In your post to Cindy, you said:
> In #reply-8809731 you accuse Janice of being a 'stalker' <
with the absolute implication that stalking is wrong and that if Janice is a stalker, Cindy should prove it.
You also said:
> If there are 'lurkers' who disagree with the majority, let them speak up. <
Well, here it is, (additional) proof that Janice does indeed do that. And, by the way, she is not alone in doing so, as anyone who spends time on SI knows well. Do you think GNET's lawyers would be interested in the fact that only certain posters are frequently allowed to violate their own SI's terms of use?
Message 9188570
Just the other day, I had a real and serious question which I posted somewhere and, lo and behold, here came Janice just a runnin' with a dig at the ready. Do you think she was lurking on that thread or has me bookmarked or was "alerted" by someone? Which do you think it was?
Personal bias or the lack of it is NOT the issue, although that is used as a "defense" or reason in rationalizing statements made that group (Janice et al) doesn't like or agree with. And the profile(s) that is/are relevant to whether or not Janice or anyone else actually did or does stalk is theirs.
It is also known, in addition to their stalking, that they 1) do perform excellent dd and 2) have ferreted out some scams. It's a shame though that it all goes hand in hand with them. Especially since the latter two don't require or depend on the stalking as practiced by them.
This case with the Business Wire suit will be extremely interesting to follow and see how it turns out. I happen to agree that the fact that BW has chosen this particular sham to single out is curious. What is the consensus on "parody" as a defense? Most seem to think it's a viable defense, although one attorney already has publicly stated his opinion that it's not.
Whatever happens, this is an important case and will be watched with great interest. |
