Mary Moon eSchwa e-rape
From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
This article does not need any more logs, not at all. You can help by not adding anything, especially not logs. |
Synopsis
These logs are transcripts of the great Mary Moon unveiling after the users of her favorite Citadel system decided that they were sick about her lies of having never been a camwhore. For full understanding, it is imperative that you read Mary Moon before viewing these logs.
The first logset is from 2005, when she was originally humiliated amongst her peers for being a cunt and making off like her past was pristine. The drama started when a mysterious user (amusingly enough never accused of having started aforementioned drama) posted links to her spread eagle shots on the eSchwa LiveJournal community.
The second logset was from a failed attempt to restart the drama without any provocation in 2007. Fortunately for Mary Moon, Livy's drama from student fucking at his university, and the subsequent loss of everything he cared for in the world, ended up overshadowing her precious plastic cunt. He may well soon be added to the great list of heroes. Perhaps another day soon Mary Moon's vagina will again make its way into the drama as eSchwa continues to wither and die. The only real drama that occurred as a result of the 2007 attempt was Mary Moon's clone, Diabolical, viewing her own sister's page on ED and demanding that it be taken down after it made the front page of ED.
Related Links
The Great E-Rape of 2005
The following logs are from eSchwa, a Citadel system run by the bitch Mela.
Dec 16, 2005 14:13 from Livy
Okay, I know this is going to be unpopular but who cares.
I personally don't know that much about Mary Moon or Diabolical and I certainly
wouldn't call either a friend. And I rarely agree with either of them about
anything.
But what happened here worries me. Not that Zero Cool collected a link to the
pictures MM once made. I understand why he did that. What worries me is that
people here mocked her for it. It reduces someone to their sexuality (or
physical appearance) and is no better than me starting to call some of you fat,
ugly, or stupid. It isn't a case of "hey, she made these pictures, she has to
live with it." I like to think that this is a community of friends (maybe I'm
wrong about that) and we're above belittling someone for something of this
nature.
This "camwhore" stuff that was posted, and now deleted, is sexual intimidation
and it makes me ill.
How and the world this places survives with all the racist, sexist bullshit
that goes on.....I just don't know. Unless it's okay to rip into them, because
they're not cool. I guess that's the only thing that makes any sense.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6365 (28 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:24 from Whittaker Chambers
Why would this place not survive, what with the world at large surviving
and all? Anyway, you have to admit that based solely on racist/sexist
criteria, this place is better than many.
You want a non-camwhore-badspeak policy?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6366 (27 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 14:27 from Livy
No. I want people to be decent human beings.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6367 (26 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:27 from Doktor Nil
No, he wants a no sexual intimidation and sexual shaming policy.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6368 (25 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:25 from Sproing
Not that it matters, but I think it's a direct result of what was perceived as
them flaming Misquoted for eating too many starches over in Diet>. I don't
think it would have mushroomed like this otherwise.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6369 (24 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:27 from Livy
I mean what is the difference in this, and me saying (this isn't true) that I
bagged Fleep last weekend and went on about her coming 35 times in 30 minutes.
And lots of people laughed about it.
It's using her sexuality to demean her.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6370 (23 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:30 from Livy
I didn't say they were good people. I don't like them. But that's beside the
point.
I mean, unless we want to pretend we're all nine years old again.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6371 (22 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 14:31 from Whittaker Chambers
Sure, people should be good. Gooder than I am, certainly. I just wondered
whether you were bitching about policy or the BBS more generally.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6372 (21 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:34 from Sproing
Well, I suspect that the retaliation took this particular form because she was
pushing the physicality/sexuality based insult angle herself. But yeah, adults
should probably be above retaliating in kind.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6373 (20 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:34 from Platypus
I don't think its using her sexuality to demean her. I think its using
something she did in her past to demean her.
I'm not saying it right (or that anyone should care), but given that mixed
messages she sends out about it anyways, well, I don't know. (The hah, I got
free stuff but didn't really do anything, but don't say I ever did that thing.)
I mean, I think if she "owned" the experience, it'd have less power.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6374 (19 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:35 from Livy
I'd disagree that this was "in kind." But that's another issue. They shouldn't
have belittled Misquoted either. (I don't read Diet>, so I don't know what was
said).
And honestly, if this was done to "get back at her," it's even fucking worse. I
mean are we really going to reduce a situation to "well, I don't agree with
you, or I hate you, so I'm going to humiliate you by reminding everyone in the
community of some penthouse like pictures you once made."
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6375 (18 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 14:37 from Platypus
I guess I'm just bitching about the weird thing here that goes on where someoen
brings up something that people did in their past. People get all pissy and
say that either they didn't do it, or they didn't do it to the extent people
are claiming. People prove that the person did actually do it, and suddenly,
its the "people" who point out the truth that are at fault.
It's like if I insisted I never worked at pizza hut. And then someone shows a
picture of me at pizza hut, holding a sign saying "I work at pizza hut" while
making a pizza. And then I get pissy for someone pointing out that I'm a big
ol' liar liar.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6376 (17 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:39 from Doktor Nil
Yeah sure, and everything you put in that post, Platypus, would have been said
as an excuse by all the boys in my middle school who made fun of girls for
having sex (most of whom probably didn't have sex). Well, if they had thought
they needed an excuse at all. But the post could apply exactly.
But my impression certainly is that Mary Moon gets pretty 'catty' herself too,
and generally likes making insulting other female BBS users looks. Who knows
who 'started' it. It's all pretty fucking ridiculous.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6377 (16 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:38 from Whittaker Chambers
Platypus is right that bragging about this behavior makes it a lot less
demeaning when someone talks about it, particularly when it's in answer to
some kind of "starch assault". Or if it doesn't, well, it makes me not
give a shit.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6378 (15 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 14:40 from Doktor Nil
"And honestly, if this was done to "get back at her," it's even fucking worse.
I
mean are we really going to reduce a situation to "well, I don't agree with
you, or I hate you, so I'm going to humiliate you by reminding everyone in the
community of some penthouse like pictures you once made.""
Gee, that reminds me of the sexual politics of middle school even more. Not
that they dont' persist beyond middle school, obvoiusly, but in our modern
'post-feminist' society people generally learn to do it much more subtly by the
time they are adults.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6379 (14 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:41 from Livy
I really don't think Mary Moon is the issue. It's not her, it's us. She is who
she is, good, bad, whatever. But the way we respond to it strikes me as
degrading to women (and not just her, but all women) and the sort of sexual
politics that's more at home in a locker room.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6380 (13 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:38 from Metatron
Regardless of what she did or how she approaches her past, nothing MM has done
makes that level of humiliation (and it is sexual due to the very nature of it)
acceptable in the least.
You don't post sexually humiliating pictures of people because they said
something mean. You don't post sexually humiliating pictures of people.
There's been a lot of talk on here about how we're such a great community. What
kind of community do you think we are when people decide to do things like
that? Fleep's mom said she was thankful that Fleep had this community. Would
she be as proud of us knowing what happened?
What kind of place have we become if we can't trust that our secrets, which we
all have, won't be brought out as a way to intimidate us? Every one of us has
something in our past that we're not proud of. Do you want it dug up and
plastered all over eschwa the next time someone here gets pissy?
It's wrong, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves for it.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6381 (12 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 14:46 from Livy
Amen, Metatron.
Quite frankly, I think we should be ashamed about this. This is not something
good people do.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6382 (11 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:48 from Zero Cool
"You don't post sexually humiliating pictures of people because they said
something mean. You don't post sexually humiliating pictures of people.
"
I don't think anyone in the eschwa community posted pictures to the eschwa
community. I could be wrong tho, i don't know everyone here.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6383 (10 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:49 from Metatron
Wether they were posted or not, they were used as a tool for intimidation.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6384 (9 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:49 from Platypus
Well, its not as if its every been a secret that MM did various things via
webcam, and recieved various goods in return.
(Ever been a secret.. that is)
I mean, she posted about it at the time. She posted about what she got. She's
posted about what she's gotten very recently. It's not as if she told two
people, and one of those two people took pictures through her blinds on night
and posted them.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6386 (8 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 14:52 from Breakdancing Jesuit
(It strikes me, who should remain silent for various reasons, that none of this
is about BBS Policy at all. It is about playing well with others, true.)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6387 (7 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:53 from Whittaker Chambers
It's all about Billy Sherman and his fine march. </bait>
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6388 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 14:57 from Platypus
Here's another example of what seems to happen all the time - someoen posts
about how their SO is a registered sex offender. And not in a "Oh, boo hoo I
found out that my SO is a registered sex offender" way, but in a "teehee, aint'
this funny" kidn of way.
That fact is brought up later, and its greeted with "OH MY GOD HOW cOULD YOU
SAY THAT". Well, um, because the person in question already did? Publically?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6389 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:00 from Sproing
Oh, not this again.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6390 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:00 from Puddnhead
Yes, that's a fine rationalization. Making those pics public was a shit thing
to do.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6391 (3 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:03 from Breakdancing Jesuit
(Actually, we shouldn't call this room "Bitch," then. Should we. Or are we
agreeing that "bitch" as a verb is devoid of gender-inflammatory content? Have
we progeressed to that level of [[enlightenment]]?)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6392 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:04 from Platypus
They were public, though.
Was it necessary or nice? Nope. But was it the worst tragedy EVAH? I'm not
exactly seeing it.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6393 (1 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 14:57 from Neurophyre
Let's have a little sequence of events, shall we.
1. At least 100 years ago, Mary Moon takes naked pics on cam, some of which
contain captions like, and I quote, "Vote + for Jas on Camwhores and I'll
flash," "Boob shot when Jas gets to + 30," "...Another flash at + 75!" and
so on. These pictures, and the doll-o-matic tagged ones, were clearly
intended for public distribution. Some others, who knows -- maybe they were
and maybe they weren't.
2. The public, using the Intarnets to which said pix were distributed over,
saves and trades the pix.
3. Some folks post them to various forums and web sites and they float around
like the proverbial piss in the Intarnets swimming pool. Once it goes in,
you can't get it out.
4. Last thursday, Mary Moon starts slagging on people in Diet>. There is
chortling about this in various fora.
5. As a result, people start Googling and posting URLs they find with the pix.
6. The URLs are pasted about.
7. The pix are mirrored.
8. The pix are fuskered.
9. More than 12 people see the pix but otherwise all is quiet.
10. Mary Moon publicly claims that she got all sortsa phat l3wt for going on
cam and never getting nekkid.
11. O RLY?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6394 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:10 from Thufir
Yeah, I guess that's part of the problem Platypus, that you can discount things
that are nasty and unnecessary because they're not "the worst tragedy EVAH".
Dude, fuck that. How about you not be nasty because it's not, well, necessary?
Also, Gord, the link between 4 and 5 just fucking sucks, sincerely. Because MM
slags people in Diet>, the response is ... bring out her camwhore pics? What.
The. Fuck.
Disgusting shit, not that it hasn't been said by several other people already,
but whatever.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6395 (10 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:11 from Platypus
And, you know, I get all levels of grief for any number of things, all of which
I publically disclosed. And, I just ignore it, because I figured out by the
time I turned 25 or so that if I say it publically, then it can get thrown back
at me, and that's the way it is. So, I don't go on forum wide whining sprees
everytime someone makes a crack about my appearance or the state of my stomach.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6396 (9 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:14 from Platypus
(I actually decided a year or so back to attempt to be less nasty, even when I
felt it was warranted, because I didn't think it was a great part of my
personality. I certainly didn't participate in the MM stuff, and only got
clued in after I caught something in weird.)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6397 (8 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:12 from Sproing
Well, you have a quasi-society without any real social risk (I don't slag on my
family because I still have to see them every year, i don't piss off the
neighbors because I have to deal with them in person) and it's pretty much like
playing Sims. The people involved are taken about as seriously as Sims, for
that matter.
That said, not everything has to escalate. I've gotten slagged on in Weird>
too but I think most people can tell what is and is not worth bothering with.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6398 (7 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:17 from Thufir
Yeah. What is worth bothering with: none of it
What is not worth bothering with: the rest of it
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6399 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:18 from Evermore
Why are people so mean on here in the first place? I've never been able to
work out the point of that.
I don't mean to sound simple, but really, what is the compulsion to say and do
mean things? being not-mean is just so much EASIER in the long run.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6400 (5 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:19 from Platypus
I also find geting an outside social life helps. It helped me figure out that
I"m really only disliked on here, and that folks who know me in person not from
eschwa generally like me tons.
Even when I get somewhat snarky. :)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6401 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:20 from Thufir
Because people were picked on as children, and are picked on at the workplace,
and have to get out their aggressions here. That's the only reason I've come
up with, anyway. Either that, or they're just genetically predisposed towards
being assholes.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6402 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:20 from Platypus
Here's my theory:
1. This is outside the idea that peopel are meaner on the internets than in
person, first off.
2. Once upon a time, there was Heinous. And on Heinous, the folks who were
cool and in charge were pretty cutting and snarky and mean.
3. If you weren't a cool kid, you got hit with a lot of that. Most people
either left never to return, or got mean in return.
4. Most of the folks on here weren't part of the cool kids to begin with, and
either were hit with the crap from the original mean kids, or got it from the
secondary mean kids.
5. So, eeryone who stays ends up either mean, or very tolerant to mean.
(I put myself in the "turned mean" camp, but I'm getting better. So I like to
think. :))
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6403 (2 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:26 from Thufir
Yeah, but why were the Heinous Elite mean? Picked on as children, or picked on
in the workplace. :P
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6404 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:24 from Neurophyre
I am just chronicling the sequence of events as I understand them to have
occurred. But really, you start flaming people over peanut butter cups and
making thinly veiled comments on the fat n' ugliness of the BBS population when
you are/were appearance obsessed and put up 9283490328 pix of yrself, and what
the fuck do you expect people to do? Of course they're gonna go digging.
(this in re: #6395)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6405 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:23 from Diabolical
Regardless of where those pictures were beforehand, it's one thing to idly
retain pics. It's another to host a bunch to use maliciously whenever you don't
agree with a post someone said in Diet>. What kind of sociopathy is that?
I mean, please point out the number of people on here who are never assholes.
Who are never hypocritical and sanctimioniously bag on one luser one day, then
do the opposite another day. Does everyone who breaks this rule need what is
obviously unrelated material, shoved in everyone's faces specifically to
humiliate and harrass them?
What Zero Cool did was more than "insensitive." It was fucking criminal. At the
very least, it was blatantly unethical and morally inexcusable.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6406 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:27 from Thufir
You expect them to not go digging, Gord, cuz it's disgusting. I mean, maybe
that's part of the problem too, that you don't consider that kind of shit to be
pretty foul and underhanded, orders of magnitude worse than dissing on someone
for eating peanut butter cups. I understand that your argument is that MM
brings it on herself by being all "ooh la la I am so hawt and you are not," but
that's eschwa's problem too, by encouraging precisely that behavior.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6407 (3 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:28 from Diabolical
Do you honestly equate making snide remarks over peanut butter cups the same as
posting graphic photographs? What the fuck is wrong with you?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6408 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:29 from Diabolical
And you know what else, Jess almost never says "ohh la la I am so hawt." What
does happen far more often is that other people slag on her for her looks,
either anonymously or not; topically or not. She doesn't "bring it on herself"
and she doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6409 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:31 from Neurophyre
I'm not arguing shit. I am explaining what happened. You slag on people over
appearance-related shit when you have that big easy target strapped to yr back
and that is what people will do, because they are awful awful black rotten
souls and not the beings of air and light we wish them to be. The end.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6410 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:32 from Thufir
Oh, she does too do that, in Xes if nowhere else, and then someone reposts it
cuz they think it's funny. But I don't think that the act of her thinking that
she's hotter than the general BBS population should immediately breed
resentment. It is chiefly her opinion, anyway, shared primarily by her small
circle of admirers.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6411 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:36 from Diabolical
Oh, really, please point out where the appearance-slagging is done. And please
keep in mind that a fuck of a lot of people appearance-slag on here, so maybe
they should also have their hooch pics up for everyone to see.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6412 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:37 from Diabolical
I mean, Fleep went on a rampage in diet> against skinny people, famously
calling them "twiggy bitches." then she posted a titty pic. I'd better throw it
all over the internet to get back at her for being such a bitch.
Except I would never do that, because that's her private shit and I'm a decent
human being.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6413 (4 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:39 from Thufir
Dec 12, 2005 15:12 from Howard Beale
*** Message (#13) from Mary Moon at 15:08 on Dec 12, 2005 ***
>It's funny how, in the end, everything I say should be discounted because I
>was a camwhore.
--- Message (#14) to Mary Moon at 15:08 on Dec 12, 2005 ---
-Every time I remember your webcam days, I say a little thanks to the universe.
*** Message (#15) from Mary Moon at 15:09 on Dec 12, 2005 ***
>Let's just say that I'm in the tiny minority of people on this board who
>could actually have a webcam without being nominated for Best In Show.
--- Message (#17) to Mary Moon at 15:09 on Dec 12, 2005 ---
-<spits coffee>
[X Broadcasting Company> msg #1387 (1 remaining)] Read cmd ->
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6414 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:39 from Diabolical
And what was the context for that, Thufir? Hmmm, a private conversation posted
in X Broadcast, in response to people already slagging on her about her webcam.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6415 (2 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:40 from Breakdancing Jesuit
Which goes back to "who started it?"
Which is, at least in the view of some, beside the point.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6416 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:40 from Neurophyre
Also to Zero Cool in the X storm that occurred here earlier today. :)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6417 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:41 from Diabolical
Who started it? So what, Jess is at fault for having a webcam? As opposed to
all the douchebags who can't fucking stop slagging on her about it, anonymously
to boot?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6418 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:41 from Diabolical
Who started it? So what, Jess is at fault for having a webcam? As opposed to
all the douchebags who can't fucking stop slagging on her about it, anonymously
to boot?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6418 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:43 from Neurophyre
Of course she's not at fault for having a webcam. Nobody's at fault. Let's
not start playing the blame game.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6419 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:43 from Thufir
A private conversation that she could have told Mr. Beale to not repost, which
she didn't. Splitting hairs, man. And you know that her attitude is precisely
what enrages the others, because as we both know that attitude was there before
the webcam. I am not, for the hundredth time, saying that this justifies the
responses, but trying to say MM doesn't think or feel a way that she obviously
thinks and feels is rewriting history.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6420 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:43 from Diabolical
Nov 30, 2005 10:14 AM from Dawdle
*** Message (#2) from XXX at 9:33 on Nov 30, 2005 ***
>"I don't hate you because you're beautiful. I hate you because you're a raging
>cunt."
[X Broadcasting Company> msg #1378 (9 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
I mean, that's hardly anonymous, is it. But I don't see a big race for
humiliating Dawdle across the board. Some people can actually just fucking cope
with getting dished a little shit.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6421 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:42 from Livy
I went to pick up my family, but Thufir has, as usual, pretty much outlined my
position on this matter. No one is claiming that Mary Moon has been a good
citizen. But this is just fucked up.
I mean, no one is going to send (or better send) that picture of Fleep around
to her family or work or whatever. And no one should call her fat, or a whore,
for taking it to begin with. We won't do that because (most of us) like Fleep.
But I'm pretty sure she would be pissed off to all hell if we did.
This is just dirty. We are bad, bad people if we get joy from her pain over
this.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6422 (1 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:46 from Neurophyre
Now, one COULD say that Dcart posting that X wasn't what a Southern Gentleman
would do.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6423 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:46 from Platypus
Were the pictures actually sent anywhere? Yes, sending them to her folks would
be totally asshollery.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6424 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:47 from Livy
And fuck you, WC. I caught that reference.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6425 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:46 from Diabolical
Except, that, of course, Fleep does often call other people names and fucking
spaz out on them on a relatively regular basis. So basically, you're saying
it's okay to respect some people's privacy, but other people deserve to get
hung out to dry.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6426 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:48 from Livy
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the opposite.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6427 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:48 from Thufir
What, and sending them to random schwans by posting links in public forums is
not totally asshollery? See, we have problems here.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6428 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:48 from Platypus
Wait, how is pointing folks to publicaly available pictures have anything to do
with respecting privacy?
I mean, she broadcasted them to the world.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6429 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:50 from Platypus
No, its not, because we already knew. She's never made a secret of her cam
past. She posted publically very recently about it, and what she got for it.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6430 (7 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:50 from Livy
Just because they exist doesn't mean you have to use them.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6431 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:50 from Finagle
One might argue that the equivalent was done to Bud Fields, however.
Not saying I approve in either case, but I do think we've seen this sort of
thing before.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6432 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:50 from Diabolical
Theres a big fucking difference between the pics she posts voluntarily and the
pics that were posted, Platypus. This is not a fine line were talking about
here. The kind of pics that Zero Cool posted were the kind of pics no one would
want posted voluntarily.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6433 (4 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:50 from Breakdancing Jesuit
It's completely different, for instance, from what happened with Paris Hilton's
videotape. She didn't choose to post that online; some celebrity-slagging
dirtbag chose to do that.
However, if as has been alleged in here, some of the links were to Photoshopped
variants of actual cam captures, that does constitute a form of assault.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6434 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:52 from Diabolical
Which was blatantly obvious, and which is why he did it in the first place.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6435 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:52 from Platypus
Well, where did he get them from?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6436 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:51 from Neurophyre
Just FYI, the big thread with the most pix, many posted by a fan listing his
location as "Southwest," was started on December 10, 2004.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6437 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:48 from Cpk
Statement. Eating peanut butter cups when you're supposed to be on a diet is
patheteic.
Retort. Being a camwhore--*that's* pathetic.
At this point we're trading ad hominems, and that's cool because that's what we
do here. Unfortunately, this second seemed to up the stakes. I will agree
that what ZC did was over the line, but on the other hand, consenting to have
the Xes featured in 6414 broadcast does invite someone to say "O RLY?" and
check the evidence out for themselves. And, of course, someone always steps up
and provides the evidence.
Perhaps Livy's right--this is not the kind of thing good people do. But who
says that any of us are good? This is a very dark kind of place. I wonder why
I am here half the time.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6438 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:53 from Diabolical
Not from an originally public source, I can say that much. Those pictures were
private.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6439 (5 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:53 from Thufir
Because the other half of the time we can be decent people, I think. Thinking
you're average is a double edged sword. No, we're not good people, but we're
not necessarily awful people either. And the less often we do things like use
a bazooka to retaliate against a peashooter, the more we won't be awful people.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6440 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:54 from Livy
Which was my point in Off Topic> earlier, Chuck.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6442 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:52 from Platypus
(Oh, if they weren't actual pictures of her, then damn, that is fucked up. I'm
shutting up now.)
(So, Gail's Score Card of Asshattery:
1. Pointing to acutal, real pictures to people who already know about her
former career - scummy, but not the end of the world.
2. Pointing to actual, real pictures to folks who don't know (family, lets
say), pretty damn asshattery.
3. Making up pictures, alleging that htey are real, and posted them - total
asshattery and ZC, if he did it, should be twitted.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6443 (2 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:53 from Neurophyre
Finagle, I read an interesting article on online communities a while back,
written by some sociology researchy types, that said the cardinal sin in most
online communities (based on how strongly users react) is lying about your
identity and about things you claim to have/have not done.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6444 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:55 from Neurophyre
Also, as I stated, a number of the pics posted by Zero Cool contained captions
encouraging users to vote for "Jas" on "Camwhores" or "Camwhore Wannabes" and
promising more nudity after a certain number of votes. That is obviously
intended for public distribution.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6445 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:55 from Finagle
Oh, I think that's true, Gordie. I'm not necessarily sure I like it, and I'm
definitely not giving my stamp of approval to the peasants-with-pitchforks
model of public justice, but I'll definitely agree that, empirically, that sort
of thing about identity is what raises hackles every time.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6446 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:55 from Platypus
So, were they real pictures, or not?
And if they were real, how did Zero Cool get his mitts on them?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6447 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:57 from Cpk
Once you put a picture on the Internets, even if "private", it's probably
permanent.
That's what I like about this place. Shit scrolls and is gone forever.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6448 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:54 from War Boy
People, people. Its the internet. Once shit gets out there, its there
forever. Thats why you'll never see War Boy posting pictures of himself or his
wife on here. I'll show you my house. I'll show you my cat. I'll even give
you my address if you want to visit. But one never knows where a picture will
show up.
Hell, I'm really hesistant to post much personal detail on here *at all*. Not
because I'm overly secretive, but because after years of BBS'ing, we've all
become experts at turning shit aginst each other. "War Boy, you're a raging
dick because of your posts." I can take. "War Boy, you're wife is really
ugly." not so much.
Sad world, but we work with the tools we're given.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6449 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 15:57 from Neurophyre
Read my helpful timeline. Various people started Googling up links to pix
around the time of the Peanut Butter Cup Debate in Diet>.
I saw his fusker and if any of those pics were photoshopped, ZC didn't do it,
which means either Mary Moon herself did (which I suspect in the bikini series,
as I've seen enough soft-core pr0n to spot a Smart Blur filter a mile away) or
whoever stick the pix up on the web YEARS ago did.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6450 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:55 from Diabolical
I mean, really: I'm obviously not friends with a lot of people here. There's
not gonna be a Diabolical War Boy Dawdle reunion tour happening any fucking
time soon. Does that mean I'm gonna try googling for sordid details to post all
over everytime War Boy slags on me in a forum? NO. Because at the end of the
day, the little black screen clicks shut and life goes on. If War Boy wants to
slag on me- oh well. The fucking guy's in Michigan. How is that relevant to my
real life? I sincerely doubt we each sit down to dinner mentally conniving to
slag on each other the next time were online.
And that's how I view everyone's life on here. This is a group. It's not a
lifestyle. What people choose to do with their lifestyles is only relevant to
the group if they decide to share it, and even then, if they omit details, who
gives a fuck?
So in that light, what Zero Cool did was a major invasion of privacy. It's
obviously not like he *asked* to post them. He did it purposefully to
intimidate and harrass.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6451 (2 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:57 from Finagle
If something isn't posted publically, it isn't exactly public. It isn't even
really public then, if the person posting them is the author or owner of the
content.
There's a problem from just that point of view alone. The page could probably
be subjected to a DMCA takedown notice if they were ganked from a members only
site or anything that had an explicit copyright notice or terms of service.
So if nothing else, I think there's a problem if there is stuff out there being
shown that MM owns being distributed or having been obtained that violates her
ownership of that stuff and her moral rights as a copyright owner.
Just to take the *sex* out of it for a minute, I think a lot of folks would
have been up in arms if these were MP3 files of MM' copyrighted music, and they
were being put up to mock her for her musical ability.
If a user is hosting content that another user owns and has asked to take down,
I think that's a problem.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6452 (1 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 16:01 from Neurophyre
Actually, in that light, what Zero Cool did doesn't matter, because at the end
of the day, the little black screen clicks shut and life goes on.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6453 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 16:02 from War Boy
I like Michigan.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6454 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 15:59 from Cpk
Well, Jimmy, I was mostly spouting hyperbole. The "X Needs A Hand>" forums are
definitely evidence that we are not total savages.
When certain people are being cunts in Diet>, the ideal response should be
"what a tragically lost soul" and to move on with life. But, I have to admit,
the baser part of my nature led me to chortle at the discovery of one of the
principals' camwhore pasts--though this was in a private forum on another BBS.
There it is--I am a bad person. But even I know that only pain and suffering
can result when you drag that shit back over here.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6455 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:02 from Diabolical
Except that some of the people on here *are* MM's friends, former coworkers,
etc. in real life. That's where it gets fucked up.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6456 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:02 from Breakdancing Jesuit
_Because_ things in here scroll, one can assert that something happened or that
somebody said something in the deep dark past and there's no "proof" that the
truth is otherwise.
Unrelated to this, someone was kind enough to tell me that I was being
misremembered on ISCA as a user that used to brag about having sex with his
dog. I can't prove that I didn't.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6457 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:04 from Diabolical
And really, does everyone want to lower the bar to include RL potshots now
because they didn't like some snarky remark on eschwa? Should we start pinging
IP addresses and calling people's workplaces to get them in trouble now? Maybe
take some SO pics and photoshop them? Send someone's kid pics to a perv ring?
Hey, all's fair in eschwa revenge.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6459 (3 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 16:06 from Platypus
Yeah, but it doesn't sound like the second bits happened.
(Feel free to find pictures of me on the net. There are some godawful ones of
me at my sister's wedding that might stil be floating around. Bad, Bad,
Pictures.)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6460 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:06 from Cpk
Well it was fairly low-hanging fruit. So to speak. It's not like it required
a private investigator to find out all that stuff.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6461 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:05 from Breakdancing Jesuit
Actually, almost all of those things have been done by one user to another in
the chain/evolution/migration path.
Callling work? Seen it done.
Manipulating photographs of loved ones? Heard it alleged.
Kid's pics to a perv ring? OK, I don't know that I _know_ that's happened. I do
believe someone once called Child Protective Services because of a BBS post.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6462 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 16:08 from Diabolical
Oh, so it's been done before. That makes it okay. No, it means that there are
two sociopaths logging on.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6463 (110 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:06 from Grog
I generally will censor or reword some of the stuff I want to say on this BBS
for the very fact I don't trust 100% of the userbase not to use it against me.
I wish I could consider each and every last one of the users here to be someone
sufficiently trustworthy, but I can't. So I've learned to watch what I say
about people and events in my real life in this medium.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6464 (109 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:09 from Thufir
Yeah, let's not start down that slippery slope where just because somebody did
in the past, that means it's OK in the present or future. Look, we need an
understand here that airing dirty laundry of any type around the BBS is an
asshole maneuver, and thinking that it's somehow less assholish because the
dirty laundry is easy to get to is exactly the wrong way to think about it. It
still makes you an asshole to air it, no matter if you found it on google, or
found it on their private computer.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6465 (108 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 16:10 from Monkey
Didn't someone pull a "report the terrorist" move on another user as well?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6466 (114 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:10 from Breakdancing Jesuit
Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest it was right. I meant to suggest that people
with years of experience with this dysfunctional community should not be
surprised when stupid shit happens. Outraged? Sure. Surprised, no.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6467 (113 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:10 from Diabolical
And I think, generally, everyone does that- they either censor what they say,
or who they are, or both.
And really, this is a fucking black and white text-only BBS with several rooms
that need anonymous functions because apparently there seem to be enough
fuckers who can't be trusted. And this in a so-called close community where
EEEverybody knows each other and comes together for enlightened discussion.
When they're not devolving into a lynch mob because someone went on the rag in
Diet>.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6468 (112 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:12 from Thufir
And yes, Monkey, somebody did, and that someone never came out, which is
probably for the best because that user would be a pariah forever and ever.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6469 (111 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:14 from Diabolical
And how double-chickenshit is that. "I tried to ruin your life, but I need to
remain anonymous so I don't lose my internet friends."
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6470 (110 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:12 from Gwynn
And for once, I totally agree with Diabolical. I also agree with Thufir and
Livy, but Diabolical's point is why it's a losing battle. Because basically,
there are two main thrusts going on here. One is "la la la, we're better than
all the other loser bbses!" The other is "well yeah ... sometimes we get a
little prickish ... it's cuuuuuute innit?" See also: We're just dark evil
nasty souls, etc. It's like "damn it, I'm a smoker/alcoholic/whatever, it's
just the way I am!"
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6471 (109 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:18 from Doktor Nil
Pariah? That user would have to fear for their personal safety.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6472 (108 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:19 from Ptolemy
I appreciate your concern for my well-being, Dok.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6473 (107 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:19 from Diabolical
You say that like it's not the case, here. I personally think that ZC's nutsack
could use a couple decorative teethmarks.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6474 (106 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:19 from Doktor Nil
Ha. But nevermind, I withdraw that comment. I'd just _want_ to kick their ass.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6475 (105 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:20 from Cpk
For reals, I thought you were a pacifist.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6476 (104 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:20 from Bonzo
children, children,,,we are all answerable for each and everything we say and
do. that includes mary moon and zero cool and sally and me. if you do not want
pictures made public then don't post them online. and you do want private
conversations posted in a public forum then either don't say it or don't say it
in writing. and when shit happens, don't look to blame the other guy cause he
didn't play fairly. this is not so much about what a community does as it is
about having enough good judgment not put oneself in a vulnerable position and
the piss and moan about being vulnerable. the only behavior any of us can
control is our own....
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6477 (103 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:20 from Thufir
I don't think that it's a losing battle, Gwynn. I think every time we can
bring it up in here like we actually have done a shitty thing, and mostly agree
it's shitty, it's at least one step on the road to being the good people that
we all wish we were. Even the people who have been saying "you should be
careful with what you say and do on the internet" haven't been saying that MM
deserves what she got for being less careful, for example.
We can set standards for ourselves. We just have to follow them.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6478 (102 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:20 from Doktor Nil
I don't know why anyone thinks I'm a pacifist, I ain't.
But, while I've already said that using someone's sexual(ish) history against
them is way fucked up, I also think that embaressing, or even humiliating,
someone is not quite on the same level as trying to send them to Guantanamo.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6479 (101 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:21 from Diabolical
That's just it, Bonzo: Zero Cool didn't have permission to post those pics. The
person he got them from didn't have permission to post them, either. Or the
person before that, or before that.
And yes, when someone does something diliberately malicious, you're damn right
you blame them. No one gets a pass for doing something shitty just because the
raw materials happened to be available.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6480 (100 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:23 from Finagle
Out of curiosity, has MM sent something to the people involved specifically
notifying them that it's her material and needs to be taken down?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6481 (99 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:23 from Diabolical
Well, great, we actually have to fucking be so pedantic that we have to measure
the seriousness of terrorist claims vs. personal humiliation? I think that most
people can fucking grasp the difference.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6482 (98 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:25 from War Boy
Wait a minute, weren't these pictures on a publically available website
originally?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6483 (97 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:25 from Diabolical
Not the more graphic ones.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6484 (96 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:24 from Ptolemy
As it relates to copyright, the holder of the copyright is obligated to enforce
the copyright in order for it to have force. An undefended copyright is a
nullified one.
Judges think of that as tacit approval of its distribution.
(this, of course is legalease. I make no claims about its piety)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6485 (95 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:26 from Thufir
... on the other hand, if we're still lost in this, "it was publicly available!
that makes it ok to shove it in everyone's face!" we're probably fucked.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6486 (94 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:26 from Doktor Nil
I don't think that's even true. You're thinking of trademark. I also don't
think it matters here.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6487 (93 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:27 from Diabolical
The copyright holder is not burdened with enforcement. The defendant is
burdened with proving otherwise. Otherwise the Little Guy Would Always Lose.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6488 (92 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:28 from Diabolical
(Well, also, the little guy is also the one swiping the copyrighted stuff,
too, and hoping he won't be noticed.)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6489 (91 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:28 from Amanda
I think it matters, as any user with a credit card could have seen them.
The larger issue is what Livy originally posted about - the camwhore pictures
(and/or the experience of having been a camwhore) were seen as a legitimate
item about which to be critical of MM's behavior toward another user. Why not
just be critical of the fact that she was rude?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6490 (90 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:30 from Thufir
*puts one finger on nose and points other at Amanda*
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6491 (89 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:30 from Diabolical
Except that a credit card transaction isn't necessarily "public," is it. It's a
contracted agreement between two people.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6492 (88 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:30 from Doktor Nil
I don't know why this is a legal issue, but enforcement has nothing to do with
copyright. The defendent is not burdened with anything involving enforcement,
becuase whether you have 'enforced' it in the past does not effect your
copyright rights. Rights. Whatever.
Y'all are thinking of trademark.
Not that this is a legal case. I don't know what that has to do with anything.
But man, the amount of confusing and mis-understanding of the law promulgated
as fact on the internet continues to astound me. "Because it makes sense,
doesn't it?" is not a legal authority, for one.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6493 (87 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:32 from Amanda
But then the pictures aren't really embarassing unless they're being seen for
free.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6494 (86 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:33 from Bob
How bourgeois, Amanda.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6495 (85 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:33 from Diabolical
The pictures are embarrassing regardless. But at least permission for a
specific viewer is granted. That doesn't necessarily justify every Tom, Dick
and Harry posting them all over the internet.
That's like saying that if you had sex with one person, that you have to have
sex with everyone and be okay with it, because obviously you're okay with sex
in the abstract.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6496 (84 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:35 from Cpk
Why are the pictures embarrassing? I thought being a camwhore was supposed to
be a good thing.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6497 (83 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:36 from Ptolemy
I have not gotten the impression that MM is embarassed by the pictures.
Nonplussed about their public disclosure, but I don't see her regretting their
creation.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6498 (82 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:34 from Ice Queen
Legal or not, easy or not, collecting and posting those pics just to take some
evil middle school revenge over peanut butter cups is assholery of the first
order. Anyone getting their chortles out of MM's situation is an asshole of
the second order.
Just because we can act like dickless 13-year-olds doesn't mean we should.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6499 (81 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:37 from War Boy
Well, everyone likes money, I suppose.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6500 (80 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:37 from Finagle
Being a writer is a good thing, but I don't think I'd want some of Laura's
unpublished stuff being put up for mockery if someone disagreed with what Laura
had been saying about writing. If it's public, point it out sure.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6501 (79 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:38 from Bob
I like money. You might say I even love money. But I don't _respect_ it.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6502 (78 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:38 from Cpk
If they were found within 15 minutes on Google, how would one know they were
unpublished? Just sayin'.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6503 (77 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:41 from Diabolical
How do you know they were "found within 15 minutes on Google?" Because Zero
Cool is really an honest piece of shit?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6504 (76 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:41 from Diabolical
And even if they were, what gives anyone the right to repost them in order to
humiliate someone?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6505 (75 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:45 from Ptolemy
Again, humiliation requires shame.
and regret.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6506 (74 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:46 from Bob
The shame and regret is not in the thing itself, but in the lack of control
over the thing itself, or, more specifically, in the lack of control owing to a
betrayed trust.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6507 (73 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:49 from Thufir
Well, look, it's obvious that MM feels some shame about the whole camwhore
thing, or she wouldn't feel the need to justify it by posting lists of the
things she had received while she was doing it, OK? This particular turn of
discussion sickens me even more than the earlier one, like showing the pictures
somehow didn't affect MM, when the whole point of posting them was precisely in
order to shame her.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6508 (72 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:50 from War Boy
Who betrayed her trust? An ex? Kneecap his ass. :)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6509 (71 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:50 from Diabolical
May I add that MM didn't post that list until she got sick of random people in
Weird bringing it up apropos just for the sake of making some ad hominem
attack. Her response was, "Why do people keep bringing it up? It's old news.
Drop it." And obviously someone considered that a challenge of sorts.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6510 (70 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:51 from Bonzo
I do not buy the argument that these pictures (or anything else for that
matter) are embarrassing and humiliating until bought and paid for by a piece
of plastic.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6511 (69 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:54 from Thufir
Then I don't even know what to say to you, Bonzo. If someone took naked
pictures of me that somehow found their way onto the internet and some ass then
posted them here, I would be embarassed and humiliated, you better bet.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6512 (68 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:55 from Diabolical
I don't think anybody does, Bonzo. Otherwise everyone would have their shit
shots for sale.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6513 (67 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 16:59 from Ptolemy
I have naked pictures on the Internet. If they ever get out, I'm not too
concerned.
I mean, it's not like I'd be the first naked dong on the web.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6514 (66 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:00 from Diabolical
Well, that's for you to decide. It's not for others to decide for you, and
stick your dong on their Christmas card for secret santa.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6515 (65 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:00 from Amanda
And really, whether or not MM is embarassed says nothing about why ZC thought
those pictures would be embarassing or damaging.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6516 (64 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:03 from Ptolemy
Agreed. I think the posting of the pics was in poor taste, but Diabolical isn't
really making a compelling case for why.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6517 (63 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:04 from Diabolical
Oh, is this fucking Law and Order? Here's why:
My sister didn't want those pics on eschwa. It is embarrassing for her.
Zero Cool posted and linked them specifically TO embarrass her. That's
reprehensible.
Several people already seem to get it without the handholding.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6518 (62 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:03 from Zero Cool
4. Last thursday, Mary Moon starts slagging on people in Diet>. There is
chortling about this in various fora.
5. As a result, people start Googling and posting URLs they find with the pix.
6. The URLs are pasted about.
7. The pix are mirrored.
8. The pix are fuskered.
msg #6394
"
>>Actually, this part took place in mid november. The Fusker itself was
created on Novemeber 14th.
And as i've stated to Diabolical a couple times this morning in X's, I never
posted the link to the Fusker on eschwa. Or LiveJournal for that matter.
And so that we are all on the same page, since Mary Moon contacted ( at least i
assume she contacted them, becuase the link is gone ) Fusker to remove the link
of the pictures, I've deleted them from my possession as well...because my
hosting them was to provide an anchor for the Fusker itself. Fusker link is
gone, and so to are the pics in my possession. They are, however, still
available using google-fu.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6519 (61 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:05 from Bonzo
i am seeing two arguments made by diabolical: one that the pictures were
embarrassing and humiliating to mary moon; the other that mary moon had a right
to profit from people viewing them. either of these arguments stands alone.
but they are contradictory when argued together. as for your example thufir,
you might be embarrassed and humiliated if someone took your pictures and
posted them online without your knowledge and permission. the part you left out
is selling them yourself. that sort of negates the "i am so humiliated"
argument. i am not saying this was okay; i am saying diabolical cannot have it
both ways. as for mary moon, comparing other eschawn females to dogs makes me
think she is not all that humiliated and embarrassed. although diabolical may
be.....
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6520 (60 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:10 from Diabolical
Of course, it looks rather suspicious that the person who posted in the
comments of the Eschwa livejournal was doing so regarding a current thread in
eschwa, and merely linking the pics from another eschwa user.
Yeah, you're just all sweet and innocent, shithead. Go sell someone a fucking
bridge.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6521 (59 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:10 from Thufir
You might still be embarassed and humiliated if you took those pictures and
sold them. What prevents someone from being embarassed and humiliated by the
actions they undertake in order to make a living, eh? I don't see where this
negates that argument at all, sorry.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6522 (58 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:10 from Samurai
We can argue about why or whether it was inappropriate, and we can argue why or
whether the pictures should have been available online in the first place. But
the thing you're all missing here, and for me this is the most important point,
is that finally and at long last, we have something to talk about besides, "i
got sum dik and azz" or "The hand of Dixie shall surely strike you down, sir!"
or "hippies hippies hippies nader hippies hippies dean hippies hippies nader
nader nader hippies hippies hippies nader."
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6523 (57 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:10 from Grog
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
You haven't been spot-on with compelling cases 100% of the time either, Macke.
Very few of us have.
Now we're deviating into this wonderful world of critiquing the debate style
than participating in the debate itself. This is beyond retarded. Suffice to
say, anyone who puts content on the Internet should be mindful that the content
may be exploited; conversely, those who exploit Internet content deserve no
credit for their efforts and their point is made irrelevant.
Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go cleanse my blog so someone I have wronged
(purposefully or inadvertently) doesn't go picking out exploitable details. I
thought I was paranoid for thinking someone would do such a thing, but
apparently, I've given some of you way too much credit.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6524 (56 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:11 from Diabolical
I'm not making those two arguments together, Bonzo. They're not relevant to
each other in the context of the current situation.
And I think I know if my twin sister is embarrassed. Gee, do ya think she might
have fucking mentioned it to me?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6525 (55 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:12 from Bonzo
because diabolical is saying her sister is embarrassed and humiliated until she
gets paid. then it's okay. and like i said before, we are all answerable for
what we say and do. and that includes what we do or do not do for a living.
if you don't want to get bit in the ass then don't stand up and pull down your
pants.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6526 (54 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:15 from Diabolical
And regardless of the dates in which you gathered said pics, Zero Cool, the
fact remains that you deliberately disseminated them to a mutual audience for
the purpose of harrassment and humiliation. And all because, she said shit to
someone in Diet>. Not shit she said to *you,* even.
Which makes you about the moral equivalent of what, a dung beetle? Except even
dung beetles clean up shit, not just spread it around.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6527 (53 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:17 from Diabolical
That's not what I fucking said, Bonzo. I already said the opposite. Clearly.
Multiple times. It's not fucking up for debate.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6528 (52 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:03 from Monkey
-Maybe- ZC thought they would be a collection of some softie soft porn, because
that is what they are. As I remember, the pictures popped up years ago the
first time I saw them. I didn't see them all at the same time though, they were
in various places. Then maybe a month ago they popped up again as a collection.
This collection seemed to come about as a response to a multitude of posts on
body issues that focused around MM having a rocking bod, and others - not so
much. People were all, "Damn, she's really full of her bod." Then other people
were all, "Yeah here, check it out." More and more photos crawled out of the
woodwork and ZC collected them like any other porn. This makes sense to me,
when I take the Mary Moon out of the picture and just think, "Hey look, a
nekkid girl." The cruelty is not in ZC collecting them, that is the normal
thing people do with porn, right? The naughty part is when they landed smack
dab in the middle of the livejournal, perhaps, but still - they were out there
lurking around or I would have never seen them before.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6529 (51 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:17 from Thufir
So if someone does something for a living, it's OK to just throw it in their
face every so often whenever they do something completely unrelated that you
don't like? Whatever, man. If that's being "answerable," I categorically
reject your definition of responsibility. This is a capitalist society, we
need to have jobs, sometimes those jobs are unpleasant. When we can all live
for free off the air and manna of the land, I'll buy your argument.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6530 (50 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:18 from Diabolical
And since you're slagging on my sister, then by Zero Cool's thinking, I am now
welcome to dig shit up on you and smear it across eschwa for everyone to sneer
at.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6531 (49 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:16 from Ptolemy
Grog: My arguments are 100% solid as long as one presumes my reality is the one
true reality and all things evaluated in my reality are correct.
As far as the embarassment part - maybe it's better to say she's displeased
with them being made available to people on the BBS? I mean, consider two
scenarios:
1> User takes naked pictures on cam
2> User regrets it
3> Pictures continue to come up in public
or
1> User takes naked pictures on cam
2> Pictures continue to come up in public
One of those scenarios is embarassment. The other is annoyance.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6532 (48 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:23 from Ptolemy
Again, it's only embarassing is someone regrets doing it.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6535 (47 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:22 from Diabolical
Which we've already deduced that some users on here have no problem doing, in
that apparently merely having potentially shaming material in existence is a
reason to randomly shame that person, whenever they think they need an
"attitude adjustment."
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6536 (46 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:22 from Bob
Pass #2:
The empbarrassment/humiliation does not arise from the images, but from the
betrayal of trust.
Madonna has every reason to consider all those hairy armpit photos of herself
to be aesthetically pleasing, but remain humiliated by their publication
because it was not she who published them. Vanessa Williams nude is a glorious
thing, but still humiliating to Vanessa Williams if she did not control the
images. And so on.
Understand the claim here - it is not that the materials are inherently
humiliating, but that bringing them up in a specific context is humiliating.
You, Ptolemy, are a masturbator, or abnormal.
Your arguments, then, are the arguments of a masturbator. Does this embarrass
you? What light does your being a masturbator shed on your arguments?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6537 (45 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:21 from Livy
We've lost sight of the real issue. These images belong to Mary Moon. They are
*of* her. What right do any of us have to slag on her for them? Or to use them
as a weapon, regardless of how she feels about them.
It doesn't matter if she hates having done it, or is proud of it. We have no
right to use them to cause her pain.
That's the critical issue. The way some people used them to cause her pain.
She's caused pain to others, to be sure. But there is never any reason to
respond in this way. It's sick.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6538 (44 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:23 from Diabolical
It's only embarrassing when a group of people hold you up for ridicule over it.
That's what's embarrassing. Don't be obtuse.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6539 (43 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:24 from Thufir
What makes you think she doesn't regret doing it?
And why on earth would this be a response to MM slagging their diet if it
wasn't at least _intended_ to shame or harm MM? This is the real question --
whether or not she was actually embarassed is a red herring, in the end; the
action itself was still attempting to cause harm. If you fire a bullet at
someone and miss, nobody says, "well, you missed, it's all OK then."
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6540 (42 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:24 from Zero Cool
No...I made the fusker because it was porn. I don't care enough about your
sister to worry about getting even or humiliating her. If i were as bad of a
person and as morally bankrupt as you've convinced yourself i am, i would have
done something vengeful in response to this Mail>
Dec 16, 2005 1:10 from Mary Moon to Zero Cool
You're not much of a poet, son.
But thanks for having your address publicly displayed.
[Mail> msg #1301392
But I haven't...won't. But i'm a sweetie like that, so...
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6541 (41 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:25 from Amanda
Reposted after minor editing:
Dec 16, 2005 5:20 PM from Diabolical
You forgot: Users in public keep using old pictures to embarrass user about
random unrelated topics. Generally, if people weren't like Zero
Cool, then she probably would be much less embarrassed. It's easier to get over
the shame when people stop trying to deliberately shame you.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6534 (2 remaining)] Read cmd ->
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6542 (40 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:25 from Bonzo
Dec 16, 2005 16:30 from Diabolical
Except that a credit card transaction isn't necessarily "public," is it. It's a
contracted agreement between two people.
Dec 16, 2005 16:33 from Diabolical
The pictures are embarrassing regardless. But at least permission for a
specific viewer is granted. That doesn't necessarily justify every Tom, Dick
and Harry posting them all over the internet.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6543 (39 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:28 from Diabolical
What are you trying to accomplish by posting that, Bonzo? Let me clarify: The
content of the pictures remains sensitive and potentially embarrassing-
however, at least by virtue of a credit card transaction, it becomes an
agreement between two consenting people.
When someone else takes those pics and posts them, there is no consent. Or, if
someone gets pics under false circumstances, that is also nonconsensual.
Does that make sense? At least the transaction implies mutual consent. But Mary
Moon essentially letting one person see pics isn't carte blanche for everyone
to have them. That would be like saying that since the person paid her for
pics, she has the right to their credit card number.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6544 (38 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:32 from Diabolical
Not to mention, that at no time did Zero Cool have permission from MM to own or
disseminate those pics. That remains unarguable.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6545 (37 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:33 from Ptolemy
Yep. No argument there.
Trying to make a pity party out of it is what baffles me.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6546 (36 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:35 from Diabolical
Because posting someone's private pictures for ridicule is morally
reprehensible? It's not exactly grey area.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6548 (35 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:36 from Bonzo
they are not private if they are for sale. they are public for a price.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6549 (34 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:38 from Diabolical
They aren't for sale. They weren't for sale. And whether or not they were for
sale at one time in the distant past doesn't mean that they're for the public
domain. Writers who publish still retain rights over their property. Actors
still retain rights over the use of their image.
And just because the picture is ON the internet doesn't mean the person in it
gives permission for it to be on there, or have gotten on there in the first
place.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6550 (33 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:41 from Diabolical
And furthermore, just because someone at one time *did* put a picture up for
sale, doesn't give people the right to post any picture whatsoever regardless
of permission. My sister isn't Thomas Jefferson. She has a right to control her
image.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6551 (32 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:42 from Sproing
Anyone learn anything from all this yet?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6552 (31 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:42 from Samurai
I learned The First Rule Of Holes.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6553 (30 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:42 from Diabolical
Yeah, that some people can be real fuckwads when it comes to justifying
ridicule of people for apparently little or no reason.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6554 (29 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:40 from Bonzo
and i am not saying what happened is okay. i am saying anyone with any online
experience, and that would be everyone on this bbs, knows that information
placed online can boomerang. so either do it with that knowledge and the
ability and willingness to live with whatever might ensue or don't do it. but
expecting other people to play nice all the time and then being embarrassed and
humiliated is disingenuous at the least.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6555 (28 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:48 from Diabolical
So you're saying that we can't expect people to behave with a modicum of
decency on eschwa? Why can't we? Why should we tolerate this? We sure as hell
shouldn't.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6556 (27 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 17:50 from Diabolical
Because that's the problem. You may think that people who take risks online
(like numerous people on here have, I might point out. Nude eschwans isn't
exactly unheard of) inherently deserve to get it shoved in their face whenever
they say something unpopular.
I think that that is too low a standard. On eschwa and in life. People who feel
the need to humiliate other people have a problem. They don't have the right to
humiliate anyone. No one does. That's not a right, and it's not a privilege.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6557 (26 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:03 from Platypus
(If anyone cares, I found explicit ones in under 10 minutes in public forums.
So they aren't exctly "private".)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6558 (25 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:04 from Diabolical
They're private in that they shouldn't be used as fodder for publicly
ridiculing someone, Platypus.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6559 (24 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:08 from Sproing
I was about to post, "Well, maybe she shouldn't be ragging on fat people and
acting superior." But then I figured that wasn't really the point.
And it isn't. The reason you don't do that stuff isn't because someone might
get tired of taking the high road and lash out at you. It's because it's not
decent behavior. Unfortunately noone involved on either side can admit that
maybe they hurt some people unnecessarily.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6560 (23 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:10 from Diabolical
Yeah, no one acts superior on eschwa. Nor do they rag on skinny people.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6561 (22 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:11 from Diabolical
In Weird>, people were taking potshots at MM about her webcam. Was it "in
response to her acting superior?" No. They were being the aggressors. Plenty of
people make snide remarks to both of us free of provocation. It's not one-sided
at all.
So if making snide remarks *to* either of us is fair play, then turnabout
should also be fair play. Does no one make snide remarks about anything?
[[Frasier]]? Sioux? Snapdragon? War Boy? Dawdle? Fleep? Fucking EVERYBODY makes
snide remarks. So it's pretty pointless to say, "well, she kinda deserved it
because she made snide remarks to people" when chances are, snide remarks were
probably made to her also.
And what's worse, making a snide remark, or posting nudie pics for everyone to
laugh at? Those two situations are hardly equal, and arguing the point ad
infinitum and hairsplitting it to death doesn't make it so.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6562 (21 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:25 from Bonzo
i am not and have never said anyone has a right to humiliate another person.
what i said and still say is no one can control the behavior of another person,
we can only control our own. do not behave in a way that could engender
consequences you cannot live with., this is an individual choice. what would be
interable for me might be a joke to sally. and that's fine. but do not expect
homo sapiens to always/ever do the right things or take the high road. cause
shit happens. the only person any of us can truly count on is ourself, and, if
we are lucky, our families. from what i see every single person involved in
this could and should have behaved differently. every. single. one. and had
just one person acted differently then just maybe none of this would have
happened.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6563 (20 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:28 from Sproing
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I suspect that if it'd just been the whole history
of superiority, like Frasier or Snap or whoever, it would have gotten blown
off. If she'd blown off the Weird> thing and not proclaimed that she never had
nekkid pics taken, it would have gotten blown off. But it's pretty easy to see
how this stuff builds up if neither side will walk away.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6564 (19 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:32 from Sproing
and I am not trying to be a buttmunch here. but I don't see what is so hard,
on either side, about treating people with some decency. And I really don't
care that one side is so much more defensible than the other one. I don't know
of any belief structure that thinks a lesser crime/infraction becomes
irrelevant when confronted with a larger one. I don't always succeed in
treating people respectfully, but I like to think I can admit a wrong.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6565 (18 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:37 from Ptolemy
I'll remember that the next time you rail me.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6566 (17 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:40 from Sproing
Aww, you know I don't mean it.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6567 (16 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 18:49 from Ptolemy
This all stemps from a conversation on a cough in 1992.
That's what I love about this BBS.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6568 (15 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 19:13 from Thufir
Yeah, well, I still maintain that the onus of behavior is not on all humans to
tread super-carefully so that they may not, with luck, do anything that might
possibly rebound upon them in the future. It'd be nice if we all had such
far-seeing vision, but alas we do not.
Of course people are mean. You, general you, can endeavor not to be one of
those mean people. The community, as in eschwa, can also endeavor to not
tolerate such behavior, and ostracize those who take part in it. These are
where the onuses lie. MM goes on about her hawt looks because the community
ogles her; if you dislike that, stop ogling her. People drag out others' dirty
laundry on the pretense that it is easily locatable; if you dislike that, don't
associate with those who have this reprehensible habit. Etc.
Yes, one solution is, never say anything or do anything that might possibly
rebound upon you in any way. It's sad that this has to be the only solution,
however, because it doesn't. You may not be able to _control_ the behavior of
others, but you can _influence_ it. Encourage things you like, discourage
those you don't. And quit making excuses for those who stoop even lower than
the previous person did, because in the end, that's what it boils down to when
you say it's _everyone's_ fault. That's rarely the case; it's just a
convenient dodge we use because nobody likes to assign blame, lest blame
somehow be assigned to them. There's almost always someone who steps over the
line in situations like these.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6569 (14 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
*** #6570 DELETED ***
Dec 16, 2005 20:13 from Bonzo
thank you, mary moon, for making my argument come to life. this whole
deplorable situation is part of a continuum. and it does not end until
someone, somehwere along the line says i am going to walk away...instead of
saying i can do you one better, vengeance is mine.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6571 (13 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:14 from Cpk
I think we can be reasonably certain that those who were slagging on MM in
Weird> were dealt with. Vylar made two posts to that effect.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6572 (12 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:15 from Mary Moon
Just for example, I have Zero Cool's boss's home address.
Information-gathering is fun.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6573
Dec 16, 2005 20:19 from Mary Moon
And if it were another user instead of me, would people be arguing whether
or not it was okay?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6574 (11 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:19 from Cpk
Maybe you didn't deserve to have your nude pictures posted for the luserbase's
consumption, but you're completely out of line talking like that. In fact,
that's pretty close to being a threat, and I think threats are probably
twittable offenses here.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6575 (10 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:19 from Thufir
Yeah, I don't think anyone except Mary Moon is arguing that it would be somehow
morally justified to retailiate by one-upping here, but I still think it's
important to note that somewhere along the line things went from "average level
of eschwa snark" to a step further, and that's what we should be looking at
when analyzing "deplorable continuums" like these, instead of mouthing the
obvious platitude that Someone Has To Stop Themselves.
Sure, whatever, if MM starts going on about how she wants to send a post of
ZC's personal habits to her boss and then does so, and then ZC retaliates by
publishing her webcam photos in Penthouse or something, twit them both and
fucking have done already. No sense allowing multiple children in the sandbox.
And we have a long-standing precedent here that off-bbs harassment of schwans
by other schwans is grounds for twittal.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6576 (9 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:22 from Zero Cool
Which one? The one that was ripped apart by Charley, or by Wilma?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6577 (8 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:23 from Mary Moon
Really. Well, then I'll delete my questionable post. I don't lose anything
by doing so.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6578 (7 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
*** #6579 DELETED ***
Dec 16, 2005 20:25 from Mary Moon
Besides, what is and isn't a twittable offense here depends entirely on
who commits the offense, not what the offense is.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6580 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:25 from Bonzo
it's not an obvious platitude, thufir, when people continue to behave the same
way over and over and then threaten to do more of the same.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6581 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:26 from Ptolemy
Mm... no kidding.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6582 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:26 from Thufir
Lies. It depends on both, or I'm sure you would have been long gone already,
as would have most of us.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6583 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:26 from Thufir
No, those people realize that someone has to stop, Bonzo, they're just
determined not to be that person. The platitude remains obvious.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6584 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:26 from Platypus
Honestly, the whole thing with the pictures is just one more of the same old
cycle that happens here. Peopel get pissed, they go digging for dirt, dirt
gets flung, and often it get all muddy with dirt flying everywhere. MM just
had really easily findable juicy dirt. \
But I agree that we shoudl all be nicer, and honestly, I thought this evening
that this whole arguing thing I was doing here was stupid. I got caught up in
the "It was the worst thing EVAH", when it doens't really matter.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6585 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:26 from Mary Moon
Not lies. Ptolemy got twitted for making a racist remark. Ivor did not.
People get KOed regularly for going on personal-attack rampages in various
fora. Fleep's gone on several and to my knowledge, she's never been KOed
from those fora by her own admission. Let's not pretend that moderation here is
remotely evenly applied.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6586 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 20:28 from Bonzo
no, what they realize is the OTHER guy has to stop which is not at all the
point i am making.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6587 (62 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:28 from Thufir
But if it was completely disassociated from each other, people would get
twitted for minor offenses, which they do not. People get twitted for the
combination of the offense and their username. It is not based solely on one
or the other.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6588 (61 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:29 from Mary Moon
As opposed to being solely on the offense, which is what it should be.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6589 (60 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:30 from Thufir
Agreed, but your assertion was the offense had nothing to do with it, which it
certainly does.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6590 (59 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:30 from Mary Moon
I disagree, thus ending the position-stating phase of the debate.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6591 (58 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:32 from Cpk
Well, what I am cautioning you is that the likelihood of being asked to leave
this here BBS increases enormously if you make threats against people, no
matter who you are. So, consider carefully. Obviously, I have no power to
make that happen, nor do I have particularly good insight into Mela's style of
doing things.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6592 (57 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:34 from Thufir
Then let's see the people who got twitted for committing no offenses.
Oh yeah! Nobody! OK, your witness, sir.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6593 (56 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:38 from Mary Moon
Bud Fields.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6594 (55 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:35 from Thufir
Your argument, Bonzo, goes along these lines: Someone must stop. I have no
control over anyone but myself. Therefore, I must stop. Correct?
I maintain that's not only obvious, but maddeningly so. It completely skates
over issues of escalation and inappropriate behavior. To boil the incident
down to this simple point is to equate all offenses equally: a rude comment
made in-passing becomes the moral equivalent of ruining someone's life by
publishing details of their raunchy sexual escapades in the morning news.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6595 (54 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:39 from Cpk
Isn't mentioning his name a twittable offense? ;)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6596 (53 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:39 from Thufir
You honestly think Bud never committed any offenses?? The mind-boggling
naivete of that statement makes my asshole twitch. We live in different
universes, clearly.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6597 (52 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:40 from Mary Moon
Okay. What got him twitted?
I thought he was twitted for the "Not our kind of guy" offense.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6598 (51 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:41 from Thufir
He got twitted for repeatedly launching ad-hominems in forum after forum that
repeated warnings and KOs utterly failed to stop.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6599 (50 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:41 from Ptolemy
I would ask for a video clip of aforementioned ass-twitching, but I would
prefer to keep my lunch to myself.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6600 (49 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:41 from Mary Moon
Which are offenses that people on here make every day with impunity, and
yet don't get KOed, much less twitted.
My point is about the uneven moderation, Thufir.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6601 (48 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:42 from Thufir
(And I am aware that there are people who also do this and have not yet been
twitted, but this doesn't make the offense any less twittable, it just
reinforces my own point that both offense and handle matter.)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6602 (47 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:42 from Thufir
Yeah, OK, fair enough. Like I said earlier, I agreed with you on the uneven
moderation point, I just don't think it's at all true that people can get
twitted for nothing, which means the offense does matter, even if it's not the
entire enchilada (which it should be).
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6603 (46 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:42 from Mary Moon
At any rate, the simple point here is that it seems to be not a twittable
offense to gather information about people off the BBS and use it to publicly
humilate them. Is that about the gist of it?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6604 (45 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:44 from Thufir
Not yet. I mean, I got no control over this, but if it were up to me, it would
damn well be. If it's a twittable offense to harass people off-bbs, it should
be a twittable offense to harass them on-bbs.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6605 (44 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:44 from Finagle
Has this actually been Y>elled about, and the sysops told there was a dispute
with another user over copyrighted material, and a request for a takedown,a nd
what would they do about that anyhow?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6606 (43 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:45 from Mary Moon
But is it a twittable offense to gather information off the BBS, post it off
the BBS, and then post a link ON the BBS to said post?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6607 (42 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:45 from Thufir
Ah, christ, I don't want to make this some hair-splitting crap about how it's
bad because it violated copyright. It's bad because it's harassment. Can't we
take a moral stand for once? I'm probably getting too holier-than-thou to keep
talking about this, I should shut up.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6608 (41 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:45 from Mary Moon
It's not Yelled> but it's been discussed with Mela, who, I understand, feels
that the KO already doled out was punishment enough.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6609 (40 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:47 from Platypus
MM, you realize that you are not the first person who has ever had something
humliating happen to them on here? And honestly, you have far bigger problems
than this BBS considering how easy those pictures are to find. I'm not exactly
queen of internet porn searching, and it took me 10 minutes.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6610 (39 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:51 from Zero Cool
Dec 16, 2005 20:45 from Mary Moon
But is it a twittable offense to gather information off the BBS, post it off
the BBS, and then post a link ON the BBS to said post?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6607
waitwaitwait....is this what i'm being accused of?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6611 (38 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 20:51 from Mary Moon
What do you suggest I do about it? Hire a lawyer and spend $50,000 or more
asking every single person and server who has them to remove them? Keep
him on retainer so I can manage future reoccurrences, too? Will you guys
take up a collection for me in the charity room for that?
I know the person from whom the pictures originated. Clearly I was
powerless to keep them from getting posted in the first place because
someone was determined to do it. And clearly, despite the age of the
pictures, some people still feel a need to "get back at me" by posting
the pictures again.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6612 (37 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:01 from Mary Moon
Are you claiming that it was just a spectacular coincidence that the
pictures hosted on your server just happened to make it onto the Eschwa
LJ? Did my blog layout and posts manage to make it on there, too, by
complete accident? Did you accidentally fall on the keyboard and post
those things to other sites as though I were the poster?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6613 (36 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:03 from Mary Moon
Because my understanding, Zero, is that you not only collected the images,
but you also spoofed my blog site in order to make your postings to other
sites seem more legit.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6614 (35 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:08 from Zero Cool
I followed links. I saved the pics i found. hosted them. added them to
Fusker.
and then once i saw the Fusker link was deleted, i deleted the pics.
you and your sister are giving me credit for thing i didn't do. i've yet to
not admit what i did was fucked up. if i lacked that reasoning, i'd still be
hosting the pics. but since the very reason i was hosting them was deleted, i
had no reason to host. maybe that was too repetitive..
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6615 (34 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:12 from Mary Moon
The only reason you think it's fucked up is because people know it's you
who did it and think it was a shitty thing to do. The people who knew you
did it and thought it was a peachy thing to do, that wasn't a problem.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6616 (33 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:13 from Diabolical
I clicked the "report abuse link" on Fusker myself. At 3 am. Your directory
still listed the pics at 8am, right before I x'ed you. That's hardly any moral
strongpoint on your end.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6617 (32 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:15 from Mary Moon
"Would you care to change your bullshit story, sir?"
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6618 (31 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:15 from Diabolical
And really, isn't making a porn page about another luser without her
permission, for the express purpose of humiliating her, bad enough? Do people
really need to argue semantics? Unbelievable.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6619 (30 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:16 from Zero Cool
oh yeah...but i was awake at 3:01. And the hosting of the pics ended once -i-
learned the fukser was gone, not when you reported it, or even before you X'd
me in the morning.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6620 (29 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:18 from Mary Moon
If Zero Cool created the page, he was the only person to know about it
until he gave the link to someone else. Unless I'm also expected to believe
that another Eschwan visits that site frequently enough to independently
find and post it in time to be relevant to an on-BBS discussion about that
very topic.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6621 (28 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:19 from Diabolical
Wow, that's really big of you, then. You probably must have pre-empted my
rampage by nearly 3 hours.
Which still leaves the fact that you did it in the first place so everyone
could see it, which they subsequently did. And you snarked about it in Weird
yourself.
So, that hardly paints much of a picture of altruism for your part. It pretty
much just paints the picture of you doing something really shitty, then
backpedaling when the heat started coming on.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6622 (27 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:22 from Zero Cool
No, that first part is basically true. Instead of having to grep multisites,
all the pics were put into one basket, and then Fuskered for easy viewing...as
opposed to like an index list that you'd end up clicking individual links to
see each picture.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6623 (26 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:25 from Zero Cool
Not hours. 12 minutes.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6624 (25 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:28 from Mary Moon
So how'd people get the link, then?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6625 (24 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:30 from Zero Cool
I posted it. But certainly not here, or on live journal...which is what you
and your sister are accusing me of.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6626 (23 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:32 from Ice Queen
Posting on another bbs with a largely mutual userbase is hardly a distinction.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6627 (22 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:35 from Mary Moon
And obviously you gave the link out, and someone obviously posted it on the
Livejournal. You compiled the pics, you uploaded them to a page, and you gave
out the link to people who knew it was me.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6629 (21 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:35 from Diabolical
for the purpose of humiliation and embarrassment, basically to "get back" at
so-called "I think I'm so hawt" behavior.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6630 (20 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:36 from Diabolical
You're just trying to split hairs as to how public the ridicule was, as if that
matters.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6631 (19 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:38 from Zero Cool
I didn't do it to 'get back'...that bit of wackyness you came up with on your
own as you sent the barrage of X's this morning, desperatly attempting to grasp
for an excuse why i would do something so morally fucked up.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6632 (18 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:40 from Diabolical
So does Black Hole> on Utopia mean anything to you? Maybe that's why Neurophyre
doesn't sound very sympathetic.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6633 (17 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:40 from Mary Moon
Which is, interestingly enough, how some of the pictures ended up on the
Internet in the first place.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6634 (16 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:41 from Diabolical
Since he's the one who put out a call for links.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6635 (15 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:41 from Zero Cool
i thought Black Hole> was an eschwan creation.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6636 (14 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:43 from Mary Moon
Don't try to play cute.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6637 (13 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:42 from Diabolical
So, let me get this straight: People were bagging on MM in Black Hole> on
Utopia. Neurophyre put out a call for images and links, which you then
gathered, hosted, made a page on fusker, then leaked to people on both BBSes
until someone finally spilled the beans by posting a comment on the LJ.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6638 (12 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:45 from Diabolical
Could that get more low?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6639 (11 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:45 from Diabolical
And I got that info earlier today from an apparent mutual luser. So don't
bother denying it.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6640 (10 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:45 from Zero Cool
first part - probably
second - i don't think so
third part - nope
everything else after that - i'm pretty sure that's right...tho i don't think i
ever posted the link here, tho i may have Mail> it to a female.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6641 (9 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:48 from Diabolical
Don't fucking lie. Someone just told me that's exactly what happened.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6642 (8 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:48 from Zero Cool
Well that's too bad cause they're fucking wrong.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6643 (7 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:49 from Diabolical
Sure, you didn't leak it. Because apparently everyone already knew about it.
Right? Nice hairsplitting.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6644 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:50 from Diabolical
The one who's wrong here is you. You're the one who hosted it and created the
fusker page.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6645 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:51 from Zero Cool
that is correct. i've been agreeing with that from the jump.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6646 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:51 from Mary Moon
Apparently at the request of other users who also happen to be on here.
Hey, cool. A conspiracy.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6647 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:52 from Zhym
This probably isn't what Zero Cool had in mind when he dreamed of being in the
middle of a two-on-one with twins.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6648 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:53 from Mary Moon
No, but he sure is fucked.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6649 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:53 from Neurophyre
I'm still way back after having gone out for dinner, but I wanted to clarify a
couple things:
Okay, let's get a couple things straight.
1. ZC didn't Google the majority of the pics. A user who shall remain
nameless and who I judge to be reliable and honest (and to have no reason
to lie about it) Googled them in "under ten minutes" was the phrase
I believe they used. The link got out on Utopia around the time of
the Peanut Butter Cup Debate.
This user did the Googling and link-pasting of their own accord, based
on things being discussed Utopia during discussion stemming from the
Peanut Butter Cup Debate and flaming of Heidi. I cannot go into any
further detail on the actual discussion as it would violate the rules of
Neutron Star>, Utopia's Black Hole> equivalent.
2. The pics weren't posted as 'revenge' for the Peanut Butter Flaming.
In fact, the majority were posted on the web in December 2004, presumably
NOT by any BBS user. It is my understanding that ZC mirrored them
because the format they were presented in was annoying, and Fusker was
convenient. I think all of you are damn well aware enough of ZC's habits
to know he could give a rat's ass about some flaming over peanut butter
cups, other than to post an amusing one-liner over it. He does, however,
like the titties.
The mirroring/Fuskering happened to coincide, a few days later to the
best of my memory, with the Peanut Butter Cup Debate because -people
were talking about Mary Moon and her tits during that time.- That is
the causal link.
3. The pics weren't brought up as "revenge" for anything as near as I can
tell. The Fusker existed for over a MONTH before it hit the eschwa
LJ community. The Fusker was linked only AFTER Mary Moon lied about
not getting naked on cam while bragging about all the l3wt she got for
it. That is the causal link that led to the linking of the Fusker,
and the greater eschwa community becoming aware of it.
You all are assigning actions and motives to Zero Cool that he simply didn't
do or possess. All he did was mirror the pics and Fusker them.
Of course, my assertions here are worth just as much as ZC's or Mary Moon's.
I could be lying, but I'm not. *shrug*
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6650 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 21:55 from Diabolical
What a load of bullshit. And apparently, you were named as one of the
ringleaders, so.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6651 (8 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:55 from Mary Moon
Hmm. Why would someone create a Fusker page about me, and pass the link
around, at the same time that I was ragging on someone in Diet>?
Just trying to get a closer look at my tattoo?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6652 (7 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:56 from Diabolical
And I'm sure it was all in good fun, right? All the better for making
inexplicable cam references in Weird>.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6653 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:57 from Mary Moon
And Diet>. And Current>. And Off>. And MSP>.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6654 (5 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 21:56 from Zero Cool
i think the boob discussion was kicked off because someone here was talkinga
bout how fake boobs look fake or soemthing, and it was brought to my attention
via links that her nipples, after surgery, ended up looking like Marty
Feldman's eyes...which i thought i made that joke on here, but perhaps that was
too obscure
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6655 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:59 from Mary Moon
That discussion was only a couple weeks ago, not a month ago.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6656 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 21:59 from Zero Cool
i don't really remember the tattoo, but that Alien Workshop thing you drew was
goddamn awesome.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6657 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:00 from Mary Moon
Yep, the boob discussion's still in the scroll in Off Topic>. December 2.
Nice try, though.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6658 (1 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 22:01 from Neurophyre
What the fuck is this "blog site spoofing" shit? I've never even HEARD of
that.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6659 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 22:02 from Mary Moon
Figure it out, Neuro, you're so smart. I'm sure you could find the information
on the Internet.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6660 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:03 from Diabolical
I bet you could google it in under 15 minutes, in fact.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6661 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:05 from Diabolical
So, neuro, what was your motivation for making a call for links in Black Hole>?
Was that not a deliberate attempt to humiliate someone, albeit behind their
back?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6662 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:06 from Diabolical
Is that your idea of Utopia? A nice safe place where people go slag on someone
like toxic third graders? Then spread the hate around on Livejournal, Fusker,
and here?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6663 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 22:11 from Neurophyre
"The ringleader." LOL. Hello self-parody.
1. It's Neutron Star>, not Black Hole>, and leaking is enjoined.
2. I regularly call for copies of deleted posts, links, and make "pics plz"
type posts, being as Star> tends to function as a clearinghouse for
BBS drama which I enjoy as it amuses me.
3. According to the rules of the forum, neither I nor anyone else who
participates there can discuss specifics of what is posted there outside
the room itself. If you'd like to discuss specifics, you'll have to
do it there if you want to discuss them with any rule-abiding users of the
room.
You'll need to create a user account to read the room as I made code changes
to deny access to Guest and unvalidated users after abuses by W-bbly. For
fast track validation, create your account and then Mail> me the username on
here.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6664 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 22:25 from Platypus
I haven't been on Utopia for well over a year now (Neuro first site banned me,
then changed the password on my account, which was actually a good thing, since
I have no self control), but I can say Neuro pulls shit like this on all sorts
of users all the time. Utopia pretty much only exists to rag on Eschwa users.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6665 (7 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:27 from Platypus
(not that I'm saying what happened is right or good or whatever, just that he
does that kind of stuff all the time. And I can see ZC compiling everything
out of fun and enjoyment, not out of malice. Cause he strikes me as the
collector type.)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6666 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:27 from Diabolical
Well, there you go, another independent voice. That makes 3.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6667 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:28 from Mary Moon
I'd just like to say that Platypus got post #6666, which makes her super-evil!
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6668 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:29 from Mary Moon
Compiling is one thing. Uploading to a page and distributing the link is
another.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6669 (3 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 22:29 from Diabolical
Except he let his compilation be used maliciously by other people on this site,
which makes it inexcusable.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6670 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:25 from Mela (Sysop)
I'm making official policy here. If you don't bother to pay attention to it and
you are bitten on the ass, I'm sorry. You should have read it in the first
place:
I don't think that wearing a short skirt in a dark alley means you're asking to
be taken advantage of, and I don't think because someone has something online
that can embarrass them means they should be embarrassed.
Harassment on and off this BBS will not be tolerated. If I can be convinced
that you have harassed someone, you will no longer have write access to this
BBS for as long as I deem necessary.
I am not going to ex-post-facto ZC and twit him for this (as it isn't entirely
clear to me anyway that he was the guy who orchestrated the harassment), but I
am quite serious that this tit-for-tat bullshit is not acceptable now, or ever.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6671 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:35 from Mary Moon
Well, at least it's not acceptable. Nothing happens to you if you do it,
but at least it's not acceptable. I'd really like to see something more done,
such as the twittal of the people responsible for orchestrating the deal.
At the very least, a fucking apology. Preferably public.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6672 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 22:39 from Thufir
"Harassment on and off this BBS will not be tolerated. If I can be convinced
that you have harassed someone, you will no longer have write access to this
BBS for as long as I deem necessary."
Nothing, eh? k.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6673 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:40 from Mary Moon
Zero Cool, by his own admission, uploaded the pics to the page for public
consumption. Is he getting twitted? No. There was plenty of posting in Weird>
about the shit. Who posted it? What do they get, a KO from Weird>? Wow, hope
that three days goes by fast. At least they have 159 other forums to read.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6674 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:39 from Neurophyre
I'll redo the analysis if I have to, but the fact remains that Utopia does not
exist "only to rag on eschwa users," he said tiredly. The last time I bothered
to check, Star>, the only room in which ragging on ANYONE is allowed (and this
is enforced unlike on here) comprised under 5% of the traffic in the top ten or
so rooms.
We mostly talk about food, followed by entertainment. But mostly food.
Sometimes work. Surprise, it's a fucking normal BBS.
As for the claims of 'orchestrated harassment,' bullshit. Nothing was
orchestrated. A chain of events occurred which led to the posting of nude pix
of Mary Moon at a particularly inopportune time for her. People can try to be
all Fox News and frame the debate all day long, but the fact remains, there was
no "orchestrated harassment."
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6675 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 22:43 from Thufir
Yeah, nothing's happening now, because, I think, it was decided to not twit
someone for a rule that wasn't in place yet. Now it is. If you think getting
a rule made on your behalf is doing nothing, I don't, as usual, know what to
say.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6676 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 22:53 from Mary Moon
Yeah, I'm sure I'll keep that in mind for next time.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6677 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 22:54 from Mary Moon
Because it shouldn't really take an occurrence like this for people to think,
"Hmm, perhaps this is bad. Maybe we should make a rule against this. Then
we'll have a reason to punish them, due to the rule." This BBS is so fucking
selectively amnesiac when it comes to basic rules of society that I can hardly
believe that Darwinism ever became an accepted scientific theory. This is
the same kind of thinking that makes people think it's okay to watch porn
on a fucking plane and that eating healthy is tantamount to having an eating
disorder. YOU PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW TO FUCKING ACT IN PUBLIC. The end.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6678 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:58 from Platypus
Well, Mary Moon, this is the first time you cared about this kind of crap, so
maybe it takes it happening to folks in order to "get it". *shrug*
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6679 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 22:58 from Thufir
Yeah, OK, I don't mean to rebound it back on you, but you are not really one to
be lecturing anyone here on those kinds of behaviors either. Letting your
buddies post Xlogs of how you think most eschwans are dogs? Taking users to
task for eating peanut butter cups? This incident has sucked, but you have
done as much or more as anyone else to bring upon Eschwa a culture of rudeness
and indecorum. Hopefully, it won't happen again, and you can do your damn part
to ensure it doesn't.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6680 (1 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 22:59 from Mary Moon
I always cared about it. But what, exactly, should I have done about it?
Said, "Stop talking about me!"? Would that have stopped anyone? No, they
just would've run off to whatever Super-Sekrit Room they created to talk
and smirk about it there, making sure the targeted party never saw
anything more than vague, snarky references on this BBS that grazed the
line of topicality without ever quite crossing over. It's the same shit
people've been doing for the last fifteen goddamn years. Did anyone
actually think they were being so clever that nobody else got the
reference? Do you think I have a two-minute memory span, or what? Do you
think I'm just so out of the loop that I just didn't ever get it until
now? Do you think nobody knows about your little secret rooms but you?
A three-year-old could figure it out.
My not responding to it is me not being a fucking toddler, not me failing
to get the reference. Just so we're clear on that. The re-emergence of the
topic on a regular basis is other people being fucking toddlers, not me.
I have the nuts to confront people, a characteristic of which people are
undoubtedly vastly familiar. I don't need a secret room and a campaign to
do it.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6681 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 23:11 from Neurophyre
What sekrit room?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6682 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 23:11 from Platypus
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about all the other folks this has
happened to, but its suddenly a federal case when it involves you.
Which is my ranty rant. over and over again, people do mean things to other
people. most people don't care. Until it happens to them, and suddenly, its
like "oh mah gawd, this is awful".
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6683 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 23:12 from Mary Moon
Well, this thread existed for 200 entire posts before I joined in. Clearly
I'm not the only one who expressed concern about the incident and the kind
of precedent it sets for minimum user accountability. I'm a user on this BBS
too, and there's no reason why I have to put up with bullshit like this.
I take as much shit about my personal life as anyone on this board, and this
is the first time in all the time I've been on there that I've complained,
and that about an especially egregious orchestration of harassment.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6684 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 23:15 from Thufir
And you got a result from the sysop saying, No, we didn't have a rule like this
before, so we're going to make one because of you.
We've already established that the "you don't know how to act in real life"
applies to you as much as it does to anyone else. Or would you allow Mr. Beale
to post a transcript of your private conversation slagging your co-workers as
dogs on the office bulletin board? Office email list? Yeah, OK. We all act
like shitheads online. ZC stepped over the line, to the point where we had to
make a rule about it. And that's where we are now. Ex-post-facto justice,
however, isn't justice at all. There's a reason that isn't allowed in the US.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6685 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 16, 2005 23:19 from Mary Moon
The part about not knowing how to act in public is the fact that we
actually had to have a rule in place about not harassing users online.
After 15 years of BBSing, most of it on ISCA, which had a very clear
anti-harassment policy. And the fact that the apparent orchestration
of this crap took place on a BBS with no such policy is indicative that
people knew it wasn't acceptable behavior here. So they did it where it
was acceptable behavior. You can spare me the platitude about how I'm
just as bad and how everyone does it, because the simple fact of the
matter is that I don't go somewhere and gather shit about people and post
it somewhere and then send people the link so we can all laugh at folks
behind their backs. Everyone knows that if I feel particular scorn toward
a person, I do it to their face, which isn't exactly *better*, but I'm
certainly not doing all this clandestine shit. All assholes are equal, but
some assholes are more equal than others.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6686 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 16, 2005 23:25 from Mary Moon
And, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people on here don't take part
in that kind of crap. I also feel fairly confident that we all know the
users who do, too.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6687 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 17, 2005 0:00 from Morgana
Not to break up the whatever-fest here, but would this new policy also cover
things of the non-humiliation (or whatever happened with MM) type? (I.. can't
keep up with y'all this time. Sorry.)
For instance, would the following things that have been Issues here before be
considered harassment and thus ass kicking:
1. Threatening to call the cops on another user
2. Googling, researching, whatever to dig up dirt on the life of a user's
friends or family (ie, does it still apply if it's not an actual user)
3. Using BBS information to email, snail mail or otherwise pester users
offline
And whatever other various shitstorms past I have forgotten, just some
examples. Is this other stuff also no longer going to be tolerated,
punishable by twitting and so on and so forth, or just actual posted-on-BBS
crimes against actual BBS users?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6688 (32 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 0:13 from Vylar
The warnings and KOs in Weird> were in accordance with the forum info. If
you'd like to talk more about what happened there, feel free to Mail> me about
it. Or you can post here, if you feel that the entire community needs to hear
about it.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6689 (31 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 0:13 from Mela
I think those all count as harassment.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6690 (30 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 0:19 from Platypus
I think if those all apply, then taking posts (or information from posts) to
another bbs or forum (lj, for example) for the purpose of mocking/humliation
should count as well.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6691 (29 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 0:21 from Morgana
So basically, a gag order on the entire BBS unless it's nicey-nice?
I mean, say I make an argument in a forum, and someone violently disagrees with
me. They are irritated, and because the topic has passed or been called off
by the mod, they take it to their LJ to post how stupid my argument was, and
all the many reasons why I'm wrong or whatnot. I then feel embarrassed
because my point was ripped to shreds and it makes me look stupid.
The user's express purpose in taking it off-BBS was to rip my post. This
caused me embarrassment (and I would probably feel that way, were it to happen
for real) because I now look like a tool. This person should be twitted?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6692 (28 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 0:29 from Morgana
(I mean, in all honesty, it sounds like what you'd propose is "no talking about
anything from any post on the BBS anywhere, unless you're only planning to be
nice." So... yeah. ? )
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6693 (27 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 0:29 from Platypus
Well, that seems to be where we are going.
Because, honestly, if the rules are don't google folks, ect, ect, then it
really ought to go as far as don't take crap off the bbs to make fun of folks.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6694 (26 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 0:34 from Vylar
That's where Mela uses her judgment. I, for one, trust her to use common sense
in deciding what's acceptable and what's harassment.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6695 (25 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 0:33 from Morgana
I don't know, it seems to me that there's a line in between there somewhere,
between someone intentionally going out of their way, making an EFFORT, to find
information about a user to humiliate them, get them in trouble or harass them
offline... and a bunch of schoolyard crap. I mean, if you're not allowed to
say anything mean about anyone anywhere OFF the BBS, why should it be allowed
ON the BBS? It'd certainly be easier for Mela to police, if nothing else.
(Not, of course, that it is my place to determine where said line might be.
Just that I think somewhere in there, one exists.)
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6696 (24 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 1:11 from War Boy
Actually, Neutron> over on Utopia usually has topics on everything. Its
actually interesting how posts mutate in there.
And I'm over there all of the time, and to my recollection, I've never posted
anything there about anyone that I wouldn't post here. The joint is hardly
strictly to jab that Eschwa users. You can do that here just fine.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6697 (23 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 0:49 from Monkey
Whoa. Damn.
There is a serious gap between some of the threats discussed here today
(reporting someone as a terrorist, reporting someone for drug abuse, reporting
someone to child protective services) and the kind of wanky shit people engage
themselves in from one BBS to another. This should be easy to see. If someone
runs on over to another BBS and posts, "Monkey is such a fucking assmaster.
That dipshit stoner bitch. She hates America and children and apple pies." this
statement will not hurt me at all. It's someone's opinion. Some of it is true,
but statements can be disregarded. It's much harder to disregard Homeland
Security on your doorstep, or the police, or DHS taking your children away
right before your eyes. By the way, I like apple pie.
I do not think it is harassment to dig up information on people when what you
dig up is public information. Court records are a good example. You can check
mine out. I'm a speeder, but I haven't been caught in a speed trap for a good
long time. I got a divorce. That's about what you'll learn and this isn't the
end of the world. If something worse is in your public records/information then
the BBS is probably the best of all bad places for that shit to land. The BBS
is likely not going to employ you anytime soon.
And this is where I have trouble drawing the line. If someone had sent MM's
nude photos to her workplace, her grandparents, her bank, or something like
that I'd say that's clearcut harassment. No one did that so far as I know. The
photos were passed around between people online, many who had already seen
them. The photos were passed around between people in a format made easy by ZC,
but since when did difficulty level make people stop looking at things they
want to see. He didn't make it that much easier. They were floating around
online already for years now. It's pretty easy to think photos like that are
quite public when they're right out there and then treat them as such.
What if I made a ton of porn under the name Shelly Tyler and spread it all over
the internet? Then what if ZC took an interest in my boobies and collected the
whole works and posted it here, exposing me as totally not Shelly Tyler, but
instead just me. I'd call the damage minimal. Online folks see flocks and
bunches of online booty. I'd draw the line at the point where it went beyond
the BBS and live journal, etc. If someone sent something like that to say, my
grandfather or an employer then I'd put a stop to it in a way I am no longer
allowed to detail here.
I have such awful cramps. I wish I could sleep. I hope any of that made sense.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6698 (22 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 1:40 from Neurophyre
post 6699
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6699 (21 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 5:26 from Zero Cool
Ok, I'm not excited where this is headed...the "what happens in vegas, stays in
vegas" kind of post restriction. "Black Hole"> has that rule about it's
content...that users cannot take posts made in there and post them elsewhere,
as well as that you discuss what's been posted AND you can't even go to someone
and X/Mail> them with a "oh, oh....you should go see what they are saying about
you in there" kinda of shit.
So to clear some shit up, and to prevent either Diabolical or Mary Moon from
making a public post/Mail>/X to someone that contains "I know you did it" and
still be _completely_ fucking wrong, i need to talk about some events from
"black Hole">...tho i hope Neurophyre can see past the strictness of the rules
he set up, and allow me to stay...because if MM is going to Mail me shit like
"thanks for keeping your address public" or post publically something to the
effect of "now I know ZC's boss's home address" and make even a thinly veiled
threat to me, you better do it for the right reasons. But seeing as how your
mind was madeup from the jump, this is really so the rest of the class is
brought up to speed so if they continue to agree/disagree with what i did they
can at least be fully informed about doing so. One thing you guys love in your
arguments is being annoying precise about content.
Figure as far back as you can remember the first time Mary Moon went into a
frenzy about eating habits in Diet>. I think this really got started during
the "counting Carbs" issue. I don't read every post i miss out on unless it
interests me, so i've skipped a lot of posts in there, so my timeline may be
off, this could have started even before then. so what...that was in like the
begining of Nov...or a little after. In Black Hole> ( and i'm using this term
since that's how it keeps getting mentioned in this thread ) it was brought to
the attention that Mary Moon had a past that involved pictures, and that there
was probably still copies of them in the ether. Proof was asked for by some of
the subscribers of the room. proof was obtained and provided by the user that
brought it to our attention in the form of 6 or so seperate links. Because I
felt this was a terrible waste of time to have to go through each site to see
a picture, or to click a link to click a link to click a link to see a pictures
i opened each site in it's own tab, then went through and added each picture to
it's own tab, then right-click save as the original file name. i did this for
all...i think it was 249 pictures. Now to be clear, i didn't have 249 tabs
opened at once...but you get the idea of how i culled the dataset. After that
I needed to change the filename to something more linear, since they were a
mass of characters and dashes and whathave you....so i went through and
individually numbered them 01-249...by the end i was too lazy to make it
correctly 001-249 so they would show in numbered order, but by this time i was
probably already 2 hours into the process.
to think in this time span that everyone waited patiently for me to come back
and provide the link to the Fusker to see the pictures, as opposed to following
the links already proided to them is goddamn fucking ridiculous.
With the pictures renamed, i went on to make a subdomain. this process took an
hour by itself becuase at the time i didn't know i could make a subdomain, let
alone what the fuck one was ( thanks to the collection of FAQ's on Dreamhost).
But lets just pretend it only took 35 seconds just to placate any objection
Mary Moon or her sister have at my competence in web hosts and hosting in
general. Once the subdomain was created, the files were uploaded, and then I
used Fusker to mirror them in a viewable form so that all one had to do was
visit that Fusker link instead of the 6 links individually. I returned back to
Black Hole> and provided the link.
This posting was on, to my very best recollection, on Nov 14th. So....now
those users that subscribe to Black Hole> had one link to use instead of six.
Flash forward to the last 36 hours, and the link was posted on the live
journal. This is where i'm fuzzy on the rules of Black Hole> because i figured
because i made the post of the link in there, it couldn't be posted
elsewhere...but i think because the pictures were already available in an
inconvient form ( 6 seperate links ), using my version was ok. The last post i
saw on live journal was one of the readers commenting that the post made
wasn't a limerick.
I log in, have a Mail> from Mary Moon, and then I X GoNINzo that i see now the
thread was removed from the live journal. He tells me, basically, Mary Moon
asked for it to be removed. I check to see if the Fusker is still alive. It
isn't, so i delete the photos from my host. i get 12 minutes of peace and
harmony, and then Diabolical X's me a storm.
jesus...this turned into a 'too long; didn't read'...but I wanted try and make
clear what it was i've done and why it was done instead of watching people try
to explain it for me.
Mary Moon, I did not expect that link to be used in the way it was used...to be
posted on eschwa or live journal. I've learned from the X's from your sister
and by you that the history of the pictures is long and trust was broken, and
that you have had problems with users stalking or otherwise making your life
and probably your sister's life less than stellar. I can see from your point
of view how what i did smacks some semblace of that kind of malicious
behaviour, however that was not my intent. Trying to humiliate you was not my
intent. Trying to "get back," trying to one-up, trying to do anything you've
convinced yourself of was not my intent. My intent was to make the Fusker.
And as i've said before, since the fusker is gone, so are the pictures i had.
If i were trying to be malicious, i would still make them avaialable. Or i
would have posted them on this bbs back when i made them, or made a live
journal account and added them as a thread. But no...i posted them in the
"super seekrit room," where prior links already existed.
I am sorry, Mary Moon, that the link was used on live journal, and if it was
posted on eschwa, i'm sorry it was posted over here as well. I'm sorry that my
actions have you now thinking diffferently about the entire userbase, or at
very least thinking differently about any other users besides me. And I'm
sorry to Diabolical for any backlash she got because of those postings, and if
you got a KO from Weird> because you were upset with me. And finally I would
like to apologize to the userbase for having to sit through this post...or to
have to at least <s>kip it.
you can go about posting your clever tl;dr thingie now.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6700 (20 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 7:30 from Mary Moon
Okay. Someone asked for links to my pictures because of what I said in Diet>.
Zero Cool collected all the images, hosted them on his host, uploaded them to a
webpage, and posted the link in Black Hole>.
How is this not malicious?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6701 (19 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 8:04 from Livy
I think Mela's policy is a good one. These things have been brewing under the
surface for years. And I can quite clearly tell you that I am still pissed off
at what happened to Slit, even though I don't know her, because I quite clearly
expect more from you people than that.
I think we can have a clear sense of right and wrong, and should not try to
turn this into some sort of legalism (a set of rules divorced from intent). The
rule at it's heart should be "don't do stupid shit that hurts other people or
causes them problems in the real world."
If you do, you're perma-twitted.
Quite frankly, this is the very kind of thing that would run me off the board
for good, and many others as well.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6702 (18 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 8:22 from Diabolical
Basically, what we have here is a combination of users on both boards who
either have absolutely no moral compass, or have absolutely no sense of
decency. It's pretty obvious which are which.
All in all, I didn't really have high expectations of a lot of people on this
board, but this really takes the cake. You people that were involved in this
are some kind of low class, I'll say that much. You're just...miserable. You
must be, to orchestrate something that's obviously premeditated. Just for what?
So you can snark at someone on a Forum, because you didn't like what they said
in another forum?
"Get a life" doesn't even cut it. Get professional fucking help. Or put a gun
in your mouth and put everyone else out of your loathsome misery.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6703 (17 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 8:29 from Zero Cool
Even after my long ass post, Mary Moon, you are still getting it wrong. Are
you purposefully trying to be obtuse? I can't wrap my head around it. It's as
if you read every other line. Let me fix your post for you:
Okay. Someone asked for links to my pictures because of what I said in Diet>.
Someone collected several links and posted them in Black Hole>. Zero Cool
visited all the images, copied them, renamed them, hosted them on his host,
uploaded them to a webpage, and posted the link in Black Hole>.
There's a reason why i am being specific about what i've done. To read the
incident from you, it has me spending time doing research i didn't do.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6704 (16 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 8:44 from Mary Moon
And how is what you did not malicious?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6705 (15 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 8:46 from Zero Cool
I guess it's matter of opinion. I don't think what i did was malicious because
the links were already to be had by the room, so what was the big deal in
collating them. I guess also maliciousness can be branded based on intent.
had my intent been to spread the link in areas other than Black Hole> that
would certainly be beyond malicious.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6706 (14 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 8:54 from Ad Astra
Jesus, dude apologized. Can we move on, now?
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6707 (13 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 8:53 from Mary Moon
So, publishing the pictures and then posting the link where people would see
it *isn't* malicious, in your mind? Because it was only in one area, not
in others? That's the explanation I'm supposed to buy?
The whole fucking activity was malicious. You did it (you, personally, and
you, the people collectively involved) in order to exact revenge for what
I said in Diet>. You, Zero Cool, were the single largest organizer of the
event in question. By your own admission.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6708 (12 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 8:56 from Zero Cool
Because it was in an area where links to the same pictures already
existed...yes. And i don't think there was any bit about exacting
revenge..again this part you're adding on your own.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6709 (11 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 9:25 from Morgana
Mary Moon and/or Diabolical: not that I am not in agreement with your points,
but I honestly want to know why you (either of you) are still arguing this
here. Mela has read the content, weighed in with a new policy that will
punish, arguably to the maximum of her authority, anyone who does something
like this again. Since the rule was not in place when this happened, it can't
be retro-applied but basically, she's put her foot down in a big way, on your
side of the fence. What are you wishing to accomplish or prove further that
hasn't already been done or said?
[This post is entirely SnarkFree(tm).]
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6710 (10 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 9:33 from Ptolemy
Vilify ain't just a town in Spain.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6711 (9 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 9:36 from Scalar
The whole problem here is that there seems to have been evidence floating
around on the 'net that could be used to directly counter claims and statements
that Mary Moon was making about herself, while she was attacking people in
Diet> for doing the very things that the evidence blatantly shows she herself
was guilty of doing.
As an apparant exhibitionist, the photos themselves aren't embarrassing or
she'd have never have done such a blatantly voyeuristic activity in the first
place.
Basically, if you are going to go on the attack and rail against other people
for doing something which you yourself have been guilty of doing in the past,
you'd better make damn sure there's no evidence of your past actions floating
'round on the 'net that can be used to "out" you and make you look like the
fraud you really are.
This is all being piled on ZC for being one of the ones that helped organize
that evidence, but it really comes back to MM for being naive about how
accessible that evidence is on the 'net. Don't go attacking others if you've
got ammo against you that can be easily found and used to shoot your argument
out of the sky.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6713 (8 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 9:44 from Mary Moon
I'm not naive at all. This is about the dozenth time that people have done
this, on one BBS or another, because someone invariably makes a remark about
it where I can see it, or asks me about it. I know perfectly well that the
information is out there and that I'm powerless to call it back, and that
some people are jackasses enough to bring it up to the attention of others
for no other reason than just to do it. Believe me, I know it better than
anyone else on this board. However, I'm not going to live my life in a
fucking bubble of silence because people are assholes, and I'm not going
to treat anyone differently from the way they treat me.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6714 (7 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 9:49 from Diabolical
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Tell us another bedtime story, Scalar.
what "evidence" refutes claims that MM made in Diet>? The argument in question
was about carb counting and nutrition. What exactly does posting a bunch of
pics do to "refute" that?
And since when is making a post in a forum justifiable grounds for uploading
someone's pics to fusker without their permission?
I'm sure that you, Neurophyre, and Zero Cool could post chapters and chapters
to obfuscate the issue, which is that Neurophyre and Zero Cool, amongst others,
decided to rally together and gather up and post a bunch of pics about someone
in retaliation for some supposed inconsistency in a post.
Yes, because we all know the inherent honor that lies in omissions and topical
posting. Fie on he or she that dare not own up to their own behavior of several
years ago.
It's obvious what you guys did. And it's repugnant, and you showed a pretty low
demonstration of moral standard. Vilify? You *should be vilified.* There's
just no reasonable justification for what you guys did, sorry. Not in the real
world.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6715 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 10:02 from Neurophyre
Way to continue FOX NEWSing it, but k.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6716 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 10:00 from Scalar
I've not seen the photos, and I'd no idea any of this shitstorm was going on
until Bitch> started scrolling 400+ posts in a day. While I'm not "one of them"
as you want to categorize me, it's pretty clear from reading thru all this
blather that you brought this on yourself.
You can dish it out but can't take it when it gets thrown back in your face.
From all the past shitstorms on here, it's clear that Mary Moon is very good at
dishing it out.
It shouldn't be a suprise that there's a certain rumbling collective interested
in taking her down a notch, even if to just do it privately as was the original
intent (apparantly).
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6717 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 10:05 from Diabolical
Hey, you've only spent the last MONTH at it. Don't you want the recognition for
your dastardly deed? I mean, I'm sure you felt really brilliant at the time.
Isn't it as fun in the cold light of day, when it's revealed how much of a
pathetic, spiteful asswipe you really are?
Go cry about it in Neutron Star>, then. Maybe you can find someone else to
pick on and make your dick feel a little bigger again.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6719 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 10:08 from Scalar
It's that straw we've been talking about with the BBS, but yeah it's just
ANOTHER one of your arguments which just pisses off certain people a bit just
like all the other little arguments all over the place. This time the camel
knew where to find pictures.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6720 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 10:12 from Mary Moon
Oh, and that justifies it.
Well, as long as that's the way it is. I consider myself fully forewarned and,
thus, forearmed.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6721 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 10:19 from Neurophyre
Yeah, I sure was working hard posting constantly about it in Star> for a whole
month. :'D
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6722 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 17, 2005 10:25 from Diabolical
It does look pretty pathetic, doesn't it. Well, if the bra fits.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6723 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 10:27 from Sproing
I'd think revenge and retribution would get boring after a while.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6724 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 10:28 from Scalar
Are you kidding? It's been a hobby of some societies for centuries.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6725 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 10:33 from Sproing
Heh. It'd get boring for me. I'm not a very creative plotter.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6726 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 11:43 from Samurai
"To refrain from imitation is the best revenge." -- Marcus Aurelius
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6727 (2 remaining)] Read cmd ->
Dec 17, 2005 12:22 from Scalar
"To add your two cents is to just stir the pot." - Scalar
I've deleted my two cents. I'd rather see peace return to the BBS.
_._
.' '.
/ \ ___
_.. _.--. | / |.' `'.
;-._ .' `\ .' `\ \| / \
.' `\/ ; / _ \.=..=./ _.' /
| `\.---._| '. .-'-.}`.<>.`{-'-. /
.--; . ( .' '. \ .---.{ <>()<> }.--..-'
/ _ \_ './ _. `-./ _},'<>`.{_ `\
( = \ )`""'\;--. / .-'/ )=..=;`\`- \
{= (| ) /`. / / /| \ )
( =_/ )__..-\ .'-..___.' : '.___..-'
\ }/ / ;.____.-;/\ | ` |
'--' | .' | \ \ /'. _.'
\ ' / |\.\ ; /`--.-'
) .'`-. / \ \ |`|
/__.-' \_.'jgs \ \ |-|
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6728 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
Dec 17, 2005 12:33 from Mary Moon
Someone should make an ASCII picture of two cents.
[Bitch About BBS Policy Here> msg #6729 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
The Beginnings 2007
After the creation of the Mary Moon page, it took some time for lulz to begin brewing. Eventually Mary Moon was selected for the ED frontpage. At this time the instigators of the lulz decided that the time for patient waiting for the lulz was over.
Despite numerous bannings from the eSchwa BBS by the local jackbooted thug, Mela, perpetrators of the lulz managed to get in and drop links to the ED front page. The postings only managed to stay up for about 10 minutes; luckily, this was over lunch hour at the 9-5 jobs that the yuppie scum populous as a majority hold.
With lightning speed, Mela dropped the hammer, banning new users that were not identified up to her standards or verified by other users. You can help change this policy by immediately telnetting to [1] and creating as many new accounts as possible from as many different IPs as possible.
At this point in time the lulz are still brewing on both eSchwa and Utopia, dammit! BBS. This is a present log of the only recorded and since modified history of the lulz:
*********** Janine is/was pretty hot. Isn't she in legally blonde? [Weird Walks Into A Base Base Base> msg #76717 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next *********** Jul 26, 2007 11:13 from Naughti Boi www.encyclopediadramatica.com [Weird Walks Into A Base Base Base> msg #76718 (0 remaining)] Read cmd -> *********** [[Do Not Want]] [Weird Walks Into A Base Base Base> msg #76719 (0 remaining)] Read cmd -> *********** Who dat? [Weird Walks Into A Base Base Base> msg #76722 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next *********** Fuck. [Weird Walks Into A Base Base Base> msg #76723 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next *********** Fuck who? [Weird Walks Into A Base Base Base> msg #76724 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next *********** No wai. I have an outtie. [Weird Walks Into A Base Base Base> msg #76726 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next *********** I'm not? [Weird Walks Into A Base Base Base> msg #76727 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next *********** You still have two innies then. Bend over 90 degrees. Open wide at both ends. [Weird Walks Into A Base Base Base> msg #76728 (0 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next
...and from the next room...
-anonymous- I'd call whatever he wanted. [Secret Confessions> msg #19059 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next -anonymous- Jul 26, 2007 11:13 from Delvin Hemstein front page of www.encyclopediadramatica.com is making me drool with thoughts of cunnilingus. any takers? [Secret Confessions> msg #19060 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->
As you can see, no more drama came from Secret>. Approximately 5 minutes after history was modified by Mela to support the alleged victor of this issue, the following message was posted in the main room of her Citadel:
Jul 26, 2007 11:40 from Mela (Forum Moderator) Here's the deal. We love new people, right? Right? Due to recent trollitude and asshattery, I'm going to institute a referral system here. If you refer someone here, please Y>ell to me their handle/name and I'll make sure that they're validated quickly. I'll contact those without referrals to tell me where they found Eschwa. It's far from foolproof, but it will hopefully quell some of that garbage. And if you're just here to stir up trouble, we'd be mightily obliged to see you on your way. Yep, my definition of trouble may be arbitrary and totally unfair in your eyes, but I believe that this BBS will not survive without these drastic measures. Thanks, and feel free to pillory my decision (or make a reasoned argument to change my mind, even) in Bitch>. [Tranquility Base> msg #215
...to be continued
