[Poll] Was JM malicious?

by b_A Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:13 pm

Did JM act with malicious intentions when he disclosed a woman poster's identity on Sulekha?
Just because the poster disclosed her identity in a different section , perhaps unintentionally ,she lost all rights to her privacy ?
Keep in mind that most of the CH'ers were not regular visitors of the blogs section and most of the bloggers never visited CH.

by Idéfix Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:20 pm

Wow, posted at 6:13 pm, got 11 yes votes by 6:20 pm!

by Hellsangel Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:21 pm

Oh! He was equally malicious when 'hinting' at people's locations and then claiming, what was it he called it, 'layers of deception'. All because people dared to *disagree* with him on forums. He used private info here, not anything gleaned out of blogs or anywhere else.

by Idéfix Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:23 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Oh! He was equally malicious 'hinting' at people's locations and then claiming, what was it he called it, 'layers of deception'. All because people dared to *disagree* with him on forums. He used private info here, not anything gleaned out of blogs or anywhere else.

True, I remember that. And there was also a subtle threat in there to reveal other personal information, including the ethnicity of a person's spouse. All because that person dared to mock his views. Alliance of antagonism -- hahaha! -- was the term he coined on that occasion.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:25 pm

i disagree with the premise of the poll, especially my role in it.

-- i wasn't defending anything. i was merely pointing out some facts.
-- i also don't remember saying said poster lost her rights to her privacy.

please don't misquote me.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:33 pm

panini press wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Oh! He was equally malicious 'hinting' at people's locations and then claiming, what was it he called it, 'layers of deception'. All because people dared to *disagree* with him on forums. He used private info here, not anything gleaned out of blogs or anywhere else.
True, I remember that. And there was also a subtle threat in there to reveal other personal information, including the ethnicity of a person's spouse. All because that person dared to mock his views. Alliance of antagonism -- hahaha! -- was the term he coined on that occasion.

been itching to bring it up since y'day... almost wrote it today, but deleted. glad someone did.

by Hellsangel Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:35 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i disagree with the premise of the poll, especially my role in it.

-- i wasn't defending anything. i was merely pointing out some facts.
-- i also don't remember saying said poster lost her rights to her privacy.

please don't misquote me.

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.

Many ways you can split this, I suppose.

by b_A Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:35 pm

I am not able to edit the post , so posting correction here.
Change the option 2 to remove "MAX is right".

I am not changing the option 1. Members may visit the page 2 of the following discussion to make up their minds if MAX was splitting hairs.

https://such.forumotion.com/t10132-should-rashmun-take-a-break-from-posting

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:38 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i disagree with the premise of the poll, especially my role in it.

-- i wasn't defending anything. i was merely pointing out some facts.
-- i also don't remember saying said poster lost her rights to her privacy.

please don't misquote me.

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.

Many ways you can split this, I suppose.

how else do you interpret putting a link to a book you have written on your public blog and posting links to where you can purchase it? really, this is that hard?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:52 pm

by ashaNirasha Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:34 pm

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.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:41 pm

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.

Did not know of the first 5 parts. Must be from before my time, or maybe my memory has gone bad. All along I thought that while he knew her real name all along, he got bold and used it on ch after her book, coz now he had a valid 'excuse' to blame it back on her.

by Idéfix Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:45 pm

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.

Thanks for setting the record straight. Items 1-4 were before my time. I do remember 5-9. Yes, he taunted and mocked her using her real name in "stalker mode." Yes, she said she had asked him to stop using her real name in a personal message, and he mocked and taunted her for doing that.

As for making you a CH historian, we will need to do a poll on that!

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:49 pm

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.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:54 pm

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.

Point 8 does not follow from the previous points. If she was concerned about her privacy she would not have done what you say she did in point 8 despite what JM may have said to her on CH. the more reasonable explanation is that Point 8 precedes the previous points.

by Idéfix Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:00 pm

I consulted Googlacharya briefly, and what he told me is consistent with aN's version.

Flim Flam first mentioned the CH poster's real name seven years ago. Her book was published four years ago, in 2009.

Flim Flam's post: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men_the-death-of-the-sari

http://www.amazon.com/Transition-Meghana-Joshi/dp/144148602X/ref=la_B002D6AHQG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358816010&sr=1-1

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:03 pm

panini press wrote:I consulted Googlacharya briefly, and what he told me is consistent with aN's version.

Flim Flam first mentioned the CH poster's real name seven years ago. Her book was published four years ago, in 2009.

Flim Flam's post: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men_the-death-of-the-sari

http://www.amazon.com/Transition-Meghana-Joshi/dp/144148602X/ref=la_B002D6AHQG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358816010&sr=1-1

She may have given links to other articles or books in her blog page.

by Rishi Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:09 pm

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.

JM,

Did you do all that stuff mentioned above?

Say it aint so.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:14 pm

AN's version is pretty much on the mark.

There is no "may have, could have, must have, and did have.."theories and conjectures.

by goodcitizn Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:22 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:AN's version is pretty much on the mark.

There is no "may have, could have, must have, and did have.."theories and conjectures.

Who is aN? Refresh my memory. I remember a lot of things she mentions here, all the way back to the time when tiana started out as julie in Sulekha.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:23 pm

goodcitizn wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:AN's version is pretty much on the mark.

There is no "may have, could have, must have, and did have.."theories and conjectures.

Who is aN? Refresh my memory. I remember a lot of things she mentions here, all the way back to the time when tiana started out as julie in Suleka.

Moxifloxacin

by goodcitizn Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:25 pm

Rashmun wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:AN's version is pretty much on the mark.

There is no "may have, could have, must have, and did have.."theories and conjectures.

Who is aN? Refresh my memory. I remember a lot of things she mentions here, all the way back to the time when tiana started out as julie in Suleka.

Moxifloxacin

That figures. Thanks.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:28 pm

goodcitizn wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:AN's version is pretty much on the mark.

There is no "may have, could have, must have, and did have.."theories and conjectures.

Who is aN? Refresh my memory. I remember a lot of things she mentions here, all the way back to the time when tiana started out as julie in Suleka.

Moxifloxacin

That figures. Thanks.

She is a decent Darling. Her words should carry total credibility.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:06 pm

panini press wrote:I consulted Googlacharya briefly, and what he told me is consistent with aN's version.

Flim Flam first mentioned the CH poster's real name seven years ago. Her book was published four years ago, in 2009.

Flim Flam's post: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men_the-death-of-the-sari

http://www.amazon.com/Transition-Meghana-Joshi/dp/144148602X/ref=la_B002D6AHQG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358816010&sr=1-1

the person who makes the connection in the thread is just curious.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:14 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
panini press wrote:I consulted Googlacharya briefly, and what he told me is consistent with aN's version.

Flim Flam first mentioned the CH poster's real name seven years ago. Her book was published four years ago, in 2009.

Flim Flam's post: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men_the-death-of-the-sari

http://www.amazon.com/Transition-Meghana-Joshi/dp/144148602X/ref=la_B002D6AHQG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358816010&sr=1-1

the person who makes the connection in the thread is just curious.

Good catch. PP Method fails yet again.

by bw Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:14 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
panini press wrote:I consulted Googlacharya briefly, and what he told me is consistent with aN's version.

Flim Flam first mentioned the CH poster's real name seven years ago. Her book was published four years ago, in 2009.

Flim Flam's post: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men_the-death-of-the-sari

http://www.amazon.com/Transition-Meghana-Joshi/dp/144148602X/ref=la_B002D6AHQG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358816010&sr=1-1

the person who makes the connection in the thread is just curious.

i am surprised that you who has asked people to refrain from gossiping about public figures like nithyasree/dravid does not feel the same when it comes to CH people.

why is it hard for you or rashmun to categorically condemn this act, where the intent is so obvious, instead of resorting to "what if", "he didn't start it" etc.?

either turn a blind eye to everything or condemn everything. else, it reeks of inconsistency.

by Idéfix Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:15 pm

Tiana's message when she decided to leave old CH: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_public-service-announcement-for-forum-dwellers-946931

My stalkers, I will miss you the most. WIthout you, I won't feel like Angelina Jolie anymore. I will just be the woman nextdoor. For all those who want to keep in touch, my stalker and Luke Warmus have already told you my real name, and where to find me on the internet.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:16 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
panini press wrote:I consulted Googlacharya briefly, and what he told me is consistent with aN's version.

Flim Flam first mentioned the CH poster's real name seven years ago. Her book was published four years ago, in 2009.

Flim Flam's post: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men_the-death-of-the-sari

http://www.amazon.com/Transition-Meghana-Joshi/dp/144148602X/ref=la_B002D6AHQG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358816010&sr=1-1

the person who makes the connection in the thread is just curious.

Good catch. PP Method fails yet again.

Kind of reminiscent of :

Don't agree with this ignorant mud-boy. His job is to toss around mud, hoping some of it sticks around. Probably a hired help!... was brought up in a brahmin family but now he has become an atheist. But that probably is not just his fault alone. He grew up (as he indicated before) in a family of brahmins, who used to mispronounce the Sanskrit words and not understand properly the meaning of even those Vedic shlokas which were part of their priestly recitations. So you see, based on his family’s poor Vedic knowledge, anything related to the Vedas now is type of a revelation to him and totally unbelievable. Considering from where he has started, it’s hard to take his comments seriously or feel offended by his questions.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:17 pm

panini press wrote:Tiana's message when she decided to leave old CH: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_public-service-announcement-for-forum-dwellers-946931

My stalkers, I will miss you the most. WIthout you, I won't feel like Angelina Jolie anymore. I will just be the woman nextdoor. For all those who want to keep in touch, my stalker and Luke Warmus have already told you my real name, and where to find me on the internet.

Doesn't matter what she said, it was just curious who revealed her name on Sulekha CH.

by Idéfix Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:18 pm

When someone new posted a question about marriage on old CH, this was Luke Warmus's response.

xxx xxxx, aka tiana, whose photograph now appears in her profile.

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_what-is-the-purpose-of-marriage-afterall-958978

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:25 pm

panini press wrote:When someone new posted a question about marriage on old CH, this was Luke Warmus's response.

xxx xxxx, aka tiana, whose photograph now appears in her profile.

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_what-is-the-purpose-of-marriage-afterall-958978

By now the link to the amazon.com page of her book was already there on her sulekha home page. There was zero attempt to maintain privacy, rather she wanted the whole world to know who she was.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:26 pm

bw wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
panini press wrote:I consulted Googlacharya briefly, and what he told me is consistent with aN's version.

Flim Flam first mentioned the CH poster's real name seven years ago. Her book was published four years ago, in 2009.

Flim Flam's post: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men_the-death-of-the-sari

http://www.amazon.com/Transition-Meghana-Joshi/dp/144148602X/ref=la_B002D6AHQG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358816010&sr=1-1

the person who makes the connection in the thread is just curious.

i am surprised that you who has asked people to refrain from gossiping about public figures like nithyasree/dravid does not feel the same when it comes to CH people.

why is it hard for you or rashmun to categorically condemn this act, where the intent is so obvious, instead of resorting to "what if", "he didn't start it" etc.?

either turn a blind eye to everything or condemn everything. else, it reeks of inconsistency.

i'll certainly do that if i am convinced of it. the problem is i am not. i feel uncomfortable with mob condemnations. i'd like to make that careful decision for myself.

by bw Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:28 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:When someone new posted a question about marriage on old CH, this was Luke Warmus's response.

xxx xxxx, aka tiana, whose photograph now appears in her profile.

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_what-is-the-purpose-of-marriage-afterall-958978

By now the link to the amazon.com page of her book was already there on her sulekha home page. There was zero attempt to maintain privacy, rather she wanted the whole world to know who,she was.

...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.

by bw Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:30 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
panini press wrote:I consulted Googlacharya briefly, and what he told me is consistent with aN's version.

Flim Flam first mentioned the CH poster's real name seven years ago. Her book was published four years ago, in 2009.

Flim Flam's post: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men_the-death-of-the-sari

http://www.amazon.com/Transition-Meghana-Joshi/dp/144148602X/ref=la_B002D6AHQG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358816010&sr=1-1

the person who makes the connection in the thread is just curious.

i am surprised that you who has asked people to refrain from gossiping about public figures like nithyasree/dravid does not feel the same when it comes to CH people.

why is it hard for you or rashmun to categorically condemn this act, where the intent is so obvious, instead of resorting to "what if", "he didn't start it" etc.?

either turn a blind eye to everything or condemn everything. else, it reeks of inconsistency.

i'll certainly do that if i am convinced of it. the problem is i am not. i feel uncomfortable with mob condemnations. i'd like to make that careful decision for myself.

same question to you: why is repeatedly and unnecessarily using a person's real name, with the intent to provoke her, not an act of malice? how is this different from what the latest offenders are doing? how the name was obtained is largely irrelevant, isn't it?

same crime, same punishment, same judgement.

by b_A Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:31 pm

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.

Thanks for your post. Last time when I pointed Jeremiah Mbururu's hypocrisy , MAX said that she revealed her real name in the blogs . So , I was just going by that.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:33 pm

bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:When someone new posted a question about marriage on old CH, this was Luke Warmus's response.

xxx xxxx, aka tiana, whose photograph now appears in her profile.

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_what-is-the-purpose-of-marriage-afterall-958978

By now the link to the amazon.com page of her book was already there on her sulekha home page. There was zero attempt to maintain privacy, rather she wanted the whole world to know who,she was.

...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.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:34 pm

b_A wrote:

Thanks for your post. Last time when I pointed Jeremiah Mbururu's hypocrisy , MAX said that she revealed her real name in the blogs . So , I was just going by that.

i did not say that. once again you misquote me. please be careful. i said she had put a link to her book on her blog. if all of what aN is saying about the prior history is true, i was certainly not aware of it.

by Idéfix Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:34 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
panini press wrote:I consulted Googlacharya briefly, and what he told me is consistent with aN's version.

Flim Flam first mentioned the CH poster's real name seven years ago. Her book was published four years ago, in 2009.

Flim Flam's post: http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men_the-death-of-the-sari

http://www.amazon.com/Transition-Meghana-Joshi/dp/144148602X/ref=la_B002D6AHQG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358816010&sr=1-1

the person who makes the connection in the thread is just curious.

The person who made the connection mentions the curious circumstance that the article was written two years prior to FF's posting it. Having observed FF's thinly-veiled threats to another poster in later years, and his relentless stalking of Tiana over the years using her real name after she had requested him to not do so, I have good reason to suspect sinister intent behind FF's original post seven years ago.

by bw Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:35 pm

Rashmun wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:When someone new posted a question about marriage on old CH, this was Luke Warmus's response.

xxx xxxx, aka tiana, whose photograph now appears in her profile.

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_what-is-the-purpose-of-marriage-afterall-958978

By now the link to the amazon.com page of her book was already there on her sulekha home page. There was zero attempt to maintain privacy, rather she wanted the whole world to know who,she was.

...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.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:35 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:

Thanks for your post. Last time when I pointed Jeremiah Mbururu's hypocrisy , MAX said that she revealed her real name in the blogs . So , I was just going by that.

i did not say that. once again you misquote me. please be careful. i said she had put a link to her book on her blog. if all of what aN is saying about the prior history is true, i was certainly not aware of it.

https://such.forumotion.com/t4838p100-to-flimflam#38859

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:38 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:

Thanks for your post. Last time when I pointed Jeremiah Mbururu's hypocrisy , MAX said that she revealed her real name in the blogs . So , I was just going by that.

i did not say that. once again you misquote me. please be careful. i said she had put a link to her book on her blog. if all of what aN is saying about the prior history is true, i was certainly not aware of it.

https://such.forumotion.com/t4838p100-to-flimflam#38859

yeah so? nothing i have said here is inconsistent with anything i've said there. i said (here and in the prior post) that i only knew the connection between her handle on sulekha and her real name from her blog. i wasn't even aware while at sulekha, to my recollection, that she had a problem about people there knowing her real name since she advertised her book quite openly on her sulekha blog.

by b_A Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:40 pm

Interesting that no one voted for second option.
I expected at least 4 votes there (Max,Rashmun,Rishi and JM).

by bw Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:41 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:

Thanks for your post. Last time when I pointed Jeremiah Mbururu's hypocrisy , MAX said that she revealed her real name in the blogs . So , I was just going by that.

i did not say that. once again you misquote me. please be careful. i said she had put a link to her book on her blog. if all of what aN is saying about the prior history is true, i was certainly not aware of it.

https://such.forumotion.com/t4838p100-to-flimflam#38859

yeah so? nothing i have said here is inconsistent with anything i've said there. i said (here and in the prior post) that i only knew the connection between her handle on sulekha and her real name from her blog. i wasn't even aware while at sulekha to my recollection that she had a problem about people there knowing her real name since she advertised her book quite openly on her sulekha blog.

max,

i think this is what people are trying to point out.

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.

rashmun is guilty of the same.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:41 pm

b_A wrote:Interesting that no one voted for second option.
I expected at least 4 votes there (Max,Rashmun,Rishi and JM).

i did not vote because i don't agree with what you have said about my own role in all of this.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:

Don't agree with this ignorant mud-boy. His job is to toss around mud, hoping some of it sticks around. Probably a hired help!... was brought up in a brahmin family but now he has become an atheist. But that probably is not just his fault alone. He grew up (as he indicated before) in a family of brahmins, who used to mispronounce the Sanskrit words and not understand properly the meaning of even those Vedic shlokas which were part of their priestly recitations. So you see, based on his family’s poor Vedic knowledge, anything related to the Vedas now is type of a revelation to him and totally unbelievable. Considering from where he has started, it’s hard to take his comments seriously or feel offended by his questions.

I've seen you spout this nonsense a few times! Are you suggesting that Brahmins are some how better human beings and a cut above others (hence PP doesn't fit the bill)!! Move over Brahmin Supremacist.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:46 pm

bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:When someone new posted a question about marriage on old CH, this was Luke Warmus's response.

xxx xxxx, aka tiana, whose photograph now appears in her profile.

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse_what-is-the-purpose-of-marriage-afterall-958978

By now the link to the amazon.com page of her book was already there on her sulekha home page. There was zero attempt to maintain privacy, rather she wanted the whole world to know who,she was.

...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.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:50 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Don't agree with this ignorant mud-boy. His job is to toss around mud, hoping some of it sticks around. Probably a hired help!... was brought up in a brahmin family but now he has become an atheist. But that probably is not just his fault alone. He grew up (as he indicated before) in a family of brahmins, who used to mispronounce the Sanskrit words and not understand properly the meaning of even those Vedic shlokas which were part of their priestly recitations. So you see, based on his family’s poor Vedic knowledge, anything related to the Vedas now is type of a revelation to him and totally unbelievable. Considering from where he has started, it’s hard to take his comments seriously or feel offended by his questions.

I've seen you spout this nonsense a few times! Are you suggesting that Brahmins are some how better human beings and a cut above others (hence PP doesn't fit the bill)!! Move over Brahmin Supremacist.

The words are not mine but Seva's. Seva and PP had debates which lasted several years.

by bw Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

By now the link to the amazon.com page of her book was already there on her sulekha home page. There was zero attempt to maintain privacy, rather she wanted the whole world to know who,she was.

...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.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:58 pm

Rashmun wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Don't agree with this ignorant mud-boy. His job is to toss around mud, hoping some of it sticks around. Probably a hired help!... was brought up in a brahmin family but now he has become an atheist. But that probably is not just his fault alone. He grew up (as he indicated before) in a family of brahmins, who used to mispronounce the Sanskrit words and not understand properly the meaning of even those Vedic shlokas which were part of their priestly recitations. So you see, based on his family’s poor Vedic knowledge, anything related to the Vedas now is type of a revelation to him and totally unbelievable. Considering from where he has started, it’s hard to take his comments seriously or feel offended by his questions.

I've seen you spout this nonsense a few times! Are you suggesting that Brahmins are some how better human beings and a cut above others (hence PP doesn't fit the bill)!! Move over Brahmin Supremacist.

The words are not mine but Seva's. Seva and PP had debates which lasted several years.

You're obviously endorsing that nonsense by posting repeatedly.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:03 pm

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.

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.

by Sponsored content

Was JM's act malicious when he addresses a poster with her real name ?