Two current cases in Indiana clearly demonstrate that the law is finally starting to catch up with cyberspace; and those of you who have historically utilized an acidic approach in posting toward others, or that have undertaken less than admirable means and methods in your cyberspace personas should sit up and take note of the following two cases:
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110302/LOCAL18/103020335/Judge-Star-must-identify-anonymous-posters?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110302/LOCAL18/103020335/Judge-Star-must-identify-anonymous-posters?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com)
http://www.wthr.com/story/14159289/small (http://www.wthr.com/story/14159289/small)
If nothing else, the above two cases should serve as the proverbial "shot across the bow" to each one of us. Gone are the days of posting every single thought that comes to mind, and acting without thought toward the possible ramifications of your words toward others.
Indeed, the latest court ruling right here in Indiana all but opens the door widely to litigation being imposed upon those whose words and statements are slanderous, libelous, or in some cases outright lies that impose real life ramifications upon those they are directed toward.
Forums across the nation are re-evaluating their policies and standard operational procedures in light of this new ruling, and you can bet your sweet six that there are some major changes coming to many of them. Changes some of the dweebs in cyberspace are not going to like whatsoever!
Pretty much, this ruling means that if you engage in inflammatory words and actions within any given forum, you had damned well better be prepared to face a day, (or more), in court should those actions or words impose real life harm to those whom you target.
No longer are you assured of any level of anonymity in creating a false name to use as your moniker while posting, and even within those once sacred halls of media / newspaper forums, administrators/owners of said forums are now legally required to cough up your IP addy and e-mail addy that are connected with your account, should law enforcement ask for them.
And if you think that by using fake names and e-mail, or free e-mail, you are going to be able to skirt it, you had better think again. I suspect most, if not all internet forums are going to begin requiring REAL e-mail addresses, and REAL contact information that has to be confirmed BEFORE they let you post anything upon their forums. Otherwise they are opening themselves up to possible litigation themselves should someone engage in actions similar to what transpired in the second link above.
(NOTE: Having been a member of this forum for a considerable amount of time, I am familiar enough with this forum's policies and TOS to say that the administration of this forum was ahead of its time. They have had the policies most forums are now going to have to implement, in place since well before I ever became a member here, so I don't expect that the members of the Unknown Zone are going to see any changes as far as we are concerned. - Nice work UZ Admin 8) :yes: )
Even if you do succeed in using fake accounts and getting onto a forum somewhere, never underestimate the trail of information you are leaving, and law enforcements ability to backtrack that trail straight to your computer. You will be held accountable.
And by accountable, I mean you are putting at risk everything you own, and every dollar you make, and even your very freedom!
So THINK before you post, and THINK before you respond. It is in your best interests to do so. And be VERY CLEAR in the intention of anything you post. If something could potentially be taken as a threat to someone's livelihood or life, then reword it or better yet, don't even post it at all.
With all the whacknut wienies we have in the world today, the chances of your "joking" about shooting someone, or ripping their head off, and having it actually happen despite you having nothing to do with it are a lot better than they were 30 years ago. And John Law is certainly not going to be shy about putting you and your life under a microscope should your "joke" coincidentally become a reality through no fault of your own. Then you will have to sell everything you own just to defend your good name!
So, man up or shut up; or be prepared to deal with the consequences of your words and actions. . .
I would think that for either of those cases to have merit the plaintif would have to prove that the remarks had a direct effect/cause of any harm or damages. It would have to be handeled the same as any other libel or slander case. Not knowing the details of the first case, what was said, where it was said and in what context it is impossible for us to say if it has merit or not.
The second case is a bit different but it would still have to be proven that the remarks were the direct cause of what the woman did.
Now, I in no way condone bullying in any form. My daughter was a victim of it at one time but I keep close tabs on what my kids do online and after seeing the messages from someone I found out who it was and went straight to the kids parents. The kid in question stopped his bullying and appologized to me and my daughter. A lot of this bullying would stop if parents would take a more active role in monitoring their children's online activities.
With all that said it is still very possible to remain completely anonymous online. With the free email providers, gmail, yahoo, etc. and the use of foriegn proxy servers and internet cafes and public internet access it is easy for someone to stay anonymous online.
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 02, 2011, 10:13:42 PM
I would think that for either of those cases to have merit the plaintif would have to prove that the remarks had a direct effect/cause of any harm or damages. It would have to be handeled the same as any other libel or slander case. Not knowing the details of the first case, what was said, where it was said and in what context it is impossible for us to say if it has merit or not.
The second case is a bit different but it would still have to be proven that the remarks were the direct cause of what the woman did.
Now, I in no way condone bullying in any form. My daughter was a victim of it at one time but I keep close tabs on what my kids do online and after seeing the messages from someone I found out who it was and went straight to the kids parents. The kid in question stopped his bullying and appologized to me and my daughter. A lot of this bullying would stop if parents would take a more active role in monitoring their children's online activities.
With all that said it is still very possible to remain completely anonymous online. With the free email providers, gmail, yahoo, etc. and the use of foriegn proxy servers and internet cafes and public internet access it is easy for someone to stay anonymous online.
Clearly you failed to fully digest what my posting stated surrounding the fact that these two cases exemplify the fact that the law is indeed catching up to cyberspace; and that in turn is going to change the TOS and operations of internet forums surrounding anonymity.
The court ruling in the first link was arrived at after all of the facts of the case were presented. It sets a precedent upon which future case law will be based. That much is crystal clear, and that being the case the utilization of the methods you present will in and of themselves preclude individuals from obtaining the ability to legally post upon a given internet forum. It will have to be that way because failure to implement sufficient policies and standards of operation to reasonably identify membership, will result in liability to the operators/owners of internet forums and subject them to potential litigation.
Locally, there have been cases here in Madison County that were successfully prosecuted based upon a similar, but different point of law. This latest decision effectively shatters the ability of posters within newspaper or media forums to hide behind the shield of anonymity enjoyed by the press.
I never stated that either case was a situation in which the damaged parties were not required to make their respective cases. That is a given. What is new is that the cases will indeed move forward and those who made the statements will now be legally required to defend them / prove them. And THAT is going to be a very costly process. . . With the state taking up the case for the damaged party, the defense is going to have to be paid for by those who are charged.
Moreover, as in the second case, when owners/operators of internet forums have not, or do not, undertake those actions necessary to properly identify their members, and allow use of the methods you quote above, that action alone makes them party to any crimes that may be adjudicated as a direct result of their forum's content and policies.
Is calling someone an asshole who is an asshole and someone stupid, who is stupid. Or someone who is a dick a dick a cyberspace crime? :confused: Im my deranged mind, I don't think so. Fill me in.
I got what you were saying and I'm not sure how I feel about anonymity online. On the one hand people should be held accountable for their actions but on the other there is the matter of free speech. The line is going to have to be drawn somewhere and this looks to be the start of that line.
I personnaly think that holding web sites accountable for what people post is way over the top. As I pointed out with my comments, there is really no way for sites to guarantee that they know or can obtain the true identity of every poster on their site. When the courts start holding web sites accountable for the actions of others then we are in trouble.
Quote from: Nighthawk on March 02, 2011, 10:55:08 PM
I got what you were saying and I'm not sure how I feel about anonymity online. On the one hand people should be held accountable for their actions but on the other there is the matter of free speech. The line is going to have to be drawn somewhere and this looks to be the start of that line.
I personnaly think that holding web sites accountable for what people post is way over the top. As I pointed out with my comments, there is really no way for sites to guarantee that they know or can obtain the true identity of every poster on their site. When the courts start holding web sites accountable for the actions of others then we are in trouble.
There are indeed ways to prevent such methods from being used in obtaining access to internet forums, and this very forum is one that has used them for as long as I have been here, and probably before. They require you to use a legal ISP, and to provide an e-mail address that is connected to that ISP. That is a huge step in the right direction as far as I am concerned. (It's in the TOS here. You should read that if you haven't.)
Most forums have language in their TOS that attempts to divorce them from liability for the content of the postings made by members, and at face value that used to be good enough; but not anymore. Now they have a legal responsibility to make every effort to legally identify every single member they allow to post, (Internally and not publicly. Those records are considered confidential and should not be made available to anyone outside of the forum staff. This is to meet the requirements of law enforcement, so that should it be necessary to investigate a member over a legal issue, the forum administration must be able to provide member information in response to a warrant or court order requiring them), before allowing them to post. Failure to do so and to enact policies and operations that enforce those policies, can and probably will make them liable for the postings unless they comply.
Any forum operator/owner who doesn't comply with this is leaving themselves open for legal issues on a major scale, should something similar to the above two cases transpire within their forums. The owner in the second case is one of those, and should legal action be brought forth over that incident, IMHO he is going to see himself in a world of hurt. And cyberspace is going to be minus a few community forums because of it too. (Watch and see).
It's fairly clear for anyone who cares enough about it to look; if you enact the policies to properly identify the membership, and enforce those policies consistently, you haven't got anything to worry about as an owner/operator. But fail to do so and you will pay dearly for it.
Members now have a new bar to mindful of, and those who fail to mind it will eventually be held accountable for their misdeeds.
Quote from: The Troll on March 02, 2011, 10:54:31 PM
Is calling someone an asshole who is an asshole and someone stupid, who is stupid. Or someone who is a dick a dick a cyberspace crime? :confused: Im my deranged mind, I don't think so. Fill me in.
Nobody is saying you cannot use foul language when forums allow such, but what they ARE saying is that, when you make statements that could be interpreted as a real physical threat, or something that presents a potential for unnecessarily negatively impacting an individual's good name, reputation, or livelihood, and said statements can be proven to be false and undertaken with malicious intent, or result in the imposition of real life negative consequences to the targeted individual, you WILL be held accountable for those statements.
There is a distinct legal difference between shop talk and libel, slander, and threats of physical violence Troll. Given the present developments within the legal community surrounding internet forums, it would behoove each of us to carefully consider any potential ramifications of what we are posting, and to react accordingly.
Let us go back to my original statement, which brought all of this on. Just how could any intelligent person could say that what I said was a threat. Saying that what's why cops carry guns to stop fast running criminals. No way, no how. Plus she lives clear out in California. Give me a break! :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Troll on March 03, 2011, 02:36:14 PM
Let us go back to my original statement, which brought all of this on. Just how could any intelligent person could say that what I said was a threat. Saying that what's why cops carry guns to stop fast running criminals. No way, no how. Plus she lives clear out in California. Give me a break! :rolleyes:
The key to everything is perception. Consideration must be given to how any statement will be perceived, or could be perceived.
I'm not saying I took your statement as a threat. What I said is some of the hyper-sensitive individuals we seem to be breeding like rabbits as of late, could very easily twist it around to mean something it was not intended to mean; thereby, creating a potentially damaging situation to you personally, should some whacked out wienie on the left coast decide the target of your statement would make a good victim. . . That happens, and BANG, you are in the stewpot. . . And it will no longer matter whether it was a joke or not. John Law will get the 90 foot proctoscope out and give you a good reaming, until it can be legally proven you had nothing to do with what transpired. . .
You really up for that kind of abuse???? :eek:
I didn't know what Troll's point was; I didn't take it as a threat. Although, I did think, "Troll's lucky that I'm not someone else, because someone else might take these comments differently."
PH is correct in saying that making statements which can be interpreted as threats is a bad habit and one best broken.
The examples he posted are more serious case scenarios, but as I've mentioned before, I've been at this a while and I've encountered some people with very serious psychological issues. Did they appear that way at first? Nope, but the internet provides just enough anonymity that people are more likely to show their true colors. The "wild west atmosphere" gives them the freedom of completely going off the deep end.
I saw one nut, take another poster and his friend to task. "She" kept claiming that he threatened her and her son. In this case, there was NO mention of a weapon or violence. I was shaking my head. The other poster clearly didn't threaten anyone. She called the police and the forum and reported them.
I've had someone attempt to call my work. I have friends who did have their employers contacted. There was one teacher who was reported to the school district that she taught in. This type of action threatens the livelihood of people and for what? Nothing but a mild flame war that he/she was losing. There are people who cyber-stalk and dig for every piece of information they can find on you to use against you in whatever way possible.
Anyway, what I'm talking about is disagreements and egos. I've also seen real threats and real libel. I'm glad that the system is finally coming around to holding people accountable for logging on for the sole purpose of hurting someone else under the cloak of anonymity.
I moved to this forum because it's safe and that's why I stay.
Disagreeing is normal/fine. I think assholery is probably fine. However, it's a good idea to leave anything that's defamation or could be interpreted as a threat unsaid. :yes:
Oh my god, give me a nitro pill, I think I'm going to have the BIG ONE. I can agree with you Sandy on this one. :smitten:
:spooked: :spooked: :spooked:
Elizabeth! I'm coming to see ya . . . :biggrin: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 03, 2011, 08:33:31 PM
Elizabeth! I'm coming to see ya . . . :biggrin: :thumbsup:
;D ;D :biggrin: :biggrin:
QuoteSome call anonymous online posting an open invitation for cyberbullies. Ban it, they argue, in the name of civility.
Others say it's a matter of freedom of speech. Ban it, they contend, and you hollow out a fundamental American right.
All Paul Baylor knows is that before he posts a comment on a message board, he thinks twice.
"I say to myself, 'This could be traced back.' "
The Anderson attorney figured in one of the early cases of online defamation in Indiana. He handled a complaint by his father against the operator of an Anderson website in 2008.
Since then, the issue has only gotten gnarlier.
Online message boards have proliferated in every city and town, on campuses and even on corporate websites. And they're typically dominated by unnamed or pseudonym-toting commentators, who often fire verbiage far over the line of civility, not to mention the legally permitted.
The subjects of this virulent discourse are fighting back.
A Marion County judge in the past few weeks ordered two newspaper-owned websites to hand over identifying information about the authors of pseudonymous online posts.
The rulings came in a defamation lawsuit filed by a former chief executive of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, who wants the names of the anonymous posters to The Indianapolis Star's and Indianapolis Business Journal's websites in order to sue them for comments they made about him.
The local case and others like it raise tough questions for a society that increasingly looks to the Internet for its dose of daily gossip and commentary -- even-keeled and not -- that it once found in face-to-face small talk and chatty phone calls. Some of the questions:
At what point does cracking down on anonymous comment threaten First Amendment freedom of expression?
Why shouldn't the right to protect one's reputation extend to going after those who impugn you in cyberspace, even using a cute nom de plume?
Should the special protections granted to news media extend to the comment sections of their websites? The sections are typically the most popular Web destinations in many communities.
Baylor, the Anderson attorney, was one of the first to take on an anonymous Web poster in Indiana. He subpoenaed a company that ran a comment section linked to the Anderson Herald-Bulletin's website, seeking IDs of posters making disparaging remarks about his father, an insurance agent.
The judge ordered the identifying information to be handed over. The Baylors never followed through but used the information to rip off the mask of anonymity of the poster.
"Anderson being a small town, we kind of had an inkling of who it was. And that person didn't have deep pockets," and so wasn't worth suing, Baylor said. But he figures his father more or less won, as his lawsuit put a stop to the nasty comments.
With anonymity the online norm, it's no surprise lawsuits are popping up to try to unearth true identities. (Typically plaintiffs do that by acquiring the poster's Internet Protocol address from the website operator. Then they go back to the poster's Internet provider to get his or her real name, address or phone number.)
"They are kind of moving in a wave across the country," said David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School.
So far, Ardia said, judges have tended to be reluctant to let defamation actions proceed against anonymous posters without establishing legal standards that must be met, such as proving the identity can't be obtained by other means.
"Courts have generally said it's a valuable right to speak anonymously, and one that shouldn't be given up easily."
In 2009, for instance, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a news media-run website being sued for defamation by a Dunkin' Donuts shop did not have to reveal the identities of readers who posted comments about the shop's cleanliness.
One thing is clear in such cases:
The federal Communications Decency Act gives website operators protections against being sued over defamatory comments made by posters.
But equally clear is that courts haven't granted such wholesale protection to the posters themselves.
"They are just as liable as anyone else for their statements," even if made anonymously, said Daniel Byron, an expert on media law at Bingham McHale in Indianapolis. "If it is a false statement that injures someone . . . then, yes, they would be responsible" and open to defamation charges, he said.
Online reader boards are typically full of posts that veer far beyond the bounds of civil discourse: Racial and ethnic slurs. Anti-religious rants.
Last month, an Indiana deputy attorney general, Jeffrey Cox, was fired for writing on a blog and on Twitter that live ammunition should be used against union supporters protesting in Wisconsin.
Although defamation is often easy enough to spot, what muddies the legal waters are journalism shield laws and other protections given to news media outlets to protect them from attempts to expose sources.
The shield laws were written years ago and had in mind the old-fashioned way of sourcing news: direct conversation or correspondence between reporter and source.
With the digital era upon us, courts now have to crack this hard nut: Are the popular, free-wheeling public comment boards that news outlets run also part of their legitimate news-gathering efforts?
The Star thinks so.
In its 15-page brief to Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid, Indiana's largest newspaper argued that the state's journalism shield law prevents it from having to hand over the identifying information that former Junior Achievement CEO Jeffrey Miller wants.
"The free exchange of information and ideas on these (online) forums, which The Star instituted precisely to foster this constitutionally protected speech, will become severely chilled if the public feels that they cannot participate . . . without the risk of being unmasked and, perhaps, hauled into court should their speech offend the wrong person," says the brief filed for The Star by Jan Carroll, an attorney for Barnes & Thornburg.
The Star hasn't turned over the sought-after identities of the posters on its website and hasn't said whether it will appeal the judge's ruling.
The IBJ has turned over the information. A third media outlet, WRTV (Channel 6), is still fighting a subpoena in Miller's case.
Kevin Goldberg, legal counsel for the American Society of News Editors, said many media outlets see value in going to battle over being forced to release names of anonymous posters, even they rack up costly legal bills.
"The nature of news is changing. More and more, we are seeing these people (anonymous posters) really are becoming sources" of legitimate news and information, he said.
Newspapers and other news outlets don't want that source of information to dry up under the threat of defamation suits.
Anonymous posters themselves, of course, are weighing in.
On The Star's comment pages last week, CafeRacer scoffed at another poster, saying Reid's ruling will make people less likely to comment on public issues.
"No. They'll be less likely to leave comments that are pure speculation and outright lies. Not a bad thing, really."
News media must decide: "Do they absorb the legal costs trying to protect the freedom of speech rights of that poster?" even if the comment is defamatory, asked Stephen Key, executive director of the Hoosier State Press Association. "It does put newspapers in kind of a ticklish spot."
A minority of newspapers sidestep the sticky issue by banning anonymous posters to their websites.
The biggest to do so was the Buffalo News last year.
"We became more and more concerned about the tone of some of the comments," said Margaret Sullivan, editor of the New York newspaper, which has a daily circulation of 178,000. "You got all kinds of nasty, really hateful kinds of things."
What the News found was that axing anonymity in favor of real-name-only comments led to "much higher-level comments," she said.
One drawback: There are many fewer of them. The News has approved 3,700 people to comment on its site, and they pipe up on the comment boards far less often than under the old system.
Even so, said Sullivan, "while the volume is down significantly, quality went up, and I'll take that any day. We are really pleased."
While allowing anonymity, most newspapers and other news sites use terms-of-use agreements to try to enforce civility.
Users of The Star's site must agree they won't "engage in personal attacks, harass or threaten, question the motives behind others' posts or comments, deliberately inflame or disrupt the conversation, or air personal grievances about other users," among other things.
The Star, like almost all media-run online sites, also removes offensive posts and allows readers to report abuse of the terms of service.
Should a ban on namelessness become the new norm for news outlets?
Robert Katz hopes not. The law professor at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis thinks newspapers and other news media should continue to allow anonymous posts on their websites in the name of freedom of expression and robust community debate.
"It's connected to the mission of a newspaper -- to get information out," he said. "If you have crackpots . . . people naturally discount that. When you have an open blog . . . people factor that into their assessment of the comments being posted."
Maybe the concerns about a crackdown on anonymous posting are overwrought.
Editors at The Dagger, an online news site in Baltimore suburbs, worried that posting to its lively online comment board might drop after the plaintiff in a defamation suit forced The Dagger to turn over information about anonymous posters.
In January, The Dagger prominently told its posters what happened.
The result: "It hasn't scared people off" from posting, contributing editor Aaron Cahall said. "No one's held back. I have not seen an appreciable change in comments, page views, interactions on the site."
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110306/LOCAL/103060372/Website-posters-anonymity-being-put-test?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110306/LOCAL/103060372/Website-posters-anonymity-being-put-test?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com)
I have often wondered how words could bully a person. Unless there is a crime of terrorism, terrorist treats and treats of physical harm, how can word really hurt you. Just like Judge Judy says sticks and stones may break my bones words cannot hurt me. But you can't touch someone physically.
All you need is a thick skin and a finger to push the delete key. But it seem there are so many thin skinned people with tender ears, they want to take freedom of speech out of our Constitution. :flag:
But, these same thin skinned and tender eared people can dish it out but, can't take it. :cry: :cry: :cry: Just like the tender hearted guy that shot the abortion provider doctor. :yes:
Just like here on the "civil" Unknown Zone. We have bullies, gangs of people who pile on and try to force people out of the Zone with their words and deeds. But who cares, this is America, grow a tough skin, let them have their little bully pile on's and just plow a head. You don't let them shut you up or or shut you down. :biggrin: One tough skinned Troll. Troll :no1: :4th3:
Besides the fact that you missed the point of the article, it seems like you answered your own quandary.
How are people hurt by words? One sign that someone has been hurt is when he/she imagines that people want him/her to leave or stop posting. I haven't seen anyone say or hint anything like that, so apparently something must have bruised a bit.
So pot, before you call the kettle black, you might want to consider how thin skinned you are and be prepared for the sting of their response.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 06, 2011, 02:38:01 PM
Besides the fact that you missed the point of the article, it seems like you answered your own quandary.
How are people hurt by words? One sign that someone has been hurt is when he/she imagines that people want him/her to leave or stop posting. I haven't seen anyone say or hint anything like that, so apparently something must have bruised a bit.
So pot, before you call the kettle black, you might want to consider how thin skinned you are and be prepared for the sting of their response.
Well Sandy Baby, when you make smart remarks and stupid stands and your as hard headed as they come, do expect to have it returned. I'm not a :cry: baby and have to have help piling on someone. I see he here every day, even when I behave myself. You with your little back stabbing knife. :biggrin:
http://www.wthr.com/story/14196406/judge-media-must-reveal-ids-of-online-posters (http://www.wthr.com/story/14196406/judge-media-must-reveal-ids-of-online-posters)
Troll:
If words were useless as a tool against people, or groups of people, then why would the military engage in psy-ops?
Quote from: Palehorse on March 06, 2011, 02:52:07 PM
Troll:
If words were useless as a tool against people, or groups of people, then why would the military engage in psy-ops?
Oh I agree 100% if the enemy had any real brains. If you want to call psy-ops. :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on March 06, 2011, 02:45:25 PM
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Quote from: The Troll on March 06, 2011, 02:45:25 PMYou with your little back stabbing knife. :biggrin:
Your back? Puhleeze! That implies that I've ever been sneaky about my interactions with you. I call you like I see you and couldn't care less if it pisses you off. That's babbling bs manifested by your sorely bruised ego that can't believe you can't intimidate a mere woman. ;D
Quote from: Palehorse on March 06, 2011, 02:52:07 PM
Troll:
If words were useless as a tool against people, or groups of people, then why would the military engage in psy-ops?
Exactly!
Then there's intent of the words. It's a bit different for me. I don't live close to anyone here. The members would be hard pressed to know anything about me that I haven't shared. So if someone said, "Sandy Eggo is a pervert", then it really doesn't mean a whole lot. Who's "Sandy Eggo?
On the other hand, there are members here who live close to each other (relatively speaking). Some of you may even know each other. So if someone were to say, "Palehorse is a pervert", then it WOULD have different meaning because that could possibly damage your reputation in your community.
BTW, I used "here", meaning the Zone, as a small scale example.Of course, this is a concern internet-wide.
WOW! Super Woman, what more can I say, but I still would to buy you for what you are really worth and sell for what you think you're worth. Royal Caribbean here we come. For a four week cruise :no1: class and change left over. :rotfl: :grin2:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 07, 2011, 08:07:36 PM
Exactly!
. . .So if someone were to say, "Palehorse is a pervert", then it WOULD have different meaning because that could possibly damage your reputation in your community.
. . .
:sneaky: :lipsrsealed2: :icon_twisted:
Quote from: Palehorse on March 07, 2011, 10:41:39 PM
:sneaky: :lipsrsealed2: :icon_twisted:
:groan: It was an example :biggrin:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 08, 2011, 05:01:21 AM
:groan: It was an example :biggrin:
:biggrin: SE :shrk: PH :grin2:
Quote from: The Troll on March 08, 2011, 06:15:48 AM
:biggrin: SE :shrk: PH :grin2:
Sandy knows what I was inferring. . . without words. . . :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on March 08, 2011, 07:38:09 AM
Sandy knows what I was inferring. . . without words. . . :biggrin:
:) :smile: :grin2: :biggrin: :rotfl: :rotfl: Just love it. :rotfl: You don't play with the old Master. :biggrin: :razz:
Quote from: Palehorse on March 08, 2011, 07:38:09 AM
Sandy knows what I was inferring. . . without words. . . :biggrin:
He still doesn't get it, but that's okay, I did. :biggrin:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 08, 2011, 09:13:58 PM
He still doesn't get it, but that's okay, I did. :biggrin:
:devil29: