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"?

Seconding Steph. This is getting a bit out of hand.

Jesse, I agree. I asked because ISTM that if the email had convinced John they weren't the same person, he wouldn't be in here posting about it. And if it tipped him the other way, I'd like to know why, since why mention it otherwise.

But that may just be me.

Edit: Massively X-posted. I agree we should drop this.

I was going on your premise of calling the cops on some guy in a moustache.

And I used the idea of the fake moustache as an example of an ineffective and easily-seen-through disguise.

In this case the previous guy talked often about playing Yahoo online Canasta. It's pretty obscure. I don't think any other poster has ever mentioned playing Canasta in all the years I've been a Buffista. But it's not just Canasta, it's Yahoo online Canasta.

So now the guy in the fake moustache is coming by my house and quietly humming the same song he used to play on the boombox when he woke me up in the middle of the night. And it's not a well-known song. It really starts to look not only like it's the same guy, but that he's taunting us with "clues" that he's the same guy.

Just because someone can lie, doesn't mean you don't ask the question. In civil proceedings a fact-finder may draw a negative inference from a refusal to testify. If a poster ignores a stompy foot's legitimate inquiry, it's suspicious no matter who the individual might be. In the context of the eerie winking neighbor, if the cops come and he refuses to identify himself or cooperate with the officer he will be arrested.