Anya ,'Get It Done'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Sorry don't want to go back and edit that in the thick of it, but what I should have said is:
until he does something actionable in his new incarnation--and you can't prove the guy in the moustache is the same guy--you don't have a legal leg to stand on
I think that's ambiguous.
Until he does something actionable in the new incarnation, or we prove he's the same guy, we can't do anything.
One or the other is enough.
if he said he wasn't, would you say, "Oh, sorry for the accusation"?
First I would say "there are so many coincidental similarities between the two of you, you know that's going to be hard for a lot of people to believe, right?".
One or the other is enough.
Yes.
What Connie said. And, also, how do you prove it unless he admits it?
I think that's ambiguous.
I was going on your premise of calling the cops on some guy in a moustache. If you did call the cops and accused an innocent man of being a harrasser, you've got the grounds for a lawsuit.
Our current situation is unprovable either way. We have only our individual words that we any of us are who we are--except for those cabals of people who *say* they've met each other. Oh, and some pictures. I may be mieskie, for all you know, running a clever split personality. We're going to have to trust each other eventually.
First I would say "there are so many coincidental similarities between the two of you, you know that's going to be hard for a lot of people to believe, right?".
John, it sounds like your mind is pretty made up. How is anyone supposed to answer that? If you have evidence about it from the email, I would like to know what that is.
If he is mieskie, he's trying to play by our rules, which means the suspension worked. If he's not, he's done nothing actionable.
May I just say that if someone were talking in Bureaucracy about a private email I'd sent them without my explicit permission, unless it were a suicide note or a death threat*, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off about it.
That's just beyond inappropriate.
[*I'd be pissed off in those two cases too, but as a third party, I'd agree that they warrant public inquiry.]
John said he wasn't going to, Jess.
Can. We. Drop. This?
PLEASE?
First I would say "there are so many coincidental similarities between the two of you, you know that's going to be hard for a lot of people to believe, right?".
And if he says, "Can't help that, it's still not me"?