Kent Wills wrote:
> As I understand it, on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:03:22 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez
> _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>Do tell what is an "unpublished" www site?
>>>
>>>I'm not sure what Ken meant by that.
>>>I made the screen caps of Ted's stalking available to all, so
>>>I don't think he meant that.
>>
>>Because you lack the spine to call Ken's erroneous assertions
>>even when they are patently obvious.
>>
> Ken is quite capable of explaining his meaning.
Pretty much everyone "has" third party-owned web space these days,
but not everyone advertises the material they have on it as available to
the public. By way of example, I might keep a page on Geocities, but
unless you know of it or are apprised of it, you wouldn't think to look
there. However, anyone with a modi*** of Net-savvy can examine the
index from a single posting of material -- and a stalker like Ted can
gather and save the entire site.
If Kent didn't make his site generally known or as he claims, had
only intended that one of his personal friends see the doctored boarding
pass (what his reasons may be is beside the point), he made no
representation to any of us that could be called a lie. For instance,
if Ted put up a doctored photo of himself indulging in gay *** (someone
actually *did* impose Ted's head on a gay *** photo a while back, iirc)
on his personal website and sent you the URL (to show you what others
have been doing to him), it would not constitute "publication."
If Jonezy found out about the site, and published the photo, could he
credibly claim that it was proof positive that Ted was gay?
That's really the issue here. By his own admission, Ted downloaded
the contents of one of Kent's sites ... as he has also done with mine.
Coupled with his other activities, it constitutes credible evidence of
dangerous stalking behavior.
|
