|
Honestly this is way off base and misses a lot of context.
>i think ppl post here because they expect ppl to respond to >stuff they say. >like if i make a post that goes wood, that's a tad bit >disappointing. > >i mean, i posted it because i wanted to talk about it.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Obviously this is the case with 99.9% of posters here.
>i also know that if i post about a particular topic, >certain ppl will likely make an appearance in that post. >but i don't think those ppl are "stalking" me.
This is also mostly true, though not always, and while you correctly assert that this isn't an example of stalking, that's exactly where I think you miss the boat. You cited an example of something that isn't stalking and said that you don't think it's an example of stalking.
Stalking a poster is about the poster, not the topic. When I say certain posters are stalking me, it's not because they chime in on particular topics, it's because they target ME, specifically, for literally no reason other than to antagonize ME, regardless of the topic. When one poaster obsessively follows another poster from post to post with the sole purpose of antagonizing that poster for prolonged periods of time, that's stalking. That's harassment, pure and simple.
Clearly, it's not of the same magnitude as, say, some dude following someone home or hiding in their bushes or rummaging through their garbage.
>it's a public message board. >if i wanted the message to be private, i'd send an email or an >inbox or a tex message >or any other form of communication i could use >where i could send a message to somebody and not have ppl i >don't like see it.
That's really not the issue.
>yeah, there are some topics that will inevitably >draw some regular posters to chime in. >but we all know what their opinion is on the topic before they >even type it... >so, that's just a given.
Well, no. Stalking isn't about the topic, it's about the poster. You keep talking about certain topics and message boards being public, but all of that is missing the point entirely.
>in other words, if you think somebody responding to an OKP >post is "stalking" you, >you either need to get over yourself or just send the message >directly to the person you wanted to see it.
Uh... no. If, for example, someone is consistently followed around in real life, would you say this? If, say, someone was consistently followed and harassed whenever they went to a restaurant, would you say that they should just order in because restaurants are public places? Yes, I realize the magnitude is different but the example is valid. Your stance is akin to telling someone who is harassed by the same handful of people that they should expect interaction with others whenever they leave their home, while completely ignoring the contextual details that 1. these interactions aren't in the course of general public interactions and it's the same people time after time, regardless of where they go or what they do, and 2. it's consistently expressed to be unwanted and undesired.
|