISP's sysop). I never heard from him again.

Trust me - most bullies make their very existence on the threat of "enraged user hell-bent on revenge shoots local netizen" . It's almost as popular as the threats to 'hack your computer', which has been bandied about since the dawn of time.

Tell you what - you cower in fear that someday you'll make someone even madder if you don't stand up for yourself, and I'll go on to happily beat the same creatures into literary pulp. Fair enough? ;)

/P

Message edited on: 01/14/2006 01:52

Quote - .then don't be surprised when you eventually get chased offline by every punk who knows they can chuff you. No skin off my nose; I firmly believe that the Internet is vastly overpopulated as it is in many aspects. But, notice that I never mentioned that you need to specifically use foul language or even angry words. Sometimes, all it takes is enough sarcasm to let them know you're twisting the proverbial knife... and it sinks in about five minutes after they read it.

Just because I refuse to stoop to their levels doesn't mean that I can't hold my own with online bullies :) I can bite if I have mind to. However, I find that reverse psychology is much more effective than reducing yourself to pond scum level. You see, the last thing these freaks expect is for you to treat them with such extreme kindness that it comes across as "pity". If someone is nasty, just be really nice. The more nasty they are, the more nicer and sickenly sweet I'll be. Eventually they get tired and move on :) > Quote - That one and only threat? Happened in 1997. It was dispatched of in less than a week by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (he lived in Newfoundland of all places), with a long, slobbering apology to conclude the episode (in an email openly cc'd to his ISP sysop, his local clerk of court, and my ISP's sysop). I never heard from him again.

You obviously took it seriously enough that you got the police involved. If it was so "inconsequential", why did you do that? You could have just been nasty and verbally given him back what he was dishing out and chased him away? Or so you said.

And who said GTA was just a game, for some obviously, it is a philosophy of life. At any rate, AOL will eventually have a Jenny Jones moment where someone does fly, drive, walk or crawl somewhere and do terminal violence to someone over their Linux V. Windows or Poser v. DS or whatever chat and then the place will suddenly become safer than 1600 PA. I'm leaving before I have to get medieval on any butt caps or ass chapeaus or whatever. Smell ya later.