Finding that special someone, especially in Canada.

July 11, 2006 9:25 AM

"Hi, can someone help me stalk my ex-girlfriend?!"
posted by deadmessenger to etiquette/policy at 9:25 AM (159 comments total)

Ok, that's not quite what was asked in the above thread, but given the lack of detail, it's well within the realm. I didn't respond in the thread because I don't want it on my conscience that advice I gave was used to harm someone.

My question here is: is it ok to flag a question that is a) potentially asking for information that could be used in the commission of a crime, and B) the poster is not only vague, but a bit hostile when questioned about his motives?


In any case, the thread is going in the crapper, and is probably in need of some cleanup.
posted by deadmessenger at 9:26 AM on July 11, 2006

No, but it's okay to flag all the "you must be up to no good" responses in the thread.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:28 AM on July 11, 2006

The only person who suggested he must be up to no good is jellicle; the people who suggested he just leave the woman alone are fine.

Despite scarabic's assertion, it's not wrong to make a suggestion that doesn't directly answer the question as asked. As long as the comment is not accusatory or judgmental, it's okay to offer a comment that challenges the asker to rethink their position. "If she wants to be left alone, you should respect that" is a perfectly valid response.

I assumed the Homolka comments were jokes and flagged them as noise. Who the hell knows.
posted by Gator at 9:33 AM on July 11, 2006

Wait, docgonzo is Paul Bernardo?
posted by Espy Gillespie at 9:34 AM on July 11, 2006

MetaKarma
posted by blue_beetle at 9:40 AM on July 11, 2006

Every Canadian that's listened to the news in the last 15 years will know who he's very likely asking about. A notorious killer who was part of killing 3 pretty teenaged girls, including her own sister, & video taped it. She got a deal for her testimony against her boyfriend (who remains in jail indefinately). Many Canadians find the deal unacceptably easy on her in light of the horrific crimes. The woman is a controversial subject in Canada. The meida wants to find her to hound her (like the did when she was discovered working in a hardware store last summer) and there are some vendetta types who want uglier kinds of revenge. I can't imagine any conversation about Karla Homolka / Teale / whatever name she is trying to use now going well.

If the questioner is NOT meaning this notorious killer, he'd be well advised to re-phrase his question. Manymanymany Candians will automatically assume that's who he means since her attempts to change her name, and her residence in the Montreal area, and her attempts to be anonymous are all widely reported (and the name thing was recent).
posted by raedyn at 9:41 AM on July 11, 2006

This is a BS callout to MetaTalk. There is nothing in the post or in the poster's history to indicate that he's anything but an upstanding citizen. And as another poster indicated, there are good reasons for wanting to find someone even someone who doesn't necessarily want to be found. That desire to not be found might very well be a manifestation of the person's problem and the reason to want to find them.
posted by mikel at 9:41 AM on July 11, 2006

"I didn't respond in the thread because I don't want it on my conscience that advice I gave was used to harm someone. "

But your conscience is fine with misquoting, and by doing so, pillorying an upstanding member of Metafilter?

When did you stop beating your wife?

(I think the gist of your callout is a decent one: what is the etiquette around a request like this. Your execution, however, sucks, and makes it hard to address the decent question.)
posted by OmieWise at 9:42 AM on July 11, 2006

wow. reading the question posted, it's quite a stretch to conclude that they're stalking an ex girlfriend. There are any number of reasons why a person might want to avoid and disappear from someone else. Maybe they were an ex-roommate or tenant who skipped out of town owing back rent. Maybe they took something and want to avoid capture. There are a zillion reasons other than a stalking.
posted by crunchland at 9:44 AM on July 11, 2006

I imagine a lot of people here will probably disagree with me, but I support the inclusion of "I can't in good conscience aid the poster" comments like jellicle's. When someone posts a loaded question like that without even a word of background to it, this is exactly the answer they should get.
posted by GeekAnimator at 9:46 AM on July 11, 2006

Please don't listen to anything docgonzo says re: Stalking; I've found it uniformly uninformative and ignorant.
posted by jon_kill at 9:46 AM on July 11, 2006

Whether or not the question stays, most of those replies need to be deleted.
posted by cribcage at 9:47 AM on July 11, 2006

Answering this question helps out — among others — stalkers who've been given restraining orders, those who are guilty of domestic abuse and looking to find their estranged partners for a little revenge, and recently-released rapists looking for past victims.

Answers posted to Ask Metafilter are of help to those other than just the questioner. Surely that deserves some minor consideration?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:47 AM on July 11, 2006

You know, choosing not to answer on moral grounds on AskMe is perfectly ok. Posting a message saying you won't, and why, is not.
posted by crunchland at 9:49 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

deadmessenger IS INSANE
posted by xmutex at 9:49 AM on July 11, 2006

Crunchland: why?
posted by jon_kill at 9:50 AM on July 11, 2006

As it stands now there is only one problem with that thread.

Limit your comments to answers or help in finding an answer, not ill-informed moralising.

It is not up to docgonzo to make demands about the answers posted. I think it is fine to try and guide the answers, but that isn't what he chose to do.
posted by Chuckles at 9:50 AM on July 11, 2006

"it's quite a stretch to conclude that they're stalking an ex girlfriend. "

Given the lack of detail, no, it's not.

"There are any number of reasons why a person might want to avoid and disappear from someone else. Maybe they were an ex-roommate or tenant who skipped out of town owing back rent. Maybe they took something and want to avoid capture. There are a zillion reasons other than a stalking."
Then why not just say so in the post? Furthermore, why did the poster become hostile when questioned about his reasons?
posted by deadmessenger at 9:52 AM on July 11, 2006

Whether or not the question stays, most of those replies need to be deleted.

Which ones? The ones that give tips on finding people who don't want to be found, or the ones that say "Leave her alone"?
posted by Gator at 9:52 AM on July 11, 2006

deadmessenger IS INSANE

Hell, maybe I am.
posted by deadmessenger at 9:53 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm for a morally neutral, maximally informational MetaFilter.

There are morally responsible and non-guideline-breaking ways to answer that question, I think.
posted by By The Grace of God at 9:55 AM on July 11, 2006

Fuck all of you who object to the question. You don't know his motives, so stop ascribing some to him. He doesn't have to tell you why, he just wants to know how. If you're not comfortable with that, by all means don't tell him how. But SHUT UP and let the people who have advice and don't care what he's doing with it weigh in.

My personal interpretation is that the guy's mother has gone off the deep end and he's trying to find her. There's no evidence for it, but there's no evidence for your immedaite ugly assumptions, either.

I'm so sick of misguided idiots. If you're so worried about Internet morality, go join one of those groups that poses as 14-year-old girls in chat rooms to nail the hordes of dangerous on-line pedophiles your local news tells you about.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:55 AM on July 11, 2006

I think it's entrey fair to assume the poster wants to stalk his ex-girlfriend. Stalk her, kill her, and then eat her.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:56 AM on July 11, 2006

Maybe the poster became hostile because someone decided they were searching for a particular person and then accused them of stalking.

How would you, deadmessenger, like it if you posted something about child care and people decided it was actually a post about raping babies?
posted by Loto at 9:56 AM on July 11, 2006

Stalk her, kill her, and then eat her.

then he gets out of jail too soon for some, changes his name and hides somewhere, but the good citizens of askmetafilter smoke him out!
posted by matteo at 10:02 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Agree with Mayor Curley here.
posted by furiousthought at 10:02 AM on July 11, 2006

Which ones?

The ones that don't answer the question.

You've got a bunch of idiots speculating about which of the 3.6 million people living in Greater Montreal the OP might be seeking. You've got one self-righteous blowhard with a moral objection who feels compelled to announce that moral objection in the thread, and you've got another dimwit ranting about AskMe readers being "entitled" to question the OP's motives. All of those comments, including the OP's replies to them, should be deleted.

AskMe has one rule: Answer the question or keep out of the thread. If you object to the thread on ethical grounds — and in this case, I don't necessarily disagree — then e-mail an admin or post this MeTa thread. There are easy, established ways to voice any objections without breaking AskMe's one simple rule.
posted by cribcage at 10:04 AM on July 11, 2006

You don't know his motives, so stop ascribing some to him.

Objections to the question can be separated from any presumptions about the questioner's motives.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:05 AM on July 11, 2006

guys guys he probably just wants to deliver some ice cream to her for her birthday.

GOD

come on already where is your faith in humanity?!
posted by naxosaxur at 10:06 AM on July 11, 2006

Crunchland: why?

Ideally, Ask Metafilter answerers should try to be objective. If you suspect the information you provide will be used in ways you don't approve of, you can choose not to answer. But if your reply doesn't lead to the SOLUTION of the problem, then you aren't doing the proper role. This point has been hashed and rehashed over and over here on Metatalk for months now.

So ideally, if someone posts a problem that is patently illegal/wrong/immoral, and it's obvious to everyone who reads it, then the correct response should be that there are zero replies and the offending question scrolls off into oblivion.
posted by crunchland at 10:07 AM on July 11, 2006

Objections to the question can be separated from any presumptions about the questioner's motives.

On what grounds? Chatfilter? That it's always wrong to track someone down when they're trying to avoid detection?
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:09 AM on July 11, 2006

Any question of the form "How can I X someone who does not want to be X'd?" is fundamentally suspect. If the person asking the question has a good reason, they should share the background of the situation. If not, they deserve to be called out.

Bottom line, I don't think AskMetafilter should be a forum for getting help doing things to people against their will.
posted by alms at 10:10 AM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Astro Zombie: Stalk her, kill her, and then eat her.

Mmmm, brains!
posted by Chuckles at 10:10 AM on July 11, 2006

AskMe has one rule: Answer the question or keep out of the thread.

Like I said, it's not wrong to make a suggestion that doesn't directly answer the question as asked. As long as the comment is not accusatory or judgmental, it's okay to offer a comment that challenges the asker to rethink their position. "If she wants to be left alone, you should respect that" is a perfectly valid response, and is not implicitly accusatory. While I think the Homolka comments are derailing and should probably be axed, it should be fine to tell the asker that a person who's hiding should be permitted to hide.
posted by Gator at 10:11 AM on July 11, 2006

Wow, what a bunch of assholes. They shit all over the thread and then defend their actions by coming up with ridiculous stories that assume the absolute worst about the poster. These sorts of actions really deserve timeouts since they completely ruin the dynamic of the green and scare askers away.
posted by nixerman at 10:13 AM on July 11, 2006

if your reply doesn't lead to the SOLUTION of the problem, then you aren't doing the proper role.

But if docgonzo is looking for Homolka, then the correct answer probably is "give it a rest, not worth the trouble". Hell, if I posted that in thread I might even get a checkmark!
posted by Chuckles at 10:14 AM on July 11, 2006

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas.
posted by crunchland at 10:22 AM on July 11, 2006

If she wants to be left alone, you should respect that" is a perfectly valid response...

No, it isn't.

...and is not implicitly accusatory.

Yes, it is.

The OP's question read, "How can I find someone who's missing, and probably wants to stay that way?" In other words, he knows damn well the person "wants to be left alone" and is asking his question despite that fact — so yes, your reply is implicitly accusatory.

And if someone's AskMe is "How do I do this?", then posting "I don't think you should do that" is never a valid response. As I said, there are plenty of ways you can voice that objection without breaking the one simple rule that we have. (In addition to the options I mentioned above, you'll note that OP has an e-mail address listed in his profile.)
posted by cribcage at 10:22 AM on July 11, 2006

"And probably wants to stay that way" could very well be due to (say) a bad debt, or mental illness, so it's not necessarily accusatory to say "leave her alone". Obviously in those cases, it's perfectly okay to find the person--in the one case, through a lawyer, and in the other, from concern for their safety.

Anything else, if they don't want to be found, is wrong, and AskMe shouldn't be assisting.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:31 AM on July 11, 2006

And if someone's AskMe is "How do I do this?", then posting "I don't think you should do that" is never a valid response.

That's bullshit. "I don't think you should do that and you're a sicko for trying" is invalid. "I don't think you should do that and why would you want to anyway, are you a stalker?" is invalid. "I don't think you should do that because you are clearly [insert detailed and colorful extrapolation by the Ever-Present JudgeMe Squad here]" is invalid.

"I don't think you should do that because it may be illegal or ill-advised for these reasons that you may not have thought of"? Perfectly valid and even potentially helpful, thereby fulfilling the ONE RULE.
posted by Gator at 10:32 AM on July 11, 2006

That it's always wrong to track someone down when they're trying to avoid detection?

As an aside, Mayor Curley, I believe some common-sense level of privacy is a basic human right, something which help establish a level of dignity we would all like to enjoy. You may or may not agree with this sentiment. If not, there's not much I could say will have any resonance, so feel free to skip my reasoning that follows.

If someone employs means to change her identity or evade unwanted attention — again, with the assumption that privacy is a basic human right — then asking questions about how to work around this would seem to violate some principle that we would expect to apply for ourselves.

We are being asked — for lack of a better description, given the lack of information — stalk someone who may or may not have a restraining order in place. Following through on an answer does violate that person's expectation of privacy, as phrased by the original poster ("[someone who is missing] probably wants to stay that way").

Given the lack of information in the question, as it stands, an analogous generic question would be to ask whatever means are possible (within the boundaries of the law, in the best case scenario) to harass someone who would otherwise want to be left alone.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:33 AM on July 11, 2006

if someone's AskMe is "How do I do this?", then posting "I don't think you should do that"

Well.. It isn't a valid response if there are already ten identical answers in the question..
posted by Chuckles at 10:34 AM on July 11, 2006

This is a BS callout to MetaTalk.

Exactly. This is starting to get ridiculous. First we get callouts claiming that someone is asking for help to do something illegal. This time, we're getting a callout for something that would be perfectly legal even if he was looking for Homolka, and he almost certainly isn't.

Most of the people in this thread and the other should have just shut the fuck up.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:46 AM on July 11, 2006

I think the ongoing moral argument is highly interesting and relevant, itself. It probably shouldn't be a part of any existing section of the site. It might be interesting to take these arguments to a newsgroup or forum, or even to somewhere like MetaChat, although it would probably be an unwelcome change in site tone to some MeChazens.
posted by By The Grace of God at 10:49 AM on July 11, 2006

deadmessenger writes "My question here is: is it ok to flag a question that is a) potentially asking for information that could be used in the commission of a crime, and B) the poster is not only vague, but a bit hostile when questioned about his motives? "

It's OK to flag it but I wouldn't expect much action afterwords. We've helped people dispose of a body, stalkers don't even make the top 5.
posted by Mitheral at 10:50 AM on July 11, 2006

Assuming docgonzo's intentions were benign, I think being a little less vague in the question would have greatly improved the answers for two reasons:
1. It could have shown that he's probably not stalking, making it easier to answer with a clear conscience.
2. Effective ways of searching for a person change depending on how, from what, and why she is hiding.

I didn't assume the worst when I first saw the question, and I understand not wanting to get really specific, but I expected a little more clarification when I clicked through. When I didn't find much more inside, I thought "that's a little weird" and moved on.

In a perfect AskMe, a question like that would just get very few answers at all. But I have a hard time believing docgonzo didn't expect people to question his motives when he decided to be so vague about it.
posted by lampoil at 10:53 AM on July 11, 2006

What wine goes with human?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:53 AM on July 11, 2006

Regarding the Karla Homolka hypothesis: being an American, I had never heard of the story until just now. But, considering docgonzo's first reply was to clarify that she "has tried to change her name, but was denied; is trying to hide in plain sight," I can see why people would make the logical conclusion that he is for some reason looking for this woman.
posted by radioamy at 10:55 AM on July 11, 2006

cribcage writes "And if someone's AskMe is 'How do I do this?', then posting 'I don't think you should do that' is never a valid response."

Sure it is. If someone asks "what is the best way to stick a light bulb up their butt" I think it would be a valid use of ask me to advise the poster not to proceed and why.
posted by Mitheral at 10:57 AM on July 11, 2006

What wine goes with human?

A nice Chianti.

I can see why people would make the logical conclusion that he is for some reason looking for this woman.

Homolka is one of probably hundreds of released criminal women in Montreal. To assume that it is her is not a logical conclusion.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:58 AM on July 11, 2006

> We've helped people dispose of a body,

We Have?
posted by baylink at 11:00 AM on July 11, 2006

Sho' 'nuff.
posted by Gator at 11:01 AM on July 11, 2006

Okay, so which of you is Homolka's sockpuppet?
posted by cortex at 11:01 AM on July 11, 2006

I think it's pretty clear that if docgonzo didn't want people to think it was Homolka he would have specified that it wasn't.

If anyone's curious, here are docgonzo's two posts in the Homolka thread from last year; one referring to the incompetence of investigators and the other speculating as to where Homolka would end up living: 1 2.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 11:03 AM on July 11, 2006

deadmessenger:

That's hostile!? You're new around here, right?
posted by loquacious at 11:11 AM on July 11, 2006

"Answering this question helps out — among others — stalkers who've been given restraining orders, those who are guilty of domestic abuse and looking to find their estranged partners for a little revenge, and recently-released rapists looking for past victims."

And children seeking child support or medical information. And people dispersing inheritences. And people seeking friends or family with addictions or mental illnesses. And people looking for witnesses or sources.
There are plenty of reasons to track down someone who wants to be hidden. And finding them, alone, does not compromise their privacy.
posted by klangklangston at 11:11 AM on July 11, 2006

for lack of a better description, given the lack of information — stalk

The word you say that we lack is "find". Coincidentally, it's in the original question. "Stalk," on the other hand, is not.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:14 AM on July 11, 2006

I think it's pretty clear that if docgonzo didn't want people to think it was Homolka he would have specified that it wasn't.

If it was me asking the question, I wouldn't have dignified the accusations with a response. So, no, it isn't clear at all.

But let's suppose that he is trying to find Homolka. So fucking what? It's not illegal to try, or even to succeed. It's still a bad callout.

(And, so help me, I never thought I'd see the day where I agree with klang.)
posted by solid-one-love at 11:15 AM on July 11, 2006

Agree with Mayor Curley here.

Me too, but without all the histrionic "fuck all of you" and "SHUT UP" and "misguided idiots" crap.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:21 AM on July 11, 2006

If it was me asking the question, I wouldn't have dignified the accusations with a response.

Then you'd continue getting answers that assumed you were looking for Homolka.

So fucking what?

Absolutely. I don't think the question should be deleted.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 11:21 AM on July 11, 2006

"Any question of the form "How can I X someone who does not want to be X'd?" is fundamentally suspect."

How can I get my ex-husband who doesn't want to stop stalking me to stop?

How can I get my alcoholic father who doesn't want to stop drinking to stop?

How can I get a 13 year old kid who doesn't really want to listen to me to listen to me?

How can I get my computer, which wants to eat all of my data, to stop?

How can I get the women who don't want to respond to my personal ad to do so?

How can I get the man of my dreams to go down on me?

etc.

(And what loq. said about hostility. Not only was that not hostile, it was a measured and considerate response.)
posted by OmieWise at 11:26 AM on July 11, 2006

How can I get the real name, email address and snail mail address of any member of Metafilter that uses an anonymous handle?
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:34 AM on July 11, 2006

Me too, but without all the histrionic "fuck all of you" and "SHUT UP" and "misguided idiots" crap.

What would Mayor Curley be without that?
posted by xmutex at 11:35 AM on July 11, 2006

Which part of Please limit comments
to answers or help in finding an answer. can't you morons understand?
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:41 AM on July 11, 2006

How can I get the real name, email address and snail mail address of any member of Metafilter that uses an anonymous handle?

Run the handle through google, included groups to find other places they may have used it. Check for personal blogs, board profiles, myspace pages, etc. that may have contact information. If that's a wash, read through postings they have made on message boards, other community sites, etc., to see if they've dropped personal information somewhere along the line. Check flikr and other image sharing sites too: they may have an account under the handle, and pictures may give it least partial clues about where they live, or maybe who their friends are.

If you're lucky, one or more of these will at least lead you to a name. From there use zabasearch, online phonebooks, and so on to get the rest of the data.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:44 AM on July 11, 2006 [2 favorites]

Me too, but without all the histrionic "fuck all of you" and "SHUT UP" and "misguided idiots" crap.

>What would Mayor Curley be without that?

A councilman, or maybe just a reeve.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:45 AM on July 11, 2006

Thanks PinkStainlessSteel! I'm on it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:46 AM on July 11, 2006

Which part of Please limit comments
to answers or help in finding an answer. can't you morons understand?

Uhh...
posted by solid-one-love at 11:46 AM on July 11, 2006

Well done s-o-l. It's petard for everyone on MeTa today!
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:47 AM on July 11, 2006

Who are you calling a petard, you doron?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:52 AM on July 11, 2006

I only mention it because the callout from that thread, also by ikkyu2, was almost as idiotic as this one, which makes his comment so gobsmacking.

And ikkyu2, I do think that you are one of the most helpful people, and possibly the most helpful person, to frequent AskMe. That comment/callout was the singular exception.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:53 AM on July 11, 2006

I asssumed he meant Homolka too FWIW. As raedyn said upthread, I imagine any Canadian reading the question would've assumed the same.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:57 AM on July 11, 2006

Is this post a troll inspired by this thread?
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:58 AM on July 11, 2006

Yeah, for the record, after reading the description, I also thought Homolka. The vagueness makes the question suspect.
posted by GuyZero at 12:10 PM on July 11, 2006

These discussions are really frustrating to me. They feel more like a clash of culture than any hard and fast rule. It's not here and it's not here.

Okay, this rule is just this note when you go to post a comment:

note: Ask MetaFilter is as useful as you make it. Please limit comments to answers or help in finding an answer. Wisecracks don't help people find answers. Thanks.

That reads more like a suggestion than a rule to me. Furthermore, some posters are reading a heck of a lot into it. It seems to me that the only way to understand the nuances of this rule is to read MetaTalk.

I'm not just being dense, but if we're really trying to be friendly to newcomers while maintaining Metafilter's core values, than why do I have exert a decent amount of effort to learn what those values are?

I'm not debating that "just answer the question" is an AskMe community standard and I'm pretty sure that I know where the editors stand on this. They're certainly more anti-derail, pro-deletion than I would be in their shoes and that's probably a part of the Metafilter core belief system that I don't fit in with.

I like derails. I liked learning about Karla Homolka. I think 20-something comments in a thread does not make the thread unreadable or less useful. I think the slippery slope of derail theory is overly unoptimistic.

To say that a potentially amoral AskMe will just sit empty is willfully ignorant. If there's one stalker on AskMe, then there's certainly a second stalker on AskMe who's perfectly willing to swap tips, or a clueless person who's just trying to help. Personally, I hadn't thought of the stalker angle when I first read that AskMe, even though I've read a lot of anti-stalking tips and I've had some experience being minorly fooled by one.

Furthermore, I don't think that Askers are made of glass. If we really limit Answerers the way that anti-derailers intend, then we are discouraging clearly useful outside-the-box answers. I wonder if this truly useful answer would exist if there wasn't some prior moral discussion in the thread.

What kind of discussion would we be having if the Something Awful Buckshot thread happened here? What if the question was even more subtle? Sometimes the Asker is mentally unfit to see the real question or the most important issue. In my experience, sometimes obsessive thoughts can be allayed by bouncing them off others and seeing how they respond. If we purposefully temper any possible moral qualms because we're "just answering the question," then we're doing the community and the Askers a disservice. And no, I don't expect Askers to read MetaTalk.

So, instead of shutting down this discussion with, "it's a rule." Can't we talk about the origins of the rule and how it does/doesn't aid the community and whether or not we feel that there are exceptions to the rule and where do we draw those lines? What if the rule is no longer useful to the community?
posted by Skwirl at 12:11 PM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Wow. Go out for a bike ride and get MeTa'd. Won't do that again.

To clear some things up:

Gold stars to all those cunning MeFites who guessed the subject of my question is Ms. Homolka. A friend (a journalist) asked me (a mostly recovered journalist) for advice on how to go about looking for her; I made some some suggestions under the general title of 'I don't think you'll find her' but wondered if the hive mind might have something else to add. I thought (naively, it appears) that not specifying her name would limit responses to specific techniques for finding people, suspecting (astutely, it turns out) that any specific discussion of Ms. Homolka devolves into arguing inappropriate for AskMefi.

About the ethical issue of looking for Ms. Homolka: Although usually on the live-and-let-live side of the fence (and a very firm believer that anyone who has gone through Canada's penal system has more than cleared their 'debt' to society) I believe that her prosecution has been a tremendous miscarriage of justice. Specifically, it has allowed an individual culpable of heinous crimes -- crimes for which she has never taken responsibility for, expressed any remorse over and, in the views of a large number of observers, including judges and other criminal experts, fear she might commit again -- to largely escape any meaningful oversight, surveillance or therapy. I abhor mob justice but believe it is appropriate for journalists to try and find her using any legal means. In any event, while I may be conflicted over the ethics of it, I have no concerns about the ethics of my friend.

And finally, my alleged hostility -- truly, darlings, you ain't seen me hostile -- was in response to ugly motives being ascribed me with no good reason.
posted by docgonzo at 12:13 PM on July 11, 2006

my alleged hostility...was in response to ugly motives being ascribed me with no good reason.

But you specifically directed your comment at dirtynumbangelboy, whose only comment was this:

Unless you have a legal claim against this person--in which case her hiding is a matter of evasion--or she is seriously mentally unwell--as in, disconnected from reality--isn't it her choice to hide?
Leave her alone. (Unless, again, legal claim or mental inllness).

I don't see how that constitutes "ugly motives being ascribed to you" -- it actually allows for good intentions on your part -- though jellicle's later comment (which you had not yet seen when you replied) was more accusatory and inappropriate.
posted by Gator at 12:25 PM on July 11, 2006

Good luck with your recovery. but - can we have a moratorium on references to "the hive mind"? There is no such thing here.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:29 PM on July 11, 2006

And finally, my alleged hostility -- truly, darlings, you ain't seen me hostile -- was in response to ugly motives being ascribed me with no good reason.


I call BS on that one. I ascribed no ugly motives to you. In fact, I pointed out circumstances in which looking for someone who didn't want to be found would be the right thing to do.

And yet..
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:30 PM on July 11, 2006

This is the greatest MetaTalk day EVAH.
posted by Justinian at 12:33 PM on July 11, 2006

I hope you find her.
posted by caddis at 12:39 PM on July 11, 2006

Read my post, caddis, I'm not looking for her.
posted by docgonzo at 12:47 PM on July 11, 2006

Me too, but without all the histrionic "fuck all of you" and "SHUT UP" and "misguided idiots" crap.

What would Mayor Curley be without that?

Calmly annoyed at MeFites' attempts to pre-emptively police AskMe on the presumption of guilt, i.e. me.
posted by scottreynen at 12:50 PM on July 11, 2006

Homolka is one of probably hundreds of released criminal women in Montreal. To assume that it is her is not a logical conclusion.

Maybe so, but it was right, wasn't it?
posted by timeistight at 12:53 PM on July 11, 2006

And docgonzo, while I agree that Holmolka's sentence was a travesty of justice, it is the deal that our representatives made. I think we should reserve our anger for the incompetent justice system that couldn't find videotaped evidence under their noses, crafted this odious deal to at least be able to convict someone, and then hid it from law-abiding citizens as long as possible.

Maybe I should post a question on how to track them down.
posted by timeistight at 12:59 PM on July 11, 2006

If your friend finds her, he has to give Athanasius Kircher a (via).
posted by Heatwole at 1:04 PM on July 11, 2006

So hold on, docgonzo was dating Karla Homolka? That's gross.
posted by xmutex at 1:10 PM on July 11, 2006

well, your friend then
posted by caddis at 1:22 PM on July 11, 2006

Stalk her, kill her, and then eat her.

you forgot to cook her. C'mon let's be civilized, here.
posted by jonmc at 1:25 PM on July 11, 2006

Oh wow, docgonzo. Not cool.
posted by geoff. at 1:26 PM on July 11, 2006

Maybe so, but it was right, wasn't it?

When you hit the case card to make your quad 2s when there are two aces on the board and your opponent has raised all-in, you won the hand but still didn't make the logical decision.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:30 PM on July 11, 2006

Enough of the ZOMG ITZ IMMORRAL11!!eleventy!

Stick to answering the question.
posted by exlotuseater at 1:35 PM on July 11, 2006

Assuming docgonzo's intentions were benign, I think being a little less vague in the question would have greatly improved the answers

Yup. Note to future AskMe-ers: being all cutesy about your question is probably going to be more problematic than just asking it.
posted by languagehat at 1:50 PM on July 11, 2006

Gold stars to all those cunning MeFites who guessed the subject of my question is Ms. Homolka.

Hey, if you do find her and get a little somethin', take pictures.
posted by loquacious at 1:57 PM on July 11, 2006

I thought it would have been obvious to most Canadians that that's who Docgonzo was looking for. The use of "gonzo" in the username was also a hint to me about the reasoning behind the question. Someone with their own over-the-top stalker qualities could probably search for that username or the poster's real name in combination with "Homolka", "Teale" or "Bernardo" or even "French" and "Mahaffy", if they really wanted to see if they were in the ballpark. Given all that, I would have expected that the question was mostly designed to find out how people do hide in plain site and how people find them. A bit more detail might have calmed down the thread, though. It's possible that Docgonzo didn't think the details mattered at the time, but the way the thread went sort of shows that didn't work so well.
posted by acoutu at 2:15 PM on July 11, 2006

take pictures

You could hide them in the light fixture. No-one would think to look there.
posted by timeistight at 2:24 PM on July 11, 2006

Americans confused by the Homolka reference would do well to track down the Law and Order episode based on the case. It's from the tenth season, and it's called Fools for Love.
posted by sugarfish at 3:01 PM on July 11, 2006

karla's HAWT.
posted by quonsar at 3:02 PM on July 11, 2006

karla's HAWT.

Going into jail, sure.



Now, not so much.



And by "sure", I mean "sure, if you skip the part where she killed those two girls after her husband had sex with them" or whatever the hell happened.
posted by GuyZero at 3:11 PM on July 11, 2006

Americans confused by the Homolka reference would do well to track down the Law and Order episode based on the case. It's from the tenth season, and it's called Fools for Love.

Right-o, thanks.
"Honey, the library or Google didn't have your answer, but an episode of Law and Order did.

C'mon.
posted by Heatwole at 3:12 PM on July 11, 2006

Sick thing is that the videotapes of Karla/Paul torturing and raping the girls were supposed to be destroyed, there is very strong suggestion that at least some copies made it out and are available to very rich sickos.
posted by Justinian at 3:41 PM on July 11, 2006

me talk engrish good.
posted by Justinian at 3:42 PM on July 11, 2006

Who are you calling a sicko?
posted by geoff. at 3:50 PM on July 11, 2006

people who want to kill their roomate's cat.
posted by Justinian at 3:56 PM on July 11, 2006

Oh and if someone got paticularly defensive I just told them I was their doctor and needed to get in touch about "some tests." I totally pulled that line from Eyes Wide Shut, but as a doctor people will put you on a pedestal.

Oh please, you really think that line would work if he really was looking for a famous serial killer? It's obviously someone else.

It's entirely possible that some other person both A) lives in that part of canada and B) Is depressed. The C) changed her name thing though? I'm not so sure about.
posted by delmoi at 3:57 PM on July 11, 2006

man I really should have read the whole thread before posting. *sigh*.
posted by delmoi at 4:01 PM on July 11, 2006

Docgonzo said -- And finally, my alleged hostility -- truly, darlings, you ain't seen me hostile -- was in response to ugly motives being ascribed me with no good reason.

Skip the drama, doc. Nobody's quaking in their shoes worrying about you getting hostile.

Like some other folks, my first inclination was to assume that stalking may be involved. It's absurd to think that mefites should answer any and every question value free regardless of what it might be (e.g., Hey mefites: Where can I get a date rape drug? I'm going out tonight.")

Next time be clearer if you don't want folks to ascribe motives to you.

And if you're hostile about my comment, I can live with it. Ain't no big thing, dude.
posted by bim at 4:37 PM on July 11, 2006

bim you can quake if you like. I don't think anyone else was, or doc was implying such.
posted by caddis at 4:40 PM on July 11, 2006

that's exactly what he was implying. :)
posted by bim at 4:43 PM on July 11, 2006

No, it's what you're no longer even just implying, bim. Make like a hotel room and shut the fuck up. docgonzo has taken all this pretty well.
posted by scarabic at 5:54 PM on July 11, 2006

Kiss my ass, scarabic. You don't get to tell everybody else what to say and think. If you don't like that, well tough shit. Clear enough for you?

p.s. Learn to write, too. That sentence barely makes any fucking sense, moron.
posted by bim at 6:01 PM on July 11, 2006

Should I bring the folks over from the Athanasius Kircher thread? There were high hopes for a big honkin' flame-out, but it seems to have fizzled out over there.
posted by yhbc at 6:11 PM on July 11, 2006

Justinian said 'Sick thing is that the videotapes of Karla/Paul torturing and raping the girls were supposed to be destroyed, there is very strong suggestion that at least some copies made it out and are available to very rich sickos.'

I've heard the same of the Lesley Ann Downey tape recorded by Brady and Hindley, and the police tapes of interviews with Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. I would be completely skeptical except that I was told details about the Bulger case before the trial that turned out to be true... still, it's like snuff movies, one can never be sure whether that sort of thing is really circulated.
posted by jack_mo at 6:14 PM on July 11, 2006

bim, it was actually decided quite a while ago that scarabic does indeed get to tell everybody else what to say and think. Hush up now before you get yourself a time out.
posted by team lowkey at 6:36 PM on July 11, 2006

Justinian writes "there is very strong suggestion that at least some copies made it out and are available to very rich sickos"

Can't see it, it would have leaked to the net by now. And the man hunt because of the child pornography aspect would be huge.
posted by Mitheral at 7:44 PM on July 11, 2006

bim - did you type that through tears or what? I'm so close to pity that I can barely bring myself to spank you.

Please continue either:
A) completely groundless salvos against docgonzo
B) hissyfit ejaculations that paint you a 3rd grader

I'm content to slap you around a bit longer for either or both.

Moreover, I demand a more detailed indictment if you're going to impugn my command of the language. "Making sense" is a two-part tango, and any failure to do so also calls into question the receiver's facility with language.

Point out my grammatical error, please (don't you help him, languagehat - let him do it him/herself or s/he'll never learn).
posted by scarabic at 8:17 PM on July 11, 2006

bim said: "It's absurd to think that mefites should answer any and every question value free regardless of what it might be."

Apparently it's even MORE absurd to hope that mefites should be able to avoid moralizing instead of simply declining to answer the freaking question.
posted by mikel at 8:26 PM on July 11, 2006

MetaTalk: I'm content to slap you around a bit longer.
posted by loquacious at 8:28 PM on July 11, 2006

"You don't get to tell everybody else what to say and think."

No, not everybody. But you? *checks list* Yep, there you are.

This was a really stupid callout. I could understand objecting to an AskMe question about how to stalk one's ex-girlfriend. I don't understand an objection to an AskMe question which might be about stalking one's ex-girlfriend.

Not to mention that being first and foremost concerned with facilitating the hiding of women from abusive men is far from the optimal solution to the problem of violence against women. It could be argued that doing so ultimately works against the benefit of women.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:59 PM on July 11, 2006

For the record, I give people shit about my ethical qualms over email.
posted by scarabic at 9:04 PM on July 11, 2006

I think an AskMeFi answer system should go like this:

1. If you feel what the poster is asking is morally wrong, but doesn't break the guidelines, and you absolutely can't ignore it or keep silent, e-mail the poster privately, but don't comment in the thread.

2. If you feel what the poster is asking is morally wrong AND breaks the guidelines, flag the post and e-mail the poster, but don't comment in the thread.

3. If you have a direct answer to the question, sans moralizing and disagreement with the question, post the answer. Sames goes if you need the poster to clarify the question.

I'm in the camp that believes #1 and #2 don't belong in the thread, no matter how trollish or insane the question is. The flagging system is for this very thing - keeping the answer space clean of indirect answers, snarks, judgements, etc., shouldn't be so difficult.
posted by Zosia Blue at 9:08 PM on July 11, 2006

bim, are you going to flame out? 'cause that would be cool.
posted by exlotuseater at 9:21 PM on July 11, 2006

Yawn.

Still rambling on, I see, scarabic. Slapping people around, spanking them and other silliness. Are you making this nonsense up as you go along? How am I to even take you seriously? Will you be stomping your feet at the grocery checkout because you can't have a candy bar?

Grow up and quit having a hissyfit just because someone disagrees with you. That's what this is all about. Docgonzo is a big boy and can take care of himself.

...oh and there's a difference between correct grammar and clarity. Flowery prose is a bit tedious too. :)

And mikel, declining to answer a potentially inappropriate question is tacit approval that the question is OK and that to blindly answer any old question is OK too. It's not, IMHO. Numerous examples were given in the thread by myself and others. Matt, of course, can run his forum as he sees fit. You, on the other hand, don't get to dictate what others can say and do, regardless of how loud you shout and how much you curse.

A good answer to a question is often the result of the give and take of responses to a question. Folks may change their mind along the way. What somebody thought was an obvious answer becomes less obvious etc.

To expect folks to answer questions in some totally abstract value free vacuum -- as has been implied in a number of threads lately including threads about which boyfriend should I keep or dump -- IS absurd. People's opinions are shaped by where they've been and what they've experienced. How in the world would you expect folks to answer a question otherwise. It makes absolutely no sense .

And E.B., I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. A few folks raised the issue of potential stalking early on in the original thread and rather than simply clarifying the intent of the original post, numerous folks went postal about not judging any MeFi question and all that stuff -- on which I have already commented.

Now don't assume that I have fretted all day worrying over the the question about locating this woman in Canada. I haven't. But I do object to folks being shouted down because they were concerned that there may have been a hint of impropriety in the question. And since I don't spend my working hours noodling away on MeFi, I'm commenting here now on MeTa filter -- which seems to me to be a pretty appropriate place for such comments.

So as I said before, scarabic, don't tell what I can say. Matt can feel free to delete my comments or delete me. It's not the end of the world. It's only yet another forum on the internet with folks tapping away on a keyboard.

But I can guaran-f%*king-tee that I won't be intimidated by your nonsense, scarabic. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, dude.

It's late. Some of us have to work for a living. The floor is yours boys. Knock yourselves out. :)
posted by bim at 9:25 PM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

damn.
posted by exlotuseater at 9:28 PM on July 11, 2006

Answering this question helps out — among others — stalkers who've been given restraining orders, those who are guilty of domestic abuse and looking to find their estranged partners for a little revenge, and recently-released rapists looking for past victims.

Oh my god, that's just so, so, so wrong. So now we're supposed to not only ascribe motives to the original poster, but limit our questions and answers to only those topics that can be shown to have no benefit to anyone looking to cause any kind of trouble whatsoever?

Oh my god.
posted by mediareport at 9:40 PM on July 11, 2006

"How am I to even take you seriously?"

This made me giggle.
posted by klangklangston at 9:44 PM on July 11, 2006

"How am I to even take you seriously?"

I don't know. I suggest visualising me as your minimum-security prison-daddy. which is to say a fucked up person who, while introducing you to many reality-changing forces, is not to be taken as a moral force of unbesirchable perfection.

So as I said before, scarabic, don't tell what I can say.

And so let me settle this issue for you since you seem unable to simply claim your right to uncensored speech.

1) If you believe something, think it through as best you can and articulate it as best you can.

2) If someone disagrees with you, they're not necessarily "telling you what you can say." But be prepared, by gad, for people to publicly disagree with you. There is absolutely no guaranteed right to spew nonsense in public without someone telling you you're full of asshole sandwiches. Get used to it.

3) If you can demonstrate that your opponents' arguments are without substance and intrinsically intimidating or coercive, then perhaps you have cause to accuse them of coercion or intimidation.

I'll leave it there, so as to keep it positive.
posted by scarabic at 10:58 PM on July 11, 2006

So it looks like you aren't used to someone telling you that you're full of asshole sandwiches. That's called uncensored speech. Read your own rant.

*giggles and rolls eyes*
posted by bim at 5:38 AM on July 12, 2006

bim, for all your bluster, you're bringing yourself off in a really unflattering light. Please stop.
posted by cortex at 6:02 AM on July 12, 2006

I'm glad the thread got derailed. The only interesting thing about it was that the poster was looking for that killer -- or his friend was, or whatever, as if that makes a difference.

The least interesting thing about the thread (and this one) was the people complaining that other people's answers were off-topic. Especially the people who didn't restrict themselves to the MetaTalk -- especially after the link was posted -- and who were therefore themselves in breach of the "guidelines".

Besides, I think the "Wisecracks don't help people find answers" modifies the general disclaimer. Serious discussions about the ethical issues involved, including questioning the poster's motivation, are not "wisecracks". They're often interesting and, in my view, perfectly valid responses.

And I don't like the idea that people can't raise their ethical concerns on the thread -- it might help other people decide whether they want to answer the question.

As others have said, some questions demand moralising responses. I think someone suggested, "I'm going out tonight -- where can I get a date-rape drug?" Most date-rape drugs have a legitimate alternative use -- should we assume the best about the poster? I don't think so. Depending on the circumstances, we should point out the possible nefarious intent, and call on the asker to either clarify or fuck off.

Oh, and scarabic? If you tell someone "That's not a valid answer", then you are telling them what they can and can't say. Your objection is to them posting their response, and not necessarily to its content.

Also, get over yourself.
posted by robcorr at 6:12 AM on July 12, 2006

Corrigendum: the general disclaimer. should obviously be the general guideline.
posted by robcorr at 6:13 AM on July 12, 2006

Thank you, robcorr. That's it exactly.
posted by bim at 6:17 AM on July 12, 2006

Metafilter: full of asshole sandwiches
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:33 AM on July 12, 2006

bim writes "And mikel, declining to answer a potentially inappropriate question is tacit approval that the question is OK and that to blindly answer any old question is OK too."

The first part is crazy. You've admitted you can't spend much time here yet we're supposed to interpret you not posting in a thread as tacit approval for that thread? You going to let us know when you go on vacation so that we know that tacit approval isn't being given?

Blazecock Pileon writes "Answering this question helps out — among others — stalkers who've been given restraining orders, those who are guilty of domestic abuse and looking to find their estranged partners for a little revenge, and recently-released rapists looking for past victims."

So? It's cliche but information wants to be free. Moralizing trying to stop it and the next thing you know you are attempting to filter the internet, shutdown libraries and burn books.
posted by Mitheral at 6:59 AM on July 12, 2006

I am in the camp that finds raising ethical concerns in AskMe threads appropriate. However, I do not think it was appropriate here. People got bent out of shape over some potential stalking with absolutely zero evidence. Most of the time the behavior does not need to be surmised, such as someone seeking methods to surreptitiously kill their roommate's cat (although I surmise that one to be a joke) or cheat on their taxes, etc.
posted by caddis at 7:12 AM on July 12, 2006

I dunno, caddis. Initially I didn't have a problem with the question, which is why I read the thread. But it seems that other people knew exactly who it was aimed at, so they were in a pretty good position to raise their concerns.
posted by robcorr at 7:49 AM on July 12, 2006

Oh, and scarabic? If you tell someone "That's not a valid answer", then you are telling them what they can and can't say. Your objection is to them posting their response, and not necessarily to its content.

Okay, that's a fair point. But the thrust isn't telling them what they can and can't say, it's reminding them of the guidelines about what is and isn't appropriate in AskMe. I didn't make the rules.

[gets over self]
posted by scarabic at 7:51 AM on July 12, 2006

And nor do you enforce them. And, as I said before, your "You're wrong" comment was in breach of the guidelines you're apparently so concerned about.

But anyway. This has been an interesting discussion that seems to be just about exhausted.

Until next time...
posted by robcorr at 8:01 AM on July 12, 2006

I have no concerns if that woman is hounded down by every reporter on the planet. Find her, expose her whereabouts, don't let her hide. She really should be behind bars for the rest of her life. I understand how she got to this place, but it was a bargain with the devil those prosecutors made. The concerns about stalking an ex were the ones I take issue with. They were groundless and to accuse docgonzo of such was shameful. Those concerned for Karla? Well, I just don't understand that.
posted by caddis at 8:08 AM on July 12, 2006

She really should be behind bars for the rest of her life.

Whether or not she should be in a moral sense, she has served her time according to the dictates of our legal system. That's the way it works; you repay your debt to society (as decided by the system), and then you're done.

What she did was a horror. That's not in doubt. That the prosecution screwed up the deal is, likewise, not in doubt.

She has, however, served her time.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:20 AM on July 12, 2006

Ditto dirtynumbangelboy.
posted by Mitheral at 8:27 AM on July 12, 2006

No, she never paid her debt. They traded her debt for the goods on her husband.
posted by caddis at 8:29 AM on July 12, 2006

caddis, you're missing the point.

According to the legal system, she has paid her debt. Anything else is vigilantism.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:56 AM on July 12, 2006

"According to the legal system, she has paid her debt. Anything else is vigilantism."

Or reportage. Which is a distinction that you don't seem able to make.
And again, morality doesn't stem from laws.
posted by klangklangston at 9:00 AM on July 12, 2006

No, your missing the point. I don't give a tinker's cuss whether she has paid her "legal" debt. She participated in the sick and brutal murders of three people and possibly remains a danger to society. Her debt for these atrocities can never really be paid. If these reporters can find her all the better. Do you want her around your kids? In the States she could never hide as these were essentially sex offenses. She would be registered and her whereabouts posted in an online database.
posted by caddis at 9:02 AM on July 12, 2006

klang, shall I use words of one syllable so that you actually understand them?

First of all, I'll restate what I said above: Whether or not she should be [behind bars for life] in a moral sense, she has served her time according to the dictates of our legal system.

So, please show me where I said that morality stemmed from laws? Oh, that's right! You can't! Because I didn't. I actually said quite the opposite.

Got it? Good.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:03 AM on July 12, 2006

You go get your pitchfork, caddis, and I'll start rounding up the rest of the posse.

/redneck moron
posted by robcorr at 9:09 AM on July 12, 2006

In the States she could never hide as these were essentially sex offenses. She would be registered and her whereabouts posted in an online database

Which I have serious concerns with. While I recognize that (especially) pedophiles are very rarely rehabilitateable (is that a word?) and thus need to be kept away from children, there is a legal system in place which states that once you have finished your sentence, you are discharged. You have paid your debt to society as laid down in our rules, and you should be free to go. It's a very sticky moral issue for me; on the one hand, society must clearly be protected. On the other hand, sex offenses can include someone who is 18 sleeping with someone who is 17 (consensually), and being charged for it. Should that person be a registered sex offender? Clearly not. And yet that's what happens.

Obviously, Karla Homolka is a seriously disturbed individual who participated in atrocities that still affect people I went to school with who knew Tammy and Kristen. But as much as it was a deal with the devil, the deal was made according to the rules of the system. Don't like it? Petition your MP and MPP, get something done about it. But as a society, we rely on the legal system, with its flaws and its successes.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:13 AM on July 12, 2006

caddis writes "I don't give a tinker's cuss whether she has paid her 'legal' debt. "

You really see nothing wrong with vigilantism?

How about I decide you water your lawn or shower too much. Should I be allowed to harrass you about it endlessly just because the system isn't prosecuting you? Engage all my friends in the same pursuit? Stake out your workplace or home and keep track of your every coming and going? Publish this information in papers, television and the internet? Identify your license plate? Hound your parents, co-workers and friends about your whereabouts and get their opinion on who you are sleeping with and see if they also waste water? Should I be allowed to phone your boss and find out why he would hire a notorious water waster? Maybe get everyone in my profession to do the same to the point where your boss does nothing but answer the phone?

All that all right with you? After all you are an evil waster of national resources not being punished by the law and I'm just trying to report on it.
posted by Mitheral at 9:27 AM on July 12, 2006

"All that all right with you? After all you are an evil waster of national resources not being punished by the law and I'm just trying to report on it."

Actually, yeah. I mean, some of it would fall under anti-stalking and harrassment laws, but most of it, including publishing public information, is totally fine. No one will care, and you'll be the kook.

"So, please show me where I said that morality stemmed from laws? Oh, that's right! You can't! Because I didn't. I actually said quite the opposite."

Actually, you didn't. You argued that morality was irrelevant to the legal system, yet also made a moral judgement that publishing information on her was "vigilatism." It's not, and it's not immoral to publish such information just because she has served her time. Regarding the state, her obligation is fulfilled. Regarding the moral precepts of society, it has not been.
(The opposite would be that laws stem from morality, which you can argue that they largely do, and that when a law deviates from the moral that it should uphold that the law is wrong or imperfect. Then you get into the subjectivity of morality and the contentiousness of the public ideals, which is something that I don't think you're bright enough to hold forth on convincingly).

So, really, you're just too stupid to understand the argument that you're putting forth and the replies to it.
posted by klangklangston at 9:48 AM on July 12, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy writes "Which I have serious concerns with. While I recognize that (especially) pedophiles are very rarely rehabilitateable (is that a word?) and thus need to be kept away from children, there is a legal system in place which states that once you have finished your sentence, you are discharged. You have paid your debt to society as laid down in our rules, and you should be free to go."

dnab-I used to agree with this position until I realised that sex offender registeries are indeed the law. They are part of the legal system and part of the debt to be paid. It doesn't really make sense to think of them as somehow separate from a prison term as they just don't make sense that way.

There are still reasons to be suspect of them, including the statutory rape example you gave, as well as a general icky feeling about registeries of citizens, but I don't think the first stated objection holds.

klangklangston writes "So, really, you're just too stupid to understand the argument that you're putting forth and the replies to it."

I don't understand this level of vitriol. I've read most of the comments in this thread and there's clearly some moral import attached to both sides for people, but this strikes me as the kind of gratuitous insult that simply makes argument worthless and pointless. One can still call someone fucking wrong without calling them an idiot because of that.
posted by OmieWise at 10:09 AM on July 12, 2006

klang has a hate-on for me, OmieWise.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:17 AM on July 12, 2006

In the States she could never hide as these were essentially sex offenses.

We have sex offender registries here, too. She was not charged with or convicted of any sex crime. In any case, she served her sentence. The rules were followed.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:23 AM on July 12, 2006

klang has a hate-on for me

Klang has a hate-on for anyone he doesn't have the ability to debate.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:25 AM on July 12, 2006

One can still call someone fucking wrong without calling them an idiot because of that.

Aye.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:27 AM on July 12, 2006

I was responding to the "small words" crack, but did overreact and I apologize.
posted by klangklangston at 11:08 AM on July 12, 2006

kudos@skwirl,bim

And oddly, that L&O is one of the only one I've ever watched all the way through (it's a Grey's Anatomy thing).

Took me half way through to get the Homolka connection.
posted by baylink at 12:16 PM on July 12, 2006

Disclaimer: I'm in the live-and-let-live camp.

The ambiguity of the question certainly was suspicious but some of the presumptions to it were way out-of-line. Ask for more details before making said presumptions or stay out of the way. Yeah, yeah, hind-sight's 20/20.

For those concerned about some vigilantism/stalking aspect, though, I think had this been a legitimate search for a mentally unstable family member, deadbeat parent, drug addicted sibling, or whatever, the proper way to pose the question, if uncomfortable providing more details, is through the anonymous post page. Further details surrounding the scenario could then be fleshed out in the [more inside] section. Of course, all that may be unnecessary if the poster feels comfortable ascribing his username to the question.
posted by redsnare at 3:43 PM on July 12, 2006

klangklangston writes "but did overreact and I apologize."

I just wanted to acknowledge this since it was partly in response to my post. Thanks.
posted by OmieWise at 5:46 AM on July 13, 2006