A Proposed Rule: Fair and Simple.

[Rick]

I don't get PMs...

[loCAtek]

Yea, you do I sent you last year.

[Andrew D]

So how about this scenario Andrew...

Fred sends Suzy a PM. Suzy doesn't want to receive any more PMs from Fred so she doesn't respond. Fred has no idea that Suzy doesn't want to receive his PMs so he sends another.

And another.

Fred gets pissed off because Suzy is not replying to his PMs. His PMs become more and more abusive. All Suzy can do is delete the PMs without reading them (except for the abuse laden subject lines which she can't avoid reading) because if she DARES to reply and request he stop sending them she's just being a whiny little bitch who's trying to have the last word!

Suzy sends Fred a PM asking him to stop. He sends one response. She ignores it. The end.

[Andrew D]

Well, if nothing else, she has good self-diagnosis skills ...

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

Requires excessive admiration

Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

[Andrew D]

It should hardly be surprising that Lord Jim would always be desperate to have the last word on anything. He is fond of accusing me of dishonesty, but when confronted in a straightforward and specific way with his own dishonesty, he has nothing to say.

First, the leap from this:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence. Most of the time, the police have done that for them. All they need to do is assume the truth of what the police say and present it as true.

But over time, most prosecutors become more and more jaded about the veracity of police testimony. That does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury; after all, they are not percipient witnesses to the underlying facts. It means that they have doubts about the truth of what the police claim, but nonetheless, they ask the court or the jury to believe that testimony.

"The court" is an important point. Most police perjury is not directed at juries. Most of it is directed at courts. The police are aware of the exclusionary rule, and they hate it. So they lie, not necessarily about the evidence itself, but about how they obtained it. They know perfectly well what their affidavits have to say to survive Fourth-Amendment challenges, so that is what they say. True? False? A consideration relevant only to tactics.

It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it. And they won't think of themselves as "lying scumbags." They are convinced that the defendant is guilty -- and they are often quite right about that -- and they conclude that a little subornation of perjury is worth it to get some creep of the streets before he rapes and murders another victim.

to this:

He makes an assertion he doesn't back up, gets called on it, and rather than either support the assertion, (an admittedly tall order when the assertion is that "most" prosecutors in this country suborn perjury) or retract or amend it, he instead tries to change the subject by erecting a complete straw man and trying to throw the person who called him on his ass gas on the defensive.

cannot be made by honest, rational means.

It simply cannot be done.

Fervently, desperately, flailingly as one might wish that it could be done by honest, rational means -- or even by what one might wish to mock up as honest, rational means -- it cannot be done.

[quaddriver]

If someone has someone on ignore, wouldnt they also not be able to see threads started?

But then again, LJ has people on ignore about as much as I have Sandra Bullock friended on facebook I have Timothy Geithner for a boss....

Fixed that for you to give it a bit more punch.

Well that would not work as an example 'cuz unless he got fired this am, Sec Geithner still heads the Treasury and is such my superior executive (aka boss) second only to the US executive, aka the prez.

My version of the original works better.

PS: is this how you fill your days now that they cut your hours at the In & Out?

[Andrew D]

I have proposed a simple, fair rule: If you do not wish to receive PMs from someone, let that person know. If that person sends you one PM thereafter, ignore it. If that person sends you more than one PM thereafter, that person is harassing you.

The present rule is evidently that one can send someone else unwanted PM after unwanted PM after unwanted PM, and whether that is or is not harassment will be determined only after a major public bitch-fest guided only by amorphous standards.

Which seems more reasonable?

[quaddriver]

Id instead reconsider sending what amounts to MPMs (mostly private messages) as they are read by others than the intended. Its not like you dont know who she is and where she works, do it the old fashioned way.

Less drama.

Oh, wait....

[Andrew D]

Do you mean that PMs are disseminated by the recipients to others? Or do you mean that PMs are read by others even if the recipients do not disseminate them?

[Joe Guy]

Well that would not work as an example 'cuz unless he got fired this am, Sec Geithner still heads the Treasury and is such my superior executive (aka boss) second only to the US executive, aka the prez.

Now that's FUNNY!!!!! I'm gonna save that one for future reference!

You now not only claim that Tim Geithner is your boss, but the President is your boss when Timmy is not around.

( I can't wait to see how you twist that one into what you want everyone to believe is what you "really meant." )

Do you never get tired of proving yourself to be a lying sack of shit? (the only thing you've ever managed to prove, btw)

Tell me quad, I won't tell anybody else... how many conversations have you had with your "boss" - Mr Geithner - since you starting working for him?

[Gob]

How about Fred state on Plan B "please stop sending me PM's as I do not wish private conversation with you", then NO ONE should be in any doubt, and the situation can not be manipulated by Suzy or Fred.

[loCAtek]

Found out, Fred's last name is;

[Andrew D]

How about Fred state on Plan B "please stop sending me PM's as I do not wish private conversation with you", then NO ONE should be in any doubt, and the situation can not be manipulated by Suzy or Fred.

That would be an interesting situation. But how about we get back to reality?

In reality, Fred will probably send Suzy a PM saying something like:

Stop sending me PMs, you lying little cunt! You're a manipulative bitch who can't get laid!

And then, if Suzy responds to that PM, Fred will be whining about getting unwanted PMs.

Is that the preferable arrangement?

[Gob]

Not really/.

I public announcement that you do not wish any more PM's from a certain poster, would be time and date stamped. Any received following that could be easily verified.

[Lord Jim]

I public announcement that you do not wish any more PM's from a certain poster, would be time and date stamped. Any received following that could be easily verified.

I don't see anything wrong with that, but I don't think it would do much good, for this reason:

A person who actually cared what other people thought about them would have the decency not to send any additional emails the first time they were asked to....

So, naming them publicly would be unnecessary....

On the other hand, the sort of inconsiderate, self absorbed oaf who would send a PM after being asked not to isn't likely to care about being named publicly....(in fact, they'd probably enjoy the attention)

They'd just cook up some excuse to try and claim they were completely justified.

[Andrew D]

Pathetic, desperate, attention-seeking, puny-minded wretch that I am, it still seems to me

simple enough: If you are the one who wants to stop the communication, then you should be the one who stops communicating.

But if some people care so much more about what they think of others than what others think of them, have at it ....

[quaddriver]

Andrew, this board would have to have major revisions to do what you need. It appears you can set it up so that you can ignore the text and PMs of a person. But just because that person ignores you, it does not make you ignore them like most other 'social software' packages (AOL, yahoo, faceplace etc)

The skinny is, she is going to send you harassing PMs until you die or de-register - or place her on ignore. Its just how the world works unfortunately.

[Andrew D]

Oh, I have no trouble with messages sent to me, quaddriver. Even when people send me nasty, vicious things, I see no reason to run away from them. But, then, I'm just not the running-away type.

Of course, if I were to put someone on "ignore," I would actually ignore that person. I would not use the "foe" feature simply as an excuse to avoid confronting that person directly while trolling that person from one end of the board to the other.

But maybe that's just me.

[loCAtek]

Tell me about it.