It is wrong to follow them in to 3d- and breach their PRIVACY.
X, X, X. You ignored the question! The TOU to which I referred were not "X's Special Personal TOU's"! They were SI's.
In the post to which I responded, you objected, on the grounds that it was a violation to do so, to a number of explicit behaviors. Now you seem to be saying that "following a person to 3D" is the ONLY one that you recognize as a violation of the TOU.
Again:
Do tell me what your current position is on whether it is a violation of the TOU to Harass, offend, threaten, embarrass, distress or post inappropriately, improperly or falsely to a fellow SI member. --
or do you NOW, you changeable gal, you, believe that none are violations of the TOU except the 3D part?
That would be weeeird.
And X! You will recall, I having reminded you previously, that you threatened, when I sent you a couple of upset but entirely non-threatening emails you didn't want (oh the horror, and how many times have I apologized for that great harm), to go 3D in my case? The fact that you threatened to go to 3D in retaliation for a couple of annoying emails has not been disputed. Only the nature of the threat has been.
Whatever people do on SI, that SI allows, is fair game.
WAIT! THAT'S NEW!
So now your position is that the TOU as posted on SI are moot, to you!
That if SI does, at first, NOT allow someone to harass, behave improperly, threaten privacy-violation, embarrass, offend, harm, distress, etc, another poster because doing so clearly violates the explicit TOU
and then
the harassing, threatening, improper, offensive poster
who is a
litigious lawyer
threatens to sue SI
following which threat, SI tells the victim
they
HAD TO
lift the prohibition against the TOU-violating posts
yes, "had to,"
following the threat by the harassing attorney of a lawsuit....
Then
Now,
as before,
you believe
the victim "is fair game."
?....!
I love it that it's all so clear. Your use of the phrase "fair game" is perfect.
P.S.
It is a lie that I have ever lied about you. If I posted an error, correct me and I will retract it. (But in seconds, I can produce a self-serving lie you told about your opponents in the "Fair Game" battle, if you but ask.)
I thought I usually let you have the last word. Did you let me have it last time? Was that a precedent?
I find it satisfying how clear you've made it all with this:
Whatever people do on SI, that SI allows, is fair game.
SI didn't allow a certain tortuous harassment. After a lawsuit threat, they felt they "had" to suspend the TOU in that case. So the persecution recommenced. And so... the victim became "fair game."
In fact, so "fair" was she as "game," you joined the harasser in a campaign to ridicule his victim. I mean his "game."
Here's the point:
X: Do not cite the TOU. You have proved they are moot, to you, so it is unseemly. |
