Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:so far as i can remember, i have never, in all these thirteen or so years, posted anyone's name, address, telephone no., email address, ss number, or any such info about his/her family member. slander is a dangerous game to play. watch out.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:so far as i can remember, i have never, in all these thirteen or so years, posted anyone's name, address, telephone no., email address, ss number, or any such info about his/her family member. slander is a dangerous game to play. watch out.

do you remember you took my real name in chat a few weeks ago that took, both, vidya and me by surprise? are you a habitual liar? you are hereby show-caused as to why , a) you should not be admonished; b) your account be permanently deactivated; c) your posts be screened by moderators before they become visible to others. you have 14 minutes to reply to this show-cause notice.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have never taken your real name or any other name of yours in chat. whenever i am in chat, i use the only name i created for myself.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:o shit, i did not read the fine print. clever defense (i fear the state lost this case).

SHOW CAUSE (WITH AMENDMENT)

JEREMIAH MBURUBURU:

do you remember you mentioned my real name in chat a few weeks ago that took, both, vidya and me by surprise? are you a habitual liar? you are hereby show-caused as to why , a) you should not be admonished; b) your account be permanently deactivated; c) your posts be screened by moderators before they become visible to others. you have 14 minutes to reply to this show-cause notice

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:you've had so many names here - e.g. partha guha, banwarilal - that one takes every one of them to be a screen name. if one of them happens to be your real name, and someone addressed you by that name, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:you've had so many names here - e.g. partha guha, banwarilal - that one takes every one of them to be a screen name. if one of them happens to be your real name, and someone addressed you by that name, you have no one to blame but yourself.

no, the name you addressed me by -- on chat -- was (is) my real name and has never been used by me as a moniker here or in sulekha for as long as you've been around. why did you reveal my real name on chat in the presence of vidya?

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:apparently, others have used it here, for otherwise, i wouldn't have known it or used it at chat, assuming it to be one of your many screen names. you should have stopped the others from using it.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:....you chose that one name...

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:you've had so many names here - e.g. partha guha, banwarilal - that one takes every one of them to be a screen name. if one of them happens to be your real name, and someone addressed you by that name, you have no one to blame but yourself.

no, the name you addressed me by -- on chat -- was (is) my real name and has never been used by me as a moniker here or in sulekha for as long as you've been around. why did you reveal my real name on chat in the presence of vidya?

apparently, others have used it here, for otherwise, i wouldn't have known it or used it at chat, assuming it to be one of your many screen names. you should have stopped the others from using it.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:you've had so many names here - e.g. partha guha, banwarilal - that one takes every one of them to be a screen name. if one of them happens to be your real name, and someone addressed you by that name, you have no one to blame but yourself.

no, the name you addressed me by -- on chat -- was (is) my real name and has never been used by me as a moniker here or in sulekha for as long as you've been around. why did you reveal my real name on chat in the presence of vidya?

apparently, others have used it here, for otherwise, i wouldn't have known it or used it at chat, assuming it to be one of your many screen names. you should have stopped the others from using it.

Unkil, this is very disappointing. You, the pillar of principled uprightness and exemplar for us youngsters, invoking the utterly lame and laughable others-did-it-too defence?? Tsk. Tsk.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

kinnera wrote:That said, as far as I know, Rashmun, Vee, Propa and Huze are guilty of it. (I prolly missed Hells' posts). They all revealed someone's personal info on the forum without his/her permission. 'Oh, but he/she revealed it him/herself at one time or the other and everyone here knows it anyway' doesn't hold water, imo.

so far as i can remember, i have never, in all these thirteen or so years, posted anyone's name, address, telephone no., email address, ss number, or any such info about his/her family member. slander is a dangerous game to play. watch out.

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

kinnera wrote:That said, as far as I know, Rashmun, Vee, Propa and Huze are guilty of it. (I prolly missed Hells' posts). They all revealed someone's personal info on the forum without his/her permission. 'Oh, but he/she revealed it him/herself at one time or the other and everyone here knows it anyway' doesn't hold water, imo.

so far as i can remember, i have never, in all these thirteen or so years, posted anyone's name, address, telephone no., email address, ss number, or any such info about his/her family member. slander is a dangerous game to play. watch out.

That is ok. Memory is one of the first things to go with the onset of dementia.

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_sulekha-why-did-you-delete-my-posts-968791

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_bharathanatiyam-sans-filmy-kitsch-1039247

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_public-service-announcement-for-forum-dwellers-946931

Rashman and Il Professore will of course, look the other way.

goodcitizn wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:you've had so many names here - e.g. partha guha, banwarilal - that one takes every one of them to be a screen name. if one of them happens to be your real name, and someone addressed you by that name, you have no one to blame but yourself.

no, the name you addressed me by -- on chat -- was (is) my real name and has never been used by me as a moniker here or in sulekha for as long as you've been around. why did you reveal my real name on chat in the presence of vidya?

apparently, others have used it here, for otherwise, i wouldn't have known it or used it at chat, assuming it to be one of your many screen names. you should have stopped the others from using it.

Unkil, this is very disappointing. You, the pillar of principled uprightness and exemplar for us youngsters, invoking the utterly lame and laughable others-did-it-too defence?? Tsk. Tsk.

Nephew: Kindly don't call it a defence. It is a unique tap dance called Adumu.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

kinnera wrote:That said, as far as I know, Rashmun, Vee, Propa and Huze are guilty of it. (I prolly missed Hells' posts). They all revealed someone's personal info on the forum without his/her permission. 'Oh, but he/she revealed it him/herself at one time or the other and everyone here knows it anyway' doesn't hold water, imo.

so far as i can remember, i have never, in all these thirteen or so years, posted anyone's name, address, telephone no., email address, ss number, or any such info about his/her family member. slander is a dangerous game to play. watch out.

That is ok. Memory is one of the first things to go with the onset of dementia.

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_sulekha-why-did-you-delete-my-posts-968791

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_bharathanatiyam-sans-filmy-kitsch-1039247

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_public-service-announcement-for-forum-dwellers-946931

Rashman and Il Professore will of course, look the other way.

gosh, i have no recollection of these threads. anyway, to your point about looking the other way -- it is not my intention to defend JM, but that particular poster used to have an active blog right there on sulekha on which she used to peddle her book. some kind of semi-autobiographical fiction i think. and many of us on CH used to saunter over now and then to the blogs section. so it was not like she didn't like her name being out there in public. speaking for myself, no matter what the circumstances, if a poster tells me even once that they're upset i've said something to reveal their private info, i'll do everything i can to rectify the situation.

Rashmun wrote:
That's right. tiana used to promote her book by giving the link to its amazon.com page (as I recall) on her sulekha.com page (tiana.sulekha.com or something similar ) and clearly specifying that the book had been written by her.She retained the link and the fact of her authorship on her sulekha.com page for a few years. In other words she had of her own accord revealed her real identity on sulekha. Anybody who went to her sulekha.com page knew her real name.

If she wanted people not to use her name on CH she should at least have removed the link to her book and the fact of her authorship from her sulekha page but she did not do this.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
That's right. tiana used to promote her book by giving the link to its amazon.com page (as I recall) on her sulekha.com page (tiana.sulekha.com or something similar ) and clearly specifying that the book had been written by her.She retained the link and the fact of her authorship on her sulekha.com page for a few years. In other words she had of her own accord revealed her real identity on sulekha. Anybody who went to her sulekha.com page knew her real name.

If she wanted people not to use her name on CH she should at least have removed the link to her book and the fact of her authorship from her sulekha page but she did not do this.

So if people used JM's real name as they could find it on the net/Sulekha/CH, one should blame the person who outted it first - rite? How did Huze Hellsu find out about JM? They are not magicians. So blame JM or some close friend of his who could hv outted it.

So by your well-established "line of reasoning" you should not be blaming anyone using JM's name.

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
That's right. tiana used to promote her book by giving the link to its amazon.com page (as I recall) on her sulekha.com page (tiana.sulekha.com or something similar ) and clearly specifying that the book had been written by her.She retained the link and the fact of her authorship on her sulekha.com page for a few years. In other words she had of her own accord revealed her real identity on sulekha. Anybody who went to her sulekha.com page knew her real name.

If she wanted people not to use her name on CH she should at least have removed the link to her book and the fact of her authorship from her sulekha page but she did not do this.

So if people used JM's real name as they could find it on the net/Sulekha/CH, one should blame the person who outted it first - rite? How did Huze Hellsu find out about JM? They are not magicians. So blame JM or some close friend of his who could hv outted it.

So by your well-established "line of reasoning" you should not be blaming anyone using JM's name.

He found out about JM by hacking into JM's sulekha account and reading notes sent and received by JM.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
That's right. tiana used to promote her book by giving the link to its amazon.com page (as I recall) on her sulekha.com page (tiana.sulekha.com or something similar ) and clearly specifying that the book had been written by her.She retained the link and the fact of her authorship on her sulekha.com page for a few years. In other words she had of her own accord revealed her real identity on sulekha. Anybody who went to her sulekha.com page knew her real name.

If she wanted people not to use her name on CH she should at least have removed the link to her book and the fact of her authorship from her sulekha page but she did not do this.

So if people used JM's real name as they could find it on the net/Sulekha/CH, one should blame the person who outted it first - rite? How did Huze Hellsu find out about JM? They are not magicians. So blame JM or some close friend of his who could hv outted it.

So by your well-established "line of reasoning" you should not be blaming anyone using JM's name.

He found out about JM by hacking into JM's sulekha account and reading notes sent and received by JM.

Has he been prosecuted ? so he did not do any crime and anyone who uses that open info cannot blamed - just as Rashmun cannot be blamed for using Tiana's open info.

Rashmun wrote:

It was not open info. He has not been prosecuted but he has admitted his guilt and expressed regret.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

It was not open info. He has not been prosecuted but he has admitted his guilt and expressed regret.

How do you know it was the real Huze who admitted his guilt? It could have been anyone.

I am Jesus. Will you take my statement as a fact and start praying to me?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
That's right. tiana used to promote her book by giving the link to its amazon.com page (as I recall) on her sulekha.com page (tiana.sulekha.com or something similar ) and clearly specifying that the book had been written by her.She retained the link and the fact of her authorship on her sulekha.com page for a few years. In other words she had of her own accord revealed her real identity on sulekha. Anybody who went to her sulekha.com page knew her real name.

If she wanted people not to use her name on CH she should at least have removed the link to her book and the fact of her authorship from her sulekha page but she did not do this.

So if people used JM's real name as they could find it on the net/Sulekha/CH, one should blame the person who outted it first - rite? How did Huze Hellsu find out about JM? They are not magicians. So blame JM or some close friend of his who could hv outted it.

So by your well-established "line of reasoning" you should not be blaming anyone using JM's name.

He found out about JM by hacking into JM's sulekha account and reading notes sent and received by JM.

Has he been prosecuted ? so he did not do any crime and anyone who uses that open info cannot blamed - just as Rashmun cannot be blamed for using Tiana's open info.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
That's right. tiana used to promote her book by giving the link to its amazon.com page (as I recall) on her sulekha.com page (tiana.sulekha.com or something similar ) and clearly specifying that the book had been written by her.She retained the link and the fact of her authorship on her sulekha.com page for a few years. In other words she had of her own accord revealed her real identity on sulekha. Anybody who went to her sulekha.com page knew her real name.

If she wanted people not to use her name on CH she should at least have removed the link to her book and the fact of her authorship from her sulekha page but she did not do this.

So if people used JM's real name as they could find it on the net/Sulekha/CH, one should blame the person who outted it first - rite? How did Huze Hellsu find out about JM? They are not magicians. So blame JM or some close friend of his who could hv outted it.

So by your well-established "line of reasoning" you should not be blaming anyone using JM's name.

He found out about JM by hacking into JM's sulekha account and reading notes sent and received by JM.

Has he been prosecuted ? so he did not do any crime and anyone who uses that open info cannot blamed - just as Rashmun cannot be blamed for using Tiana's open info.

what an absurd argument! according to you, all the rapists in india who have not been prosecuted did not commit any crime?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

So if people used JM's real name as they could find it on the net/Sulekha/CH, one should blame the person who outted it first - rite? How did Huze Hellsu find out about JM? They are not magicians. So blame JM or some close friend of his who could hv outted it.

So by your well-established "line of reasoning" you should not be blaming anyone using JM's name.

He found out about JM by hacking into JM's sulekha account and reading notes sent and received by JM.

Has he been prosecuted ? so he did not do any crime and anyone who uses that open info cannot blamed - just as Rashmun cannot be blamed for using Tiana's open info.

what an absurd argument! according to you, all the rapists in india who have not been prosecuted did not commit any crime?

Flimmy... you are mad. you are upset. you are angry. control yourself.

Laws are strict about physical violence and there are no two different interpretations.

Non-physical crimes even involving billion dollar looting have no clear interpretation - let alone online verboze comments. When a tabloid posts nakid pictures of the latest Bombo of Cambridge, they get charged often leading just an apology. that does not prevent others to continue circulating those pictures privately and publicly over emails and blogs.
That is reality. OJ was declared innocent. Modi was declared innocent in Gujarat riots a 100 times.

Does that prevent you from accusing him of a murderer? So even if Juze apologized other can and will continue to use that info. A media admin cannot be expected to police them forever.

Rashmun wrote:
PP issued a public warning to Hellsangel after my repeated protests. He should also have issued a public warning to Propagandhi after JM complained that Propa was posting pictures of his wife and daughter on chat and claiming he wants to have sex with them.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
PP issued a public warning to Hellsangel after my repeated protests. He should also have issued a public warning to Propagandhi after JM complained that Propa was posting pictures of his wife and daughter on chat and claiming he wants to have sex with them.

Congratulations on your biggest achievement of your life.

Oh..wait... he did it bcz of my private email telling him to issue a public warning. Please note that it is my prerogative to send him a private message or public appeal as you did.

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
PP issued a public warning to Hellsangel after my repeated protests. He should also have issued a public warning to Propagandhi after JM complained that Propa was posting pictures of his wife and daughter on chat and claiming he wants to have sex with them.

Congratulations on your biggest achievement of your life.

Oh..wait... he did it bcz of my private email telling him to issue a public warning. Please note that it is my prerogative to send him a private message or public appeal as you did.

The public warning was given to Hellsangel in a thread I had started in which I had demanded such a warning to be given to Hellsangel. Hence I can take the credit for this.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
PP issued a public warning to Hellsangel after my repeated protests. He should also have issued a public warning to Propagandhi after JM complained that Propa was posting pictures of his wife and daughter on chat and claiming he wants to have sex with them.

Congratulations on your biggest achievement of your life.

Oh..wait... he did it bcz of my private email telling him to issue a public warning. Please note that it is my prerogative to send him a private message or public appeal as you did.

The public warning was given to Hellsangel in a thread I had started in which I had demanded such a warning to be given to Hellsangel. Hence I can take the credit for this.

in the recent JM vs HA spat, it was HA who first provoked JM by using his purported real name in his post. As usual, Panini Press prefers to close his eyes to the initial provocation, and prefers to focus on JM's response to the repeated pathological and malicious behavior exhibited by HA.