but if said person ever enters the real world he would be the same as the said person as soon as someone does not agree with him, said person will just prove what a ass they are, just my humble opionion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

As someone said, it's possible to get a lot of information about a person with very little data as a starting point. One evening I received three wrong number/prank calls from the same phone. I was annoyed and decided to see if I could find out anything about the number that kept calling me.

I found a free reverse phone number look-up site that gave me the name and billing address for the phone. From there, I went to a free map site, and, using their "street view" function, saw pictures of the house, with two adult-type cars in the driveway, and what could be a college kid's beater parked out front.

From there, I went to FaceBook and searched for the name and town. I saw pics of the young woman, posing in front of the house with her parents and younger brother, washing her car, duck-facing in the bathroom mirror, posing on the beach, the works. I saw pics of the college she commutes to in her crappy car. I could probably find out her damn class schedule if I wanted to!



The point of that story is to illustrate how little information you need to find out a hell of a lot about someone. Unless you're doing C4C, you probably don't want to post too much publicly.



Oh, and Stumbler, you really need to take some kind of remedial reading comprehension course. What your eyes are seeing is not what your brain perceives. Either that, or your brain isn't giving the proper impulses to your fingers. Are you self-medicating too much, or not enough?

 

Cool story. and whilst I've no doubt it is true you used somebodys personal phone numbers to trace them which is totally different from getting the same information from just a first name and their location.

Same as the guy going on about using the postal code to trace someone.
Their is no way at all for either of you to trace anybody from just a first name and the name of a town.
If you think you can then you are much cleverer than the police/FBI/Interpol etc because even they can't do that.

 

Tell that to Jehosophat Shlemnitz of Possum Holler, Arkansas (pop. 16)

 

This is your problem, not Ejls'. Here's the fundamental issue:

If you choose to read into ejls' statements meanings which are not there, then any problem you find with it is your fault, not ejls', and entirely constructed by you.

There's tilting at windmills, stumbler, and then there's what you're doing. Get a fucking grip.

 

Funny you should mention this Orion because from what I was reading last night I was pretty sure I was going to have to retract and apologize for posting this thread this morning.

But since I can't get a straight answer to these three questions It continues to stand as posted.

Here's the three questions I asked:

A member can or cannot be banned for re-quoting a post with personal information in it.

And if a member does "let it happen again" (re-quoted a post with personal information in it) the member will not be banned.

Also if members are being warned not to re-quote posts with personal information in them was the member who originally posted the personal information banned or not.

Here was my questions to eljs.

Now notice how Jamie90 jumps in but doesn't really answer those questions but claims I won't be banned.

And so I asked for this clarification on the record.

Notice Jamie90 does not respond or offer the clarification I asked for but eljs responds in a completely evasive manner asking us members what should be done instead of simply answering the questions.

Now while this response is both evasive and dishonest it also implies that I have already been warned once. And so if I ever accidentally re-quoted personal information again eljs could rightfully claim I have already been warned and since I did it again she would be justified in banning me.

So no while I was ready to retract and apologize for this thread if I got a clarification of whether or not I could be banned for re-quoting someone who posted personal information Jamie90's silence and eljs' evasive and dishonest response convinces me I was right all along and what eljs is really doing is trying to set me up to be banned.

 

Gee...you really do have too much time on your hands! As I see it, if you deliberately do it again you could be banned, yes....if you do it sometime in the future, accidentially and not related to this, I would not ban you for it!

Call it favouritism if you want...its just what I think is fair!

 

You are only one of three moderators and I've said above I'm pretty sure eljs would ban me because she's already got me set up and could claim I've already been warned.

And one more question. How would you determine whether I re-quoted someone who posted personal information deliberately or accidentally?

That would be a very subjective criteria even on your part. So if you decided I deliberately re-quoted personal information even you could ban me by your own admission.

So all this evasiveness does is convince me I was right the first time and eljs is more than threatening to ban me. She's actually trying to set me up for it.

 

you´ll never be pleased with an answer....I should stop giving them!

 

Where is the dishonesty in Ej's statement, I read it and it makes perfect sense to me. You quoted personal information in a post, Ej removed it and warned you not to do it again, though the warning had to be placed on the thread as you refuse to accept PMs. If you post, or quote personal information again you face banning.

Pretty fucking clear to me, and in no way evasive or dishonest, you choose to see it that way because of your bias towards all the mods.

 

EXCEPT I FUCKING DIDN'T. I'm SICK AND TIRED of that blatant fucking lie.

Somebody stalked my myspace and copied the info and posted it here. I have NEVER ONCE mentioned it. It's been reposted by douchebags who should've been banned for it.

The ONLY reason anybody who I haven't personally talked to in PMs or off of this site knows my first name is because Lisa called everybody by their first names. I never wanted her to call me by mine in public but I didn't think about it at the time.

Oh and if the address didn't start with a 5, then it's not where I'm fucking from. You don't god damn know me, and neither does bill.

 

Yes you were warned, go back and read the thread. And I suppose they would determine whether it was an accident or not by asking you, not a perfect system, but if there was no leeway we would not be having this conversation.

 

Hey take it up with smcaaphd Baller16. Smcaaphd was the one who said it would be unfair to ban members for posting your personal information because you did it first.

Now I think that's bullshit and flagrant discrimination and favoritism not to mention totally ignoring what the rule actually says.

But your objection should be with the mods and not me because I do believe the members posting your personal information should be banned.

And to your credit and/or credibility according to eljs, billblondel334 did post some of your personal information which you have accused him of doing in the past. So I think that proves your point about some members posting your personal information and not getting banned for it.

https://forum.xnxx.com/showpost.php?p=5429962&postcount=56

 

Which sure makes it a threat (and now a set up) to ban me to me at least. But also notice that the poster who originally posted the personal information was not banned which tends to prove Baller16's accusations.

 

Well as you quoted the post, thus posting the information again do you think you should be banned?

 

How is it a threat, how is it a set up, maybe in the eyes of a paranoid fool, but if you turn the paranoia off you will see a warning and a request not to do it again or you may face the consequences of your actions. Or are you different from the rest of us in that you can break the rules?

 

You actually just confirmed the title and thesis of this thread. As you point out eljs has warned me so if I ever re-quoted a post with personal information in it she could ban me.

But then answer me this. Why aren't members who actually post personal information on themselves or others being banned for it?

Why is Baller16 different from the rest of us? Why are the members posting his personal information different from the rest of us?

 

No. I think the members who are actually posting the personal information should be banned and then there would be no personal information to re-quote.

Simply enforcing the rule as written seems like the logical solution to me.

 

The first time baller used the word 'C***s' in a post was far, far back in 2006, when he referred to his penis as '**** junior'.

 

Using your real first name does not appear to be an issue.

The issue is his personal information his stalkers are gathering from other sources and posting here in clear violation of the stated rule.