[Poll] Was JM malicious?

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Your friend Merlot Daruwala has done the same thing to Seva. Merlot's explanation was that Seva had no right to insist on privacy with respect to his real name being used on Sulekha CH since he was giving links to articles written using his real name. Merlot's explanation was given after a protest post by LittleFella.

if MD did it with the intention of provoking seva, that is a despicable act too. what is the relevance of that? how does that make this any better?

also, someone being my "friend" will not stop me from criticizing him/her.

I gave MD's example because I want this demonization of JM to come to an end now. If JM is a demon than so is your friend MD.

If Tiana wanted to maintain her privacy she would not have given the link to her book on her sulekha page together with the confirmation that she is the author. Perhaps she created a lot of drama in an attempt to publicize and sell her writings.

ok - we have two demons. i have no issues calling MD a demon, if he repeatedly stalked seva with his real name, despite being asked to stop it.

you seem to think that just because a "friend" does something, it must automatically be approved and validated.

i have no interest in JM but your and to some extent, max's inconsistency is amusing.

Even if we agree that it was wrong on the part of JM and Merlot to have done what they did surely you will agree that a distinction needs to be made between what they did and what Hellsangel did to JM? After all, JM never gave links to articles using his real name and further the way in which his real name was obtained (hacking into his sulekha account) was completely unethical.

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:

if MD did it with the intention of provoking seva, that is a despicable act too. what is the relevance of that? how does that make this any better?

also, someone being my "friend" will not stop me from criticizing him/her.

I gave MD's example because I want this demonization of JM to come to an end now. If JM is a demon than so is your friend MD.

If Tiana wanted to maintain her privacy she would not have given the link to her book on her sulekha page together with the confirmation that she is the author. Perhaps she created a lot of drama in an attempt to publicize and sell her writings.

ok - we have two demons. i have no issues calling MD a demon, if he repeatedly stalked seva with his real name, despite being asked to stop it.

you seem to think that just because a "friend" does something, it must automatically be approved and validated.

i have no interest in JM but your and to some extent, max's inconsistency is amusing.

Even if we agree that it was wrong on the part of JM and Merlot to have done what they did surely you will agree that a distinction needs to be made between what they did and what Hellsangel did to JM? After all, JM never gave links to articles using his real name and further the way in which his real name was obtained (hacking into his sulekha account) was completely unethical.

what HK did was unethical and so were HA's acts. i think that has been agreed upon by almost everyone.

that does not make JM's acts any less malicious. why don't i see you openly condemn that?

this sounds like the argument that said bittu's crassness should be pardoned because some one else is bigoted.

they are independent things and should be judged independently.

Rashmun wrote:

What HA and HK did was unethical and wrong. There is no ambiguity at all about this.

But what MD and JM did was different since Tiana and Seva had given links to their writings where they had used their real name. If Tiana wanted to maintain her privacy on sulekha she would not have given links to her writings where she had used her real name as author.

ashaNirasha wrote:I see a lot of embellishment going on with regards to how tiana was outed. The way I remember it is this. Sorry I can't dig up any threads.

1. Tiana posted a story or an article on some online desi journal with her real name.
2. She posted the same piece on CH with the handle Tiana.
3. At this time, her blogs didn't have her real name. There was no link to her book. No one on CH knew her real name, as in posters like me, who had no connection with her except through CH.
4. Somehow, JM made the connection between the two pieces, or was made aware by some one else, and posted the link to the online article, that was of course, under her real name.
5. Then he started taunting and mocking her real name, in pretty much all posts, in stalker mode.
6. Tiana sent a personal message asking him to stop using her real name. She revealed this in her subsequent CH posts.
7. JM, instead of doing what most sensible and normal people do, mocked her more that she had requested him so.
8. Tiana put up a link to her book with her name in her blogs, probably because by this time, every one on CH knew her name.
9. She persisted for a short while, but JM never let up with his usage of real name, and eventually, she left.

Addendum:
10. After this, HA started using JM's real name. Taunting and mocking him much the same way.
11. It got on everybody's nerves, and there was a thread where a lot of posters thought it was a bad idea and got on HA's case. JM got a little bit contrite when it was pointed out that he had done the same.
12. After that thread, it appeared that HA toned down his usage of JM's real name, and eventually stopped. He seemed amenable to reason, despite everything.

Somebody make me a CH historian, I can't believe I remember so much for having posted so little over the years, over there.

ashaNirasha wrote:I see a lot of embellishment going on with regards to how tiana was outed. The way I remember it is this. Sorry I can't dig up any threads.

1. Tiana posted a story or an article on some online desi journal with her real name.
2. She posted the same piece on CH with the handle Tiana.

Somebody make me a CH historian, I can't believe I remember so much for having posted so little over the years, over there.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:tit for tat.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:tit for tat.

boobsy, please, no tit... for anything. yours stunned me when i first saw it in the photograph you displayed of yourself at chat. i have not yet recovered from the sight.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:tit for tat.

boobsy, please, no tit... for anything. yours stunned me when i first saw it in the photograph you displayed of yourself at chat. i have not yet recovered from the sight.

lame shit.

you cast that solitary vote in your favour, didn't you asshole?

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:tit for tat.

boobsy, please, no tit... for anything. yours stunned me when i first saw it in the photograph you displayed of yourself at chat. i have not yet recovered from the sight.

lame shit.

you cast that solitary vote in your favour, didn't you asshole?

you're beautiful when you're angry. do your breasts jiggle at such times?

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:tit for tat.

boobsy, please, no tit... for anything. yours stunned me when i first saw it in the photograph you displayed of yourself at chat. i have not yet recovered from the sight.

lame shit.

you cast that solitary vote in your favour, didn't you asshole?

you're beautiful when you're angry. do your breasts jiggle at such times?

stop bullying me creep!

Propagandhi711 wrote:another pictoral illustration of phlegmy perving on hufeza:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:iff (note it's iff and not if) aN's version is accurate, then i stand corrected about some of what i said. i only knew the tiana whose blog had the link to her book. i should really listen to keith jarrett and prepare for tomorrow instead of needlessly getting into this.

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:iff (note it's iff and not if) aN's version is accurate, then i stand corrected about some of what i said. i only knew the tiana whose blog had the link to her book. i should really listen to keith jarrett and prepare for tomorrow instead of needlessly getting into this.

When and how can this iff condition be satisfied ? I am afraid, we are setting the bar too high in order to avoid taking some unpleasant decisions. GC and Uppili already said that aN's version rings true. Will the condition be satisfied if we hear straight from the horse's mouth ? Even if Tiana somehow reads this thread, registers here and post the confirmation , I am afraid that will not be sufficient for some people. They will call her, vengeful and economical with truth. And if you are waiting for Mbururu to confess , then I have to look up the dictionary for the meaning of the word ,"naivete" .

bw wrote:
you never openly come out and condemn JM while you have no issues doing so when it is someone else though the crimes may be the same.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:OK folks... Tues Sermon:

It is plain human nature to look the other way the negatives of ones you like, and minimize the positives of the ones you don't like.

That is just basic Second Law of Thermodynamics.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

bw wrote:
you never openly come out and condemn JM while you have no issues doing so when it is someone else though the crimes may be the same.

who have i condemned and for what crimes?

goodcitizn wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:OK folks... Tues Sermon:

It is plain human nature to look the other way the negatives of ones you like, and minimize the positives of the ones you don't like.

That is just basic Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Thanks, Saamiyaar, for your prophetic insight. Now, where does MAXimize fit in? Kindly share.

garam_kuta wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:OK folks... Tues Sermon:

It is plain human nature to look the other way the negatives of ones you like, and minimize the positives of the ones you don't like.

That is just basic Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Thanks, Saamiyaar, for your prophetic insight. Now, where does MAXimize fit in? Kindly share.

dhooL.. ha ha ha sAmiyAru enna sAptAro theriyalaey ellathaiyum 'ulta' panrAru..aanaa eadho uLartham irukarappulaey.. ha .. ha..neenga sonna sarthAn

Hellsangel wrote:Hmm.

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:

...and using her real name, unnecessarily and repeatedly, with the intent to provoke her, is perfectly fine and is not an act of malice? how is this any different from the despicable acts of the ones you are gunning for?

some consistency please! else, you are exhibiting the same behaviour you are accusing others of.

Your friend Merlot Daruwala has done the same thing to Seva. Merlot's explanation was that Seva had no right to insist on privacy with respect to his real name being used on Sulekha CH since he was giving links to articles written using his real name. Merlot's explanation was given after a protest post by LittleFella.

if MD did it with the intention of provoking seva, that is a despicable act too. what is the relevance of that? how does that make this any better?

also, someone being my "friend" will not stop me from criticizing him/her.

I gave MD's example because I want this demonization of JM to come to an end now. If JM is a demon than so is your friend MD.

If Tiana wanted to maintain her privacy she would not have given the link to her book on her sulekha page together with the confirmation that she is the author. Perhaps she created a lot of drama in an attempt to publicize and sell her writings.

ok - we have two demons. i have no issues calling MD a demon, if he repeatedly stalked seva with his real name, despite being asked to stop it.

you seem to think that just because a "friend" does something, it must automatically be approved and validated.  

your and to some extent, max's inconsistency is amusing.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Your friend Merlot Daruwala has done the same thing to Seva. Merlot's explanation was that Seva had no right to insist on privacy with respect to his real name being used on Sulekha CH since he was giving links to articles written using his real name. Merlot's explanation was given after a protest post by LittleFella.

if MD did it with the intention of provoking seva, that is a despicable act too. what is the relevance of that? how does that make this any better?

also, someone being my "friend" will not stop me from criticizing him/her.

I gave MD's example because I want this demonization of JM to come to an end now. If JM is a demon than so is your friend MD.

If Tiana wanted to maintain her privacy she would not have given the link to her book on her sulekha page together with the confirmation that she is the author. Perhaps she created a lot of drama in an attempt to publicize and sell her writings.

ok - we have two demons. i have no issues calling MD a demon, if he repeatedly stalked seva with his real name, despite being asked to stop it.

you seem to think that just because a "friend" does something, it must automatically be approved and validated.  

your and to some extent, max's inconsistency is amusing.

haha. there was a time I was naive enough to believe that and other such claims of righteousness.

Rashmun wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:

if MD did it with the intention of provoking seva, that is a despicable act too. what is the relevance of that? how does that make this any better?

also, someone being my "friend" will not stop me from criticizing him/her.

I gave MD's example because I want this demonization of JM to come to an end now. If JM is a demon than so is your friend MD.

If Tiana wanted to maintain her privacy she would not have given the link to her book on her sulekha page together with the confirmation that she is the author. Perhaps she created a lot of drama in an attempt to publicize and sell her writings.

ok - we have two demons. i have no issues calling MD a demon, if he repeatedly stalked seva with his real name, despite being asked to stop it.

you seem to think that just because a "friend" does something, it must automatically be approved and validated.  

your and to some extent, max's inconsistency is amusing.

haha. there was a time I was naive enough to believe that and other such claims of righteousness.

You are becoming an obsessed stalker now. Give it a rest.