On Dec 11, 2007 2:05 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, jayjg wrote:
I have an idea; why not create an environment where people who have suffered from this cyberstalking or wish to help could discuss their issues in a safe and private way, and try to formulate coping strategies. Perhaps Wikia would be kind enough to host it, and someone who has suffered from this more than most could act as a moderator. We could call the list, oh, I don't know, something like "WpCyberstalking".
The answer is "this has exactly the same problems as the one you have now".e
And what, in your view, would those "problems" be?
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
That works only for !!, not for future recurrences of the same situation involving other users. !!'s innocence was conclusively demonstrated through the posting of an email that embarassed Durova, and which Durova did her best to keep third parties from seeing.
I recall !! was unblocked significantly before that email was posted -
That's "not convicted", it isn't "conclusively demonstrated the innocence of".
When someone unblocks a person after 75 minutes, saying "new information has come to light, I was wrong", that's demonstrating innocence. The publication of the Durova's e-mail didn't "demonstrate innocence"; all it demonstrated was that Durova had jumped to conclusions not warranted by the evidence provided, not that !! was innocent. In fact, it was the still unpublished evidence of !!'s actual identity, which was the reason for the unblock, which actually established !!'s innocence.