advocating violence, threats of police, not cool July 4, 2005 5:29 PM   Subscribe

'Keep it up; I'd be more than happy to forward your name to the RCMP'. That seems a bit out of line, doesn't it?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken to Etiquette/Policy at 5:29 PM (156 comments total)

He's a blowhard releasing gas, stav. He worries me about as much as a cloudy day. Although I couldn't let him accusing me of sociopathy go unanswered.
posted by jonmc at 5:33 PM on July 4, 2005


Dude, don't criticize your moral and intellectual superiors.
posted by c13 at 5:58 PM on July 4, 2005


*runs off to Home For Mentally Disabled Serial Killers to find someone to critique*
posted by jonmc at 6:00 PM on July 4, 2005


Seems like solid-one-love took any disagreement with his position as a personal affront, and things escalated dramatically when some people didn't have much patience for his strong advocacy of his point of view. (I happen to agree with him, but there's such a thing as being too defensive, or too sensitive for the rough-and-tumble around here.)
posted by mcwetboy at 6:01 PM on July 4, 2005


Not only that, it seems to be a total understanding of what clevershark was saying

After all we have a fairly sizeable, violent biker population who'd like nothing more than to "ply their trade" at a task that would make them look like heroes for once.

solid-one-love then spends the rest of the thread castigating clevershark for supposedly calling vigilante attacks on Homolka heroic. The thing is, that isn't what that says to me. I read the statement as saying that the *bikers* might consider it heroic (probably true) or that other Canadians would think so (possibly true) or even that the Angels believe that other Canadians would see it as heroic (probably true as well).

Even if he did say it would be heroic, is that illegal in Canada? I rather doubt it. It doesn't meet the criteria for incitement to violence as I understand them (clevershark would have to believe that violence might result as a result of his comments, which I doubt he does).
It certainly doesn't get anywhere near being an actual death threat.
So where does this bullshit about "almost breaking the law" come from?
posted by atrazine at 6:04 PM on July 4, 2005


What a waste of time.
posted by kjh at 6:23 PM on July 4, 2005


Praise Jah! solid-one-love is just insisting that you be obedient to the law of righteousness! You're all working for Babylon and he has the Truth.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:44 PM on July 4, 2005


One of these days I'm just going to start handing-out crayons and drawing my name on the board in cursive.

Seriously, people need to grow-up. Not only in the blue, but the callouts are getting ridiculous.
posted by purephase at 6:46 PM on July 4, 2005


*passes curley the ganja*
posted by jonmc at 6:47 PM on July 4, 2005


That seems a bit out of line, doesn't it?

Not if he's advocating violence, which I maintain that he was on the brink of doing.

My last word on the subject, Thanks.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:56 PM on July 4, 2005


which I maintain that he was on the brink of doing.

on the brink, gracie? Let's arrest all those kids who sing along with Snoop Dogg lyrics about "187 on an undercover cop," since they're on the brink of being cop killers.
posted by jonmc at 6:58 PM on July 4, 2005


I know I'm a bit late on this one, but here's what I saw.

That "almost heroic" line appears to suggest that if something happened, many (not just the bikers) would consider it "just desserts" in light of previous actions by the victim.
posted by mystyk at 7:04 PM on July 4, 2005


I strongly advocate smacking solid-one-love's ass with a plastic ruler and giving him a purple nurple.

*thrusts out wrists* TAKE ME AWAY, OCIFER!

Grow the fuck up. Jesus.
posted by Ryvar at 7:06 PM on July 4, 2005


Not only in the blue, but the callouts are getting ridiculous.

You are free to repeat this tiresome mantra if you wish. Barely a thread goes by without someone repeating it yet again, though, so perhaps it might be time to put it aside.

This is not a 'callout'. The word -- and the recently-ascendant idea that that kind of puerile playground spitballing is what Metatalk is for -- is asinine.

Whether you are in turn asinine is a question on which I will refrain from speculating.


Also, I'm not really bothered at all by the stance of either solid-one-love or anyone else in that thread. The comment I quoted and linked to is the one that particularly bothered me and seems to be something worth thinking about, but nobody seems much interested in it.

That's cool, though. Carry on.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:08 PM on July 4, 2005


"You're all working for Babylon" Haven't seen a check from them yet.
posted by arse_hat at 7:10 PM on July 4, 2005


That thread is just a big train wreck, IMO, the whole thing can go.
posted by mek at 7:16 PM on July 4, 2005


she has homo in her name. heh.
posted by quonsar at 7:22 PM on July 4, 2005


Is there a way to repost the whole thread here?
posted by c13 at 7:32 PM on July 4, 2005


The most interesting thing out of this (so far) is that jonmc reacted to being described as sociopathic, but has no problem with being described as "intellectually dishonest as well as a prick", "fucking retarded", "narcissistic", "a tool", "thick"and "dumber than the machine holding these words". Not judging or anything, I just thought it was interesting.
posted by dg at 7:39 PM on July 4, 2005


Oh, um, yeah, the threat to call in the mounties is crossing the line a tad. If only for jurisdiction reasons. It seems someone is having a bad day week month life.
posted by dg at 7:42 PM on July 4, 2005


Whether you are in turn asinine is a question on which I will refrain from speculating.

Defending your own thread. I'm shocked. You are free to repeat this tiresome practise if you wish. Barely a thread goes by without someone defending their own righteous reasoning, though, so perhaps it might be time to put it aside.

No one cares about the line because it was ridiculous. I'm not defending it, but really.. common sense tells me that it was a worthless comment in a worthless thread. I, like most people apparently, chose to ignore it. Flag the thread/comment and move on.
posted by purephase at 7:47 PM on July 4, 2005


Flag the thread/comment and move on.

No.

Metatalk's stated purpose has always been to be a forum to discuss (and argue about, more often than not) issues about how the community is run, and a place in which standards for what constitutes acceptable behaviour can evolve, if not always be agreed upon. It's democratic, and messy, and that's good.

Flagging serves a purpose, and I've flagged a few LOL!!11! type comments as 'noise' in the past, as I'm sure you have. No real substantive discussion is probably to be gained from taking things like that to MeTa.

I thought that this was a bit different, and miles more egregious, and worth talking about.

If you disagree, fine. Perhaps it would have made sense to take your own advice: flag my post, and move on.

No one cares about the line because it was ridiculous.

Like I said upthread, that's cool, if so. I've been wrong before.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:17 PM on July 4, 2005


Well I, for one, was offended, and I support solid-one-love fully in his passive-aggressive callout on violence.

I mean, just look at this:

After all we have a fairly sizeable, violent biker population

He's calling our biker populationg "sizeable" -- that means he admires it for its brutal strength. Note the proud use of "our".

...who'd like nothing more than to "ply their trade" at a task

Note the quotation marks around "ply their trade". This is a not-so-subtle indication to rearrange the letters, whereupon you get... "threat pridely", again, boldly stating that he takes great pride in making this threat against Homolka, as others should be proud of carrying it out.

that would make them look like heroes for once.

Note the use of "look like". To whom? Why, to clevershark, of course!

Next up, why: "You are free to repeat this tiresome practise if you wish." is a callout to Homolka to continue doing what she's been doing, and to make it a little more interesting next time, for godsakes. Call in the mounties!
posted by dreamsign at 8:24 PM on July 4, 2005


That thread has numerous examples of the worst of MetaFilter.

I do think his caution, in its essence, was appropriate. We could all do with a reminder to stop and consider the implications of our words. It's awfully easy to wish death on someone. Nevertheless, I'm still glad that Reagan bastard is dead.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:39 PM on July 4, 2005


For chrissakes, he didn't "wish death" upon anyone!

Regarding considering the implications of our words, point taken, but it sounds like the only person we need to worry about taking the hidden messages in our day to day writing to heart is solid-one-love.

This is the only worthwhile callout I've seen in MeTa for some time. It wasn't one comment. It was a thread full of comments, and along with responses to these outrages allegations, the signal to noise ratio pretty much imploded. If we can't expect MeFites to read others posts as cautiously as we would have others write them, we can at least expect the threats of police involvement to be kept to a minimum.
posted by dreamsign at 9:08 PM on July 4, 2005


I can't get that worked up about it. Seems to me that it's yet another example of someone reacting and writing without enough thought, using stronger language than necessary, then becoming embroiled in an argument that just spirals out of control. It happens every day on MetaFilter. My sense is that whatsisname will shortly, after a cool down, realize that they overreacted. I think callouts are possibly more deserved when they're against a serial offender who is unrepentent.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:16 PM on July 4, 2005


I would like to thank that thread for making me aware that there was a "Gaping Assholes of Metafilter" list, and that I am not on it. Score one for jonson!!
posted by jonson at 9:53 PM on July 4, 2005


Do you people really take seriously what you write?
posted by c13 at 10:02 PM on July 4, 2005


I've read this thread (and the original) and have decided that in the future I should strive to dumb down my comments to about sixth-fucking-grade level so as to avoid this sort of misunderstanding.
posted by clevershark at 10:07 PM on July 4, 2005


Do you people really take seriously what you write?
Unfortunately, yes.
posted by dg at 10:39 PM on July 4, 2005


I hope they kill the bitch. Forward away.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:40 PM on July 4, 2005


One idiot threatens to tattle on another idiot, so a third idiot tattles on the first idiot.

MetaFilter: The Best of the Web.
posted by cribcage at 11:05 PM on July 4, 2005


Stavros was not only right to post this, but his assessment of what metatalk is about is perfect. If someone threatening to turn a member over to law enforcement doesn't make for a good "callout" I don't know what does. The idea that we should simply flag bad posts and let daddy and mommy handle it is absurd.

There are maybe 10-20 posts on the blue each day, and roughly 7 trillion questions a day on ask.mefi. This place could use a whole lot more metatalk discussions.
posted by Doug at 11:05 PM on July 4, 2005


MetaFilter: The Best of the Web.

cribcage, calling me an idiot is in no way that I can divine contributing towards making Metafilter any better†. I deserve many of the insults that have been lobbed my way over the years, certainly, but 'idiot' ain't one of them.

†In fact, it's probably done the opposite, because in the spirit of puerile spitballing I mentioned above, now I'm going to feel compelled to poke you with a poo-smeared stick every chance I get, fucko!

Also : thanks, Doug.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:35 PM on July 4, 2005


I was with you doug, until this:

This place could use a whole lot more metatalk discussions.

Quality over quantity.
posted by justgary at 11:59 PM on July 4, 2005


I agree that all the comments complaining about posting a MeTa thread are tiresome; we have an etiquette/policy category for the purposes of... discussing etiquette and policy. How is a discussion about the propriety of threatening another member with [whatever] a bad idea?

Maybe some of you really think it's not worth talking about, but I suspect that for the most part it's just a kind of metatalk meme to attack posters here. Sure, some things are kind of silly, and some posts are purely personal bitches, but the whole "you're an idiot for posting" thing gets injected to just about every etiquette/policy post. If a lot of you feel really strongly that there shouldn't be discussions of this kind, it might be more productive from your point of view to just lobby Matt to remove the entire category.
posted by taz at 12:06 AM on July 5, 2005


What taz said. And solid-one-love's version of Rasta compassion was the most kneejerk judgmental bullshit I've seen in a while; s/he completely misread clevershark to get a fix of righteous holy fire and should apologize and try to forget the embarrassing episode ever happened.

To stavros' point, which I think is worth discussing: Assuming a specific threat of harm to a non-Mefite (which we clearly didn't even come close to in that thread), is there a point at which you'd consider passing along a Mefite's name to the cops? I'd have to say yes.
posted by mediareport at 4:16 AM on July 5, 2005


I would like to thank that thread for making me aware that there was a "Gaping Assholes of Metafilter" list, and that I am not on it. Score one for jonson!!

And whattya know, I AM on it. Can I call the Mounties?
posted by konolia at 4:22 AM on July 5, 2005


That list say more about Zarah than it does about on the people on it. But she has cleaned it up somewhat - I stumbled across it awhile ago and it was worse.
posted by orange swan at 5:08 AM on July 5, 2005


The discussion about the potential threat of bikers in QC (and that's all it was) was no more harmful then a discussion of whether one thought they might get away with murder after having read Crime and Punishment. solid-one-love should be smart enough to realize this.
posted by furtive at 5:14 AM on July 5, 2005


solid-one-love behaved in an inappropriate manner.

This definitely belongs in the grey.
posted by grouse at 5:23 AM on July 5, 2005


Maybe some of you really think it's not worth talking about, but I suspect that for the most part it's just a kind of metatalk meme to attack posters here. Sure, some things are kind of silly, and some posts are purely personal bitches, but the whole "you're an idiot for posting" thing gets injected to just about every etiquette/policy post. If a lot of you feel really strongly that there shouldn't be discussions of this kind, it might be more productive from your point of view to just lobby Matt to remove the entire category.

Perhaps it would help if the poster's name were removed from a Metatalk etiquette/policy post?

People here seem easily hung up on attacking the messenger, and less concerned discussing whether the message is right or wrong.

If the pseudoanon. complaint is egregious, people could flag it and Matt could remove it.
posted by Rothko at 6:09 AM on July 5, 2005


I think it's a good topic for MeTa discussion. It's easy to lose sight of the issue, which, as several people have pointed out, is solid-one-love's suggestion that tame comments on MeFi should be policed for what they are "on the brink" of saying, and that the police are the proper authority for regulating the thoughts of community members. It's easy to lose sight of that because SOL was such an ass in the thread, seemed so immune to reason and reading comprehension, and was so quick to defend his/her actions with specious attacks on the morality and intelligence of other commenters. Of course, give SOL's reactions, etc, the thread degenerated.

But this thread is important because SOL should know that there are indeed consequences to threats made on MeFi, and that stupidity only excuses so much. The threat, of course, is the disapprobation of fellow members, and not simply for being too dim to properly read comments like clevershark's, but for using that difficulty with basic reading comprehension to threaten legal action. It was a sucky move, and I hope that SOL regrets it and thinks seriously about doing something like that in future, even if it's just with his/her "backup account."
posted by OmieWise at 6:48 AM on July 5, 2005


The most interesting thing out of this (so far) is that jonmc reacted to being described as sociopathic, but has no problem with being described as "intellectually dishonest as well as a prick", "fucking retarded", "narcissistic", "a tool", "thick"and "dumber than the machine holding these words".

Most of that is sticks and stones, and I've both called and been called worse things during heated discussions here, so it's no big deal. "Sociopathic," was a direct attack on my character, and from someone who's knowledge of me consisted of a few lines of type (and someone who was casually threatening to turn other users over to the police, yet). That I don't let slide.
posted by jonmc at 6:55 AM on July 5, 2005


Before he went off the rails, I tihnk s-o-l had a point, of sorts.

Every time there's a story about someone like this, we get the inevitable dark mutterings about what might "happen" to them (not that we approve of that sort of thing, oh no). Similarly when someone is convicted after a highly publicized trial, some dumbshit just *has* to post a federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison comment (not that we approve of that sort of thing, oh no).

It's just "human nature" but so is scratching your ass when it's itchy, and most of us manage to avoid making a show of that when we're in public. So next time you're tempted to post one of those tiresomely predictable, utterly worthless comments, how about considering a tall glass of STFU instead?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:04 AM on July 5, 2005


I've both called and been called worse things during heated discussions here

Yeah, like this:

But you seem to have more anger towards a weblog commenter you've never met than a multiple murderer. Nice set of priorities you've got going there.

Coming pretty early in the thread, that's almost as bad, jonmc. Asserting that s-o-l's post just above ("...calling such an act heroic isn't merely fucked up, it's sociopathic") is the equivalent of calling you sociopathic is almost as much of a stretch as s-o-l's original slap at clevershark. You both deserve some of the credit for sending that thread into the shitter.
posted by mediareport at 7:12 AM on July 5, 2005


What Doug said. There are a lot of pointless MeTa threads these days, but this isn't one of them. S-o-l was way out of line, and is a complete jerk to boot; I personally hope he or she comes back to this thread, gets hot under the collar, and flames out spectacularly—we haven't had a good flameout in a long time, and this is the perfect candidate. I mean, can you beat the following for a toxic combination of sanctimony, stupidity, nastiness, and prevarication?

She's served her time. He's very nearly breaking the law. Good to know that you have so little respect for the law. Remind me never to go into business with you, or let you near my family. I'm not angry in the least, but thanks for your further mischaracterization.
posted by languagehat at 7:13 AM on July 5, 2005


From s-o-l's member page:

Because of threats from some MeFi members, I am removing my personal information. Good job, cowards.

What sort of person threatens to narc on someone for a total non-issue then gets all winess protection program when someone emails them?

Hell, I had a widely-hated MeTa thread a while back but you don't see me clamming up and refusing to discuss it. WEAK SAUCE.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:22 AM on July 5, 2005


mediareport; don't cherrypick. I made an honest, if angry, observation, that SoL seemed to have more bile towards we commenters in the thread than towards Homolka, which is weird, as far I'm concerned. And he didn't "imply" anything, he flat-out called me a sociopath ( "You missed the meeting where they handed out consciences, yes." "Upon further reflection: yeah, you're almost certainly a sociopath.").

You don't casually fling accusations like that and not expect a response.
posted by jonmc at 7:28 AM on July 5, 2005


SoL seemed to have more bile towards we commenters in the thread than towards Homolka, which is weird, as far I'm concerned

This is the same logic that says you can't complain about the conduct of the War on Terror because it will then appear that you have more "bile" towards George Bush than Osama Bin Laden.

The idea that s-o-l has to profess the appropriate amount of hate for Homolka before making any other comment is childish.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:39 AM on July 5, 2005


Ah, I saw the "flat-out" part coming *after* your comment, jonmc, although now I see the "You missed the meeting..." thing is practically equivalent. My apologies.

Still, the response I pointed to was just awful. I understand giving as good as you get in a thread, believe me, but that comment raises a bunch of issues and assumptions I'm surprised you'd get behind, even in anger. It's much closer to a veiled accusation of sympathy for a murderer than to an "honest observation."
posted by mediareport at 8:02 AM on July 5, 2005


I'll admit it was possibly over the line and that I could've made my point without it, but the amount of bile SoL was displaying in that thread had me seeing red. But I'll retract it in the interest of the site.
posted by jonmc at 8:05 AM on July 5, 2005


I'm reminded of what Pierre Trudeau said when it came out on the tapes that Nixon had referred to him as an asshole: "I've been called worse things by better people."
posted by mcwetboy at 8:12 AM on July 5, 2005


If you don't like what happens in a coal-miners' melée, don't go down the pit-shaft.
posted by TimothyMason at 8:28 AM on July 5, 2005


The whole discussion of whether this is or is not an appropriate discussion for MetaTalk really illustrates the need for MetaMetaTalk. Perhaps in mauve.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 8:41 AM on July 5, 2005


I think s-o-l may have had a valid argument at the outset, but he lost it when he started the arm-chair pyschology and overwrought defense of Homolka.
posted by dios at 8:52 AM on July 5, 2005


This is, amazingly, somehow even gayer than my MeTa thread. Kudos to you-dos!
posted by wakko at 9:04 AM on July 5, 2005


Yet, not as gay as your repetitive "funny."
posted by dios at 9:10 AM on July 5, 2005


MetaFilter: This is, amazingly, somehow even gayer than my MeTa thread.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:30 AM on July 5, 2005


Yet probably still not as gay as dios himself.

Walked right into that one. Didn't you notice the missing manhole cover?
posted by loquacious at 9:46 AM on July 5, 2005


Quality over quantity.
posted by justgary at 11:59 PM PST on July 4 [!]


Is there any reason you don't take your own advice, gary? Seems to me that you frequently post crap posts whinging about how some FPP or other shouldn't have been posted.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:59 AM on July 5, 2005


It's just "human nature" but so is scratching your ass when it's itchy, and most of us manage to avoid making a show of that when we're in public.

Well, avoid sniffing our fingertips, at least. There's a lot of ass-scratching on MeFi.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:04 AM on July 5, 2005


and overwrought defense of Homolka.

I have at no point defended Homolka. Thanks.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:14 AM on July 5, 2005


Is there any reason you don't take your own advice, gary? Seems to me that you frequently post crap posts whinging about how some FPP or other shouldn't have been posted.

Exactly, whining about quality over quantity. What you are referring to are 'crap comments', not posts. And you're correct, my frustration over 'crap posts' has resulted in a few comments I probably should have skipped (no matter how crappy the post may have been), because things are not going to change.

So it really has nothing to do with my comment in this thread, nothing to do with the actual thread, and I still feel the same regarding the issue, but I understand what you're saying and glad you took the opportunity to get if off your chest.
posted by justgary at 10:25 AM on July 5, 2005


And you're correct, my frustration over 'crap posts' has resulted in a few comments I probably should have skipped (no matter how crappy the post may have been), because things are not going to change.

Could it be that justgary is actually learning something important? That skipping over something is better than diving in to trash the thread? That ignoring it is better than insulting the poster and derailing the thread?

(My money's on "nah")
posted by amberglow at 10:50 AM on July 5, 2005


My last word on the subject, Thanks.

I have at no point defended Homolka. Thanks.

Could you maybe stick to your original plan? Thanks.
posted by Ryvar at 10:56 AM on July 5, 2005


Or else flame out spectacularly. One or the other.
posted by languagehat at 11:44 AM on July 5, 2005


"Disarming behavior, where you have two sides involved in a conflict that everybody has stereotypes of the evil other side that is convinced that they would never ever do something reasonable. If a leader on one of those sides were to defy those stereotypes then it would change everything".

-Guy Burgess

(for the funny hat:)
posted by clavdivs at 11:54 AM on July 5, 2005


I think at this point SOL's only options are apology or disappereance for, like, a year or something. Not enough people will take him seriously or respectfully, and for good reason. He simply dosen't have enough supporters.
posted by Snyder at 12:01 PM on July 5, 2005


The only person I agree with in either thread is Armitage Shanks.

Well done.
posted by sic at 12:03 PM on July 5, 2005


Snyder writes ". Not enough people will take him seriously or respectfully, and for good reason."

According to his user page he's already got a sock puppet lined up. Or maybe the account SOL is the sockpuppet. After all SOL is already on record as hating everyone.
posted by Mitheral at 12:12 PM on July 5, 2005


I have at no point defended Homolka.

Alright folks, sol is correct here. He did not defend Homolka at all other than that now that she's been released, she has the right not to be attacked by thugs and for those thugs to be praised as heroes. I can understand with that point, though I think that the hyperbolic way in which he made this point was the original reasoning behind this MeTa thread, no?

There was a whole lot of bull shit being thrown around by and about sol on the MeFi thread, so personally I don't see how he was any more out of line than the rest of the folks that told him "Fuck you" It was a flame war from all sides, starting with a rather inflammatory FPP.

I'm not going to try and defend sol, but I will say that he wasn't the only one slinging te love around on that thread.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:32 PM on July 5, 2005


Syder has a point here but I am not certain as to whether it was deliberate -

He simply doesn't have enough supporters

Since when was MeFi supposed to be a popularity contest? If I make a stupid statement without backing it up and someone calls me on it, I will cop to it and I would expect people to give me the benefit of the doubt if I posted elsewhere on an entirely different topic. In the same way that people bitch about dios or tddl without actually acknowledging that they can and do add something to this website. I think if S-O-L decides to stay and comment elsewhere people will jump on him for this thread and that just isn't the sort of community spirit that we need round here.

On the other hand, as languagehat says, we've not had a decent flameout in ages. Go nuts!
posted by longbaugh at 12:40 PM on July 5, 2005


...my frustration over 'crap posts' has resulted in a few comments I probably should have skipped (no matter how crappy the post may have been), because things are not going to change.

Excellent. I look forward to seeing you post thoughtfully and substantively in the future!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:43 PM on July 5, 2005


what Pollomacho and sic said.
in all, a depressing fucking thread.
posted by mr.marx at 1:02 PM on July 5, 2005


longbaugh: Yeah, it was intentional. I can think of cases where people had some pretty substantial blow-ups, or long-running cases of boorish behavior, but keep on posting because they have some supporters. You don't need a lot of them or anything, just enough that you can't have an effective pile-on without another poster coming in to defend them, and I think most people just reamin silent so as not to have endless derails and flamewars in half the threads. When someone has no supporters, and they keep on posting, they can be pretty much attacked at will without much fear of huge explosions happening. I'm not condemning or condoning, but thats been my observation.

I have difficulty with thinking of any reasons why this shouldn't have been called out. Playing Internet Cop was something I'd thankfully avoided seeing here on Metafilter, but sadly, I don't think this thread will do any good. SOL has already said that he isn't responding to thread, (though this has been given lie to,) and as Mitheral pointed out, he's going over to a sock-puppet account anyway, so I doubt this thread will have the desired effect on his attitude, if not his behavior.
posted by Snyder at 1:25 PM on July 5, 2005


When someone has no supporters, and they keep on posting, they can be pretty much attacked at will without much fear of huge explosions happening.

When a large city has a power outage, people can pretty much loot the finest stores without much fear of being arrested.

I saw multiple examples of a lot of comments from someone who apparently can't stop talking about himself.

Hey, but enough about me--let's talk about you. Let's hear from you. This site is for you to tell us what you think about you. We await your many comments about how you feel about you and these awful things not-you's say about you and how you feel about them and the personal honor of you which you must defend at all times. I mean, that's why we came--to hear you talk about righteous you. But, for God's sake, just because you are the most fascinating person in the universe, to you, maybe once in a while spare us the comennt after comment details about you. After a certain point, we get you'd out. You know what I mean ? OK--you're on !!!
posted by y2karl at 4:18 PM on July 5, 2005


Don't these OutrageFilter posts always turn out like this? I don't understand what clevershark was hoping for with his FPP, but the response to posts like his are very predictable, as Armitage Shanks has pointed out (outrage contests, outrage about others' lack of outrage, vigilante talk, etc). What's more, it was a repeat FPP on newsfilter terms as xmutex pointed out in the first comment.
posted by pitchblende at 4:59 PM on July 5, 2005


Are we done masturbating yet? My cock is getting sore.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:00 PM on July 5, 2005


Jeez fish, if this conversation really bothers you that much, just don't click on it. What do you hope to accomplish by insulting people's intelligence and equating conversation with masturbation?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:17 PM on July 5, 2005


I look forward to seeing you post thoughtfully and substantively in the future!

Says the guy who gets excited about the number 25,000? Ho-kay...
posted by mediareport at 6:45 PM on July 5, 2005


y2karl: What the fuck are you talking about? Did I do something in your imagination to make you act like a total asshole, because I am entierly mystified why you wrote that, since it bears absolutely no resembelance to reality.
posted by Snyder at 6:54 PM on July 5, 2005


Geez, touchy you, StD. Sorry to have offended you.

Jesus, mr, given the shitfest that makes MeTa these days, I figured a general-interest distraction might be a nice break.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:54 PM on July 5, 2005


Y'know karl, I'm giving your stupid outburst more thought then I really should, but on the off chance that you're not just being a total jackass, if you're referring to the "When someone has no supporters, and they keep on posting, they can be pretty much attacked at will without much fear of huge explosions happening," line, I was talking about ParisParamus, not myself. Where you're getting the impression that I'm constantly posting about myself is still a mystery.
posted by Snyder at 7:02 PM on July 5, 2005


We need MetaMetaTalk. Now this is getting silly. I am going to call the Paris Gendarmes, The Barcelona Guardia Civil, and the Akron Police Department (or whoever is hosting the COPS film crew this week) on all of us. Heck, I might even call the LAPD to come in and bust some of our heads together until one of us says "can't we all just get along?" And then we can find out about the looting business too, as a bonus.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:17 PM on July 5, 2005


Strange thought, that: the police force as entertainment.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:59 PM on July 5, 2005


realcountrymusic-Don't make me start a thread about your baseless accusations and overblown threats. I'll stop this car right now.
posted by OmieWise at 8:00 PM on July 5, 2005


Where you're getting the impression that I'm constantly posting about myself is still a mystery.

Apart from the quote and the sentence that followed, the comment had absolutely no Snyder related references. You, Snyder, do not have the habit of mentioning you in every comment you make or giving another breathless perspective from the lofty heights of the rim of your navel or breathlessly sharing yet even more boring unaksed for details about your personal life and times. You, Snyder, are about 24,000+ back in the Would you please stop talking about yourself so fucking much ? MetaFilter line. You do not try to turn every thread you enter into a discussion about you. You are not your number one topic and, consequently, you do not bore or irritate me with your maddeningly constant self-reference. To quote Laura Huxley, in this context, you are not the target.
posted by y2karl at 8:00 PM on July 5, 2005


Ok, fair enough. I'm sorry for flying off the handle, but the proximity of the quote and the rest of your message confused me.
posted by Snyder at 8:11 PM on July 5, 2005


* craps on thread *
posted by Balisong at 8:46 PM on July 5, 2005


*steps over crap pile*

I figured a general-interest distraction might be a nice break.

Whatever. The point is that your latest contribution to the MeTa front page was anything but "thoughtful and substantive," which made it funny to see you attack someone else's MeTa posts on those grounds.

Funny ha ha *and* funny strange.
posted by mediareport at 9:01 PM on July 5, 2005


y2karl is in one of his bad moods and as a consequence acts out in the blue and gray. Usually with oblique, snarky condemnations that contain an unrecognized ironic hypocrisy. It's best to just look the other way and smile.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:06 PM on July 5, 2005


You do not try to turn every thread you enter into a discussion about you.

Well, except for this one.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:09 PM on July 5, 2005


Usually with oblique, snarky condemnations that contain an unrecognized ironic hypocrisy.

Wtf? Oh well, at least it was short this time.

Dude, that youyouyou thing was a hoot. Dead on target.
posted by mediareport at 9:14 PM on July 5, 2005


SOL has already said that he isn't responding to thread, (though this has been given lie to,

No, I said that my first comment in this thread was my last word on the subject. Whether or not I was defending Homolka is a separate subject. The implication that I am a liar, which I am responding to now, is a third subject.

As for the next issue: abandoning this account for another isn't sockpuppeting and is entirely defensible. I received threats by e-mail for my comments in the other thread, so I removed my personal info from my user page. I shouldn't have to do that. I should be able to post non-anonymously without having to wonder if someone's going to rape and kill my kid sister and isn't just being a net.kook.

Was I out of line? Probably. Am I the only one? Not a chance. Was I even the worst culprit? Not on your life -- there's worse in the greys here.

I've been wading through flamefests on Usenet since the mid-80s, and I have never actually received physical threats against me or my family before (much less both). So if you have a problem with me switching out accounts -- in the words of Dean Keaton -- beggin' your pardon, but you can go to Hell.
posted by solid-one-love at 9:19 PM on July 5, 2005


physical threats against me

Email threats against you, you mean; the difference is more than semantic. It's horrid that you got any threat at all, yes - pathetic, really. I wouldn't fault anyone for changing accounts in your situation, but I also don't think a round of moronic anonymous email threats deserves that strong a reaction. Just check the headers, forward the message to their service provider if it's clear (it almost always is, in my experience dealing with homophobic threats from morons), demand action and then go on with your life.
posted by mediareport at 9:55 PM on July 5, 2005


This is all your fault, Snyder.
posted by dreamsign at 9:57 PM on July 5, 2005


[Btw, solid-one-love, you might want to change "threats from some MeFi members" to "threats from some MeFi readers" on your user page. It's more accurate and avoids the unsupported accusation against the site's members. Just a thought.]
posted by mediareport at 9:59 PM on July 5, 2005


mediareport: one must be a member to see users' e-mail addresses, so I think that there is some support for my accusation.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:14 PM on July 5, 2005


Damn, sorry, forgot. Still, I think you're over-reacting just a bit to shitty emails.
posted by mediareport at 10:19 PM on July 5, 2005


readers wouldn't have seen SoL's email address, mediareport...
posted by jonson at 10:31 PM on July 5, 2005


wow. Sorry, very late post. Had the window open too long.
posted by jonson at 10:32 PM on July 5, 2005


mr: 'k.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:39 PM on July 5, 2005


Email threats? Didn't you report them to the RCMP?
posted by klangklangston at 10:54 PM on July 5, 2005


wow, so a troll pisses people off and then cries victim. good work there, sir.
posted by puke & cry at 11:19 PM on July 5, 2005


Yeah, threats totally suck. As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty much the top, #1 bad thing a member can do here.

solid-one-love, you received a crappy email threat because some idiot got all batshit about their reading of some comment you made. Which is basically what you also did to clevershark.

I know you think you were on the side of the angels, but probably so does the jerk who sent you that stupid mail. So, stick with your handle and let this blow over, or start with a new one and put the whole thing behind you, but either way, if you're smart you'll see the parallel and take it to heart.

And anyone else who wants to harass people on their personal web sites, send emails to their bosses, put them on any sort of law enforcement suspect list, write anonymous threatening emails... Please, just stop and think about it; are being totally insane? Yes, you are. Don't do it.
posted by taz at 12:09 AM on July 6, 2005


languagehat : "I personally hope he or she comes back to this thread, gets hot under the collar, and flames out spectacularly—we haven't had a good flameout in a long time, and this is the perfect candidate."

People talk about liking differences, but I've realized that I must be dangerously narcissistic, because apparently I tend to like folks who think the same things I do. I've always thought languagehat was a good poster, and, sure enough, it turns out we think the same about flameouts as well.
posted by Bugbread at 2:00 AM on July 6, 2005


realcountrymusic writes "We need MetaMetaTalk. . . I am going to call the Paris Gendarmes, The Barcelona Guardia Civil, and the Akron Police Department . . ."

Oi! The Guardia aren't Barcelonese - they aren't even Catalan! We have our own police force, thank you very much (the Mossos d'Esquadra) and we don't have to rely on a police force that no so long ago was the private army of dictator.

Now, just for you getting it wrong, I'm going to report you to the Guardia Urbana...
posted by benzo8 at 4:52 AM on July 6, 2005


I for one wonder if these email "threats" actually exist. Let alone physical threats to SoL's family. Some halfwit probably fired of a "f*** you" at best. SoL, post the "threatening email" with full headers. We'll get to the bottom of that. I think we can all agree that any member of our community who went that way deserves censure as much as you do for posting a clear and unambiguous *threat* in the thread in question. Or you could just be polishing up the sympathy apple with a load of bull, which I tend to believe until I see these purported (plural) email "threats." You seem to perceive threats where none exist, just sayin.
posted by realcountrymusic at 4:53 AM on July 6, 2005


Have we determined if it's OK to advocate violence against the woman yet?
posted by Necker at 4:59 AM on July 6, 2005


taz writes "Please, just stop and think about it; are [you] being totally insane? Yes, you are. Don't do it."

Nice thought, taz, but I tend to think that people who go to the trouble of firing off a threatening email are too far gone to rationally think about thier actions before committing them. I could be wrong, though, since I don't send those types of emails.
posted by OmieWise at 6:15 AM on July 6, 2005


Have we determined if it's OK to advocate violence against the woman yet?
That depends. Is she overweight and/or does she vote conservative?
posted by darukaru at 7:23 AM on July 6, 2005


solid-one-love writes "So if you have a problem with me switching out accounts"

I've got no problem with you switching accounts, just the drama associated with the switch. If your going to switch get on with it already and stop defending the account your going to abandon. Not so surprisingly no one cares if you quietly assume a new identity. It's when you make a big deal of it that people get out the popcorn are start goading you on.
posted by Mitheral at 7:52 AM on July 6, 2005


popcorn and start goading you on.
posted by Mitheral at 7:56 AM on July 6, 2005


popcorn are goading me on, and my doctor can't seem to do anything about it.
posted by OmieWise at 8:34 AM on July 6, 2005


I think taz's comment above was a good one, and her point valid. But it doesn't seem quite right to me to completely equate going off the deep-end in a thread and emailing physical threats against someone. (Assuming that's what really happened.)

I've gone off the deep end in internet discussions but I've never emailed someone and physically threatened them. I'd bet tons of money that this is true for almost everyone, if not everyone, represented here in this thread.

Or maybe not. It's true that people often do things in secret that surprise the hell out of me. Maybe it's normal to write threatening letters?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:27 AM on July 6, 2005


This is the first time i've ever heard of a member physically threatening another member and their family. I know lesser offenses have incurred, but that's pretty big.

I do know that exaggeration abounds here, however.
posted by puke & cry at 9:46 AM on July 6, 2005


ugh, i need to use words more better
posted by puke & cry at 9:47 AM on July 6, 2005


Oh the irony. User threatens to taken action against another user in meatspace, then panics when other users threaten to do similar.

Metafilter: Louder words speak actions.
posted by furtive at 10:21 AM on July 6, 2005


haven't we heard about raping and killing little sisters before?

Search is failing me, but the memory is sharp...
posted by dness2 at 10:32 AM on July 6, 2005


I mean in email threats, not in Canada. Sorry.
posted by dness2 at 10:32 AM on July 6, 2005


You're probably thinking of this thread.
posted by Mid at 11:20 AM on July 6, 2005


Hey, will somebody call me when s-o-l threatens to cut off his hand or starts walking around with a bucket of cocks? Thanks.
posted by scody at 11:47 AM on July 6, 2005


Ethereal Bligh writes "emailing physical threats against someone. (Assuming that's what really happened.)"

Look - can we clear this up once and for all. You cannot email physical threats to someone - SMTP doesn't support it, even with MIME and HTML mail. You can email threats to someone and they can promise physical injury, but "physical threats" tend to involve actually being able to get, you know, physical with someone...
posted by benzo8 at 11:58 AM on July 6, 2005




I find this threatening.
posted by Necker at 12:03 PM on July 6, 2005


Having watched A Dirty Shame last night, I am immune to everything Hasselhof, save for his shit...
posted by benzo8 at 12:11 PM on July 6, 2005


Mid, you might be right. Maybe s-o-l is a new s-o-m. I think it'd be in character.
posted by dness2 at 12:25 PM on July 6, 2005


Could it be that justgary is actually learning something important? That skipping over something is better than diving in to trash the thread? That ignoring it is better than insulting the poster and derailing the thread?

(My money's on "nah")
posted by amberglow


Amberglow, I would take advice and criticism seriously from about just anyone, except you.

You have constantly from day one tried to mold metafilter into your vision, regardless that your vision couldn't be more different than the original.

With almost 10,000 posts, surely you could use a little "quality over quantity", but that's not going ot happen. You love to hear your voice.

What's more, I do not personally insult anyone, unless you're referring to my calling you a hypocrite and to your constantly playing the victim, the first which I stand by, the second which you've proven over and over.
posted by justgary at 12:41 PM on July 6, 2005


SoL, post the "threatening email" with full headers.

I agree with the above, even if I don't share realcountrymusic's conviction that the threats didn't actually happen. Assuming they did happen, ever person here has an interest in finding out who in the community is being such a low-down egg-sucking dog as to email threats to a fellow member.

solid-one-love, since you made the accusation, I think you have an obligation to let us know who the shithead(s) is (are) in our midst. At the very least, we deserve to know who's behind that (those) account(s). At most, we deserve a public apology. None of us here can get either until you post the threatening email(s) with full headers.
posted by mediareport at 2:29 PM on July 6, 2005


Thirded.
posted by scody at 2:48 PM on July 6, 2005


And if SoL make up shit for headers, because the email never actually happened; or uses the headers from someone's email but changes the words?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:52 PM on July 6, 2005


Or even if someone forged the email to SOL? I used to send mail that apparently came from the president of the USA all the time. 15 years ago that really used to impress a certain demographic.
posted by Mitheral at 2:59 PM on July 6, 2005


I don't see what the big deal is. I've gotten a few too many very hateful e-mails. Most I wouldn't call threatening in the sense that I feared them, but there are many that are threatening in the sense of "I hope ___ happens to you." But one can always just delete those e-mails and move on to the pleasant and friendly ones.

There are petty assholes here. There are people who take things too seriously. I wouldn't doubt that someone said something ugly to SoL by e-mail. That he received him should be a non-issue.
posted by dios at 3:00 PM on July 6, 2005


In that last sentence, *him* should be *them,* of course.
posted by dios at 3:01 PM on July 6, 2005


And if SoL make up shit for headers, because the email never actually happened; or uses the headers from someone's email but changes the words?

I'm fairly certain we'd discover it, if that's true.

Or even if someone forged the email to SOL?

Possible, but let's see for ourselves, shall we? It's a serious accusation, despite dios' silly attempt to dismiss it as not a big deal. If it happened, the community should be allowed to know who did it, and bring to bear whatever minor power of correction this damn community wields.
posted by mediareport at 3:46 PM on July 6, 2005


SoL, we're waiting. Not posting those email headers (and body text) is tantamount to admitting you made this up.

The amusing thing is that SoL posted a threat in the blue, no confirmation required. So I am rather short of sympathy unless s/he (have we ever settled on a gender here?) can prove that his/her original threat, which most definitely was out of line, actually engendered a threat in retaliation.

If in fact a MeFi member sent an actual threatening or harrassing email to SoL, that member should be blackballed for life. SoL, here's your chance for justice. Post the emails (you did imply more than one) please. If not, pardon me for doubting they exist, which implies something even grungier than your initial coniption.

And my sincere apologies to Catalan people everywhere. And screw the local cops. I'm calling Interpol! (Does Interpol still exist?)
posted by realcountrymusic at 4:10 PM on July 6, 2005


Does Interpol still exist?

Yeah, I think they're currently touring Europe.
posted by scody at 4:27 PM on July 6, 2005


"SOL' is often used as an abbreviation for "Shit out of Luck."

I'm just saying.
posted by jonmc at 4:34 PM on July 6, 2005


Dios: Yeah, that threat about lumberjacks coming to your place in Texas to lube you up with butter and watch HGTV with you in culottes was me.
I apologize. I shouldn't have warned you.
posted by klangklangston at 5:03 PM on July 6, 2005


dios : "but there are many that are threatening in the sense of 'I hope ___ happens to you.'"

I think this is the crux. Clevershark posts something saying "Group A might do action B" and SOL interprets it as "You are encouraging action B", despite there being nothing to that effect in the original sentence. I wouldn't be at all surprised if SOL interpreted an email from user C saying something like "I hope group A does action B to you next" to be user C threatening to do action B, despite there being nothing to that effect in the original sentence.
posted by Bugbread at 5:11 PM on July 6, 2005


This is all your fault, Snyder.

Cool. :)
posted by Snyder at 5:37 PM on July 6, 2005


Oh c'mon, SOL was so reasonable through all of this, such a good sport, so able to take criticism, and now you all just won't let him/her off the mat. And some yahoo always has to bring it back to Hasselhoff. I'm starting to get upset.
posted by OmieWise at 5:40 PM on July 6, 2005


OmieWise : "SOL was so reasonable through all of this, such a good sport, so able to take criticism"

SOL has been a bit of a mix of reasonableness. Parts have been reasonable (this thread), parts have been unreasonable (calling folks who disagree about how to interpret clevershark's post 'psychopaths'), and parts are impossible to parse without more information (has SOL been reasonable in the face of actual threats, or has SOL been unreasonable in calling non-threats threats?).

I would say, though, that while I would take it at face value if some members said they received threats by email, SOL's interpretation of "threats" in the parent thread is enough for me to not be willing to take SOL's statement about receiving threats at face value. It isn't enough to make me disbelieve that threats were received, but just enough for me not to be able to either accept or deny it.
posted by Bugbread at 5:56 PM on July 6, 2005


A wide variety of things can be legally actionable threats of bodily harm. I'm not sure how I know this, and perhaps I'm making it up, but it seems to me that following the letter of the law but not its spirit will not, in the end, be a defense. If I say "I hope that someone puts you under surveillance for a week or so, learns your schedule, and then plants a bomb on your car--incendiary next to the gas tank--which explodes one morning, killing you after about ten seconds of intense agony" I'm pretty sure that would be construed by law enforcement and a judge as a threat.

Put another way, if your aim is to really threaten someone, then they have to get the message that it's actually a threat, right? And if that message is obvious to them, then it's going to be obvious to everyone else (excluding things like a code only you and your target could understand).

Dios or others with real legal expertise should correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that benzo8 is wrong in the sense that it is illegal (in most jurisdictions in the US, anyway) to threaten someone with bodily harm and you don't need to be physically present to do so. You really can't just go around threatening people. It may seem like protected speech to some, but it's obviously very coercive speech and if it were allowed then bad people could coerce other people into doing anything and get away with it as long as their threat is credible but not acted upon.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:22 PM on July 6, 2005


Is 'I'm going to feel compelled to poke you with a poo-smeared stick every chance I get, fucko!' a threat?

'cause then I'm guilty too, guilty as freakin' sin, and I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

(*Note to self: don't use the first person singular so often, or y2karl's going to get all up in your face.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:04 PM on July 6, 2005


SoL, we're waiting. Not posting those email headers (and body text) is tantamount to admitting you made this up.

what an utterly ridiculous thing to say
posted by mr.marx at 11:55 PM on July 6, 2005


What bugbread said.

IAAL, but protected speech has always differed between Canada and the U.S. As far as I know, though, threats are never protected speech. The accusation here is more along the lines of hate speech, though: "I hope group X does harm to Y" in the sense of encouragement. Whole different thing, depending on how rabid your courts are getting on the hate speech issue. Threats are relatively straightforward in that they have to be personal, and not conditional ("If you come to my house, I'm going to beat the crap out of you" is not a threat in the illegal sense) but hate speech gets blurred all over the damn place.

All this is to say that I'd like to say that a person's innocent musings about the danger a person may be in from other people could not be construed as hate speech, but it's one of those hot-button topics, so you never know what any given judge would do. (hell, I still can't believe that reading material found in your home - a newspaper article on the drug trade - can be entered as evidence of your intent to act criminally)
posted by dreamsign at 12:08 AM on July 7, 2005


E-B, to answer you query: e-mail threats are not likely actionable under civil or criminal law.

Assault is placing another in reasonable apprehension of imminent harm. Words alone cannot constitute an assault; there has to be some overt act that places a reasonable belief that harm is going to occur. Think of it this way: if we were sitting across the room from each other, and I was yelling "I'm going to kill you," that isn't an assault. When I stand up and start walking towards you and pull out my baseball bat, that is an overt act that would create a reasonable belief that I was going to act on those words. But in the context of e-mails, it would be hard to show an overt act.

There may be (and honestly, I don't know) some federal internet law about making threats over the internet. I am not aware of one; but I know little about that area of the law. But even then, I suspect that there would have to some manifestation of an intent beyond the words themselves.

As for dreamsign's protected speech analysis: threats directed from one person to another in this context do not implicate a First Amendment analysis.
posted by dios at 9:28 AM on July 7, 2005


bugbread writes "SOL has been a bit of a mix of reasonableness."

Actually, I was being sarcastic. I think he or she has been anything but reasonable, although they've stayed just this side of freak-out. I agree with what you said about just enough to neither believe nor disbelieve SOL's claims.
posted by OmieWise at 10:47 AM on July 7, 2005


I still can't believe that reading material found in your home - a newspaper article on the drug trade - can be entered as evidence of your intent to act criminally

furtive quickly proceeds to use all of his High Times back catalogue as rolling paper.
posted by furtive at 10:52 AM on July 7, 2005


dios -- I know you have different criminal laws state-to-state (boggles my mind), but "uttering threats" isn't a common criminal charge? Your definition of assault is identical to ours (except that words have recently been added to the catalogue of offences under that umbrella). But threatening to harm someone (and an utterance can be in print) is, in Canada, a separate criminal charge. You have no such thing? That's incredible.

furtive, I think about things like that all the time. what an absolutely hideous judgment.
posted by dreamsign at 11:05 AM on July 7, 2005


There have been a number of cases where folks have been arrested for making threats of physical violence on the Internet. For example:
"A Michigan teenager has been found guilty of posting threats in an Internet chat room -- threats that indicated he was planning a Columbine-style massacre at his high school near Detroit. Andrew Osantowski, 17, has been convicted of two counts of threatening kids at Chippewa Valley High School. Each charge is punishable by up to 20 years in prison."
posted by ericb at 1:24 PM on July 7, 2005


That should be arrested and convicted of posting threats.

Another example:
"A California man has been arrested for making threats against employees of UTStarcom...He faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $US250,000...fine."
posted by ericb at 1:30 PM on July 7, 2005


This is an interesting read:
When is a Threat "Truly" a Threat Lacking First Amendment Protection?
A Proposed True Threats Test to Safeguard Free Speech Rights in the Age of the Internet [The UCLA Online Institute for Cyberspace Law and Policy | May 1999]
posted by ericb at 1:32 PM on July 7, 2005


Interesting reads eric. As I alluded to above, there appears to be a specific federal statute that addresses internet threats. I'll have to read up on it, as I was not aware of it. Thanks for sharing that.
posted by dios at 1:58 PM on July 7, 2005


I blame quonsar and P.P.
posted by Balisong at 8:24 PM on July 7, 2005


« Older Toronto meetup, July 15, 2005   |   Anonymous for a day Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments