Mock

[Havoc]

0

Scroll up and read what I said about my time as Admin

Unless he instantly gained about 60 IQ points, I'm pretty sure its NOT him.

I'm not entirely convinced you're not him. stop messing with the delusion.

[Twitchin Kitten]

0

You know I've a theory that hit me at silly o'clock today. When the transition took place, Julie and Cracker got banned. After Duchess was convinced to let them all back in (except Lumpy because we KNOW Frank had a hand in that and he said so openly there) Julie made one of her famously long dissertations on the whole concept of the site and there was a mention of how she had to make some kind of call to authorities recently due to the nature of the site. I wish it were open so I can find that.

I'm wondering if some kind of legal shit came down on Duchess's head from that twat? I wouldn't be at all surprised if Julie stooped that low. I don't think she would have done it TO Duchess but because Duchess was the owner of the site, she's stuck in the crossfire. Comments by anyone there are going to be taken into consideration and it can turn into a huge mess if Julie allows it to happen.

[ralgith]

0

Julie is a conniving bitch from hell

[Havoc]

0

Im not sure what legal ramifications could come from a mock site, its mostly language and should be covered under free speech.

But who knows in this day and age of the PC crowd.

I think she just got stressed and screwed by everything.

My personal thought is that frank gave the site to her instead of selling the domain so that he could destroy it.

Duchess was stupid and gullible.

[Twilla]

0

Im not sure what legal ramifications could come from a mock site, its mostly language and should be covered under free speech.

But who knows in this day and age of the PC crowd.

I think she just got stressed and screwed by everything.

My personal thought is that frank gave the site to her instead of selling the domain so that he could destroy it.

Duchess was stupid and gullible.

I absolutely agree with that.

I can't imagine what Julie could have found reportable or who she could report it to. That are a LOT of flame sites online and Mock was very mild compared to them.

[Twitchin Kitten]

0

Havoc, it's not the language on the site but Cracker stalking Julie that caused her to (supposedly) make this "report" I saw mentioned. That would cause the firestorm.

Cracker freaked her out to the point she put her own site on lockdown and was asking questions on how to put more security on her facebook page.

ralgith, conniving has nothing to do with anything about Julie.

[Twilla]

0

Looking someone up on google and then telling someone you did isn't what I consider stalking. Claiming you found a bunch of shit on someone and then taunting them about it at a mock site isn't stalking either. Maybe I've got a fucked up perception of what constitutes stalking but I doubt a law enforcement agency would take "someone told me they looked me up on google!" very seriously.

[Twitchin Kitten]

0

Frank did mention some bullshit about having nefarious reasons for keeping the .com domain and forcing her to buy the .net instead.

In reality, he didn't have to go out of his way to destroy the place, instilling that paranoia was enough to get the ball rolling.

[Twilla]

0

Frank did mention some bullshit about having nefarious reasons for keeping the .com domain and forcing her to buy the .net instead.

In reality, he didn't have to go out of his way to destroy the place, instilling that paranoia was enough to get the ball rolling.

She really sucked as an admin, I gotta say.

[Havoc]

0

The stalking thing could play a part , its really hard to say.

but the statutes could be made to fit, the julie, cracker senario.



Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone.

It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring, the transmission of threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and gathering information for harassment purposes. The harassment must be such that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress