Sunday, December 20, 2009

Freedom of Information

(Note to readers: All names in the following post have been changed. The pictures have been altered to hide the identity of the offender. I know a lot of readers would prefer I post everything, and legally we're entitled to, but we really don't need to go there in order to get the point of our story across.)

Today's PLFM entry all began innocently enough.

Now, as most of you know, our busy WWHM office produces two blogs simultaneously. Our original blog, Why Women Hate Men-The Blog, re-posts preposterously clueless and pathetic male personal ads submitted by our female readers, whereby we instruct our hard-working staff to mercilessly flog the original author of those ads like an uncooperative mule.

Our second blog, Psychotic Letters From Men, emerged from the swamp only six months later in response to the hordes of female WWHM readers who began to submit their own personal stories of pathetic and / or abhorrent male behavior, many of which contained original and delightfully voyeuristic copies of threatening emails, bizarre letters, and, of course, the accompanying restraining orders.

Yet sometimes we receive correspondence which could land on either blog, and today we opened up just such an email.

WWHM reader DM recently submitted a large batch of moronic personal ads to Why Women Hate Men- The Blog, the last of which she highlighted "This is my personal favorite!" in red text.

Brimming with excitement, we hastily adjusted our crotchless briefs, put down our bear claw, and focused our weary, bloodshot eyes onto the computer screen. Unfortunately, we felt a bit let down when we found this complete snore of a personal ad:


Lets be realistic -34M

I am a cute athletic guy that looks younger than I am. I am single no kids just a cute little puppy. I am straight edge. I have a reserved laid back personality but I can be very direct and forward too. I am not shy at all either. I have a sales background mostly in mortgages.

More about me .... I like sports, I play everything soccer, volleyball, golf, mt bike and more. I went to XXXXX to be a gym teacher before I got into sales and I used to coach youth sports for my younger siblings. I like playing ps3 video games like call of duty 2 with my younger brother or Wii golf with my dad. With a girl I just like to watch movies and enjoy some quality time together. I tend to be a homebody not into the bar scene or clubbing.

I am looking for someone drama free and someone who also wants to be happy with me. Any race and legal age is fine. Please no drugs or smoking. I have a facebook and myspace so if you contact me send me your links and a pic of yourself in the reply. I also have aim and yahoo messenger chat so we can get to know each other better that way first.

Seth

Hmmmm.

Not too bad of an ad, though certainly not WWHM material. He's single, athletic, close to his family, relatively good-looking, and he openly expresses his affection for kids and animals.

Sounds like someone you might enjoy making a casserole with, snuggling up to in front of Sleepless in Seattle, or perhaps a man you might even choose to marry and engage in horrifically boring missionary-style sex with once a month for the rest of your life.

Perplexed with her submission to WWHM, we checked back with reader DM's email, only to find a little explanation below the link she provided:

"Why is that my favorite you ask? Because it has a reply attached to it!"

Sure enough, the public dating forum Seth utilized allows visitors to post replies, and it appears a nice young woman discovered a little bit more about Seth than he was willing to disclose upfront. As such, she attached the ensuing response underneath his personal ad:

ok, lets really be realistic.

im not really here to judge you however since you are a registered sex offender who is really only out for sex maybe you should put that in your add. I guess its a good thing that you dont have a degree in teaching gym since you wouldnt be able to as a registered sex offender.

Point is is that when you are online looking for someone maybe you should include that if they arent willing to sleep with you on the first date your not interested considering when WE talked and i stated that i wasnt interested in sex that i wanted a long term relationship i suddenly wasnt good enough anymore.

It then also didnt take much to google your name and megans law to see that you are a registered sex offender.

Which you never told me.

Ouch.

We suspect Seth didn't receive many replies after that pleasant little note landed underneath his personal ad.

Are we done?

Not even close.

The above accusation is pretty serious, so we wouldn't post this story without the ability to somehow verify it's authenticity.

Fortunately, Seth left a direct link (which PLFM deleted) to his YouTube channel, where he invited women to come view some of his "funny videos" before they replied to his personal ad. Unfortunately for Seth, the title of his YouTube channel also contains his real name, which PLFM then cross-referenced with his listed hometown.

PLFM then plugged his name directly into the publicly available court records of the state in which he currently resides, and sure enough, look who popped up:

















Gross, you say?

Gross indeed!

But it gets worse.

PLFM spent some time perusing a few of Seth's court records in order to determine the exact nature of Seth's original arrest. Occasionally we hear of cases where 16 year-old males find themselves forever branded "sex offenders" for having consensual sex with their 15 year-old girlfriends, which we personally feel is a complete load of horseshit. The states that still carry these laws on the books seriously need to pull their heads out of their collective asses, and we wanted to make sure this wasn't the case with Seth.

It wasn't.

While we couldn't determine the exact nature of the arrest that led to Seth's "sex offender" status, we found quite a few other recent arrests that might be of interest to any woman currently perusing the internet for potential mates.

Seth's recent arrest record includes, but is not limited to:

Display of Obscene Sexual Materials
Multiple Harassment Charges
Corruption of Minors
Statutory Sexual Assault
XXXXXX - Person less than 16 Years of Age (charge X'd to anonymize state)
Intimidation of Witnesses
Retaliation against Witnesses
Disorderly Conduct (Hazardous and Physical)
Providing False / Misleading Testimony
Disorderly Conduct (Obscene Language)
Criminal Trespassing
Criminal Mischief

...and, worst of all, a speeding infraction for driving 2-15 mph over the speed limit!

Seriously, who would want to date someone with such wanton disregard for our nation's well-rounded traffic regulations? Disgusting!

Anyway, reading through a few of the online court dockets can provide even more insight into Seth's self-proclaimed "drama-free," "reserved," and "laid-back personality."

According to one court docket:

(Seth) agreed to meet K.P., a minor, at the XXXXXXXXX Mall in March of this year.

K.P. entered the mall with a friend and saw (Seth). (Seth) appeared older than he had represented to K.P. online, so K.P. and her friend walked past without acknowledging (Seth). (Seth) saw K.P. and her friend leaving the mall approximately 30-45 minutes later.

(Seth) followed K.P. to her car, jumped on the hood, and kicked the right fender. The cost to repair the damage, which the court determined was caused by (Seth) jumping on the hood and kicking the fender, totaled $1.535.57.

According to his personal ad, Seth seeks a woman with whom he can "watch movies and spend quality time together," which somewhat contradicts the evidence presented against him in court during just one recent harassment charge:

On XX-XX-XX, Seth emailed his ex-wife and demanded to know her current address, saying "tell me or I will find out on my own, and that will make me more angry than I am now!"

On XX-XX-XX, Seth repeatedly called his ex-wife, hanging up several times and leaving at least one long, obscene and threatening voice message around 11:42 PM. In this message, Seth said, in pertinent part, "You don't fucking ignore me like this! Now I'm gonna have a problem! I'm gonna have to teach you a Fucking lesson you goddamn bitch! When I say call me, you fucking call me!"

On XX-XX-XX (the ex-wife) filed a criminal complaint.

On XX-XX-XX, Seth called (ex-wife's) house while Trooper XXXXXXX of the XXXXXXX State Police was present. The Trooper directed Seth to stop calling (ex-wife). Seth did not follow Trooper XXXXX's advice. Seth called back while the Trooper was still there.

On XX-XX-XX, Seth sent (ex-wife) a two-page long threatening email, saying (in part) "i have not burnt down your new house you just bought either even though i should cause you don't (sic) deserve to have a house .. . do not make any mistakes with me."

On XX-XX-XX Trooper XXXXXXX filed a criminal complaint (against Seth).

On XX-XX-XX Seth emailed (ex-wife) saying "I left a message for you to contact me via email and you did not. Instead I learned that you directed my calls to the police where I also learned you tried to file a complaint against me. . . This is the second time you have made the mistake of getting the police involved in our personal business and this is the last time I will give you a chance to correct your mistake . . . You will reverse everything you have done. You will terminate any and all complaints made against me and when I call your phone I am to get you, not the police. You will also talk to me whenever I want to talk to you for as long as you live . . . You must realize that after everything that happened to me in my life, both recent and in the past, now there are days when I care and there are days when I do not care and I'm just taking each day as it comes. I'm not afraid of anything, therefore, I could do anything at any time."


The court then states:

In repeatedly threatening (ex-wife) and continually calling and emailing her after being asked to desist, both by (ex-wife) and by a State Police Officer, Seth was harassing, annoying, and alarming his ex -wife. In particular, inflammatory language like "I'm not afraid of anything, therefore, I could do anything at any time," "This is the last time will give you a chance to correct your mistake," "Do not make anymore mistakes with me " and "That will make me more angry than I am now" was clearly designed to alarm the victim.

The numerous attempts also clearly satisfy the repeated conduct requirement in the harassment statute.


Seth's defense at trial centered on his assertion that there was a legitimate purpose for his attempts to contact his ex-wife. As he summarized in his closing argument, "[it] was because of XXXXXXX related issues" related to XXXXXXXXX the two had previously shared. (Ed. note: Not children)

Disregarding all communications other than the threats, Mr. XXXXXXX has still engaged in repeated communication which serves no legitimate purpose.

So, how might you feel about dating this guy now?

Had enough?

We have, and in all honesty, Facts of Life comes on in 10 minutes. According to Comcast, it's the episode where Tootie gets caught smoking a cigarette at a party, and everyone acts like she just shot the fucking Pope. We gotta go.

But first, let's resolve the purpose of our post so we can all feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Dating online involves inherent risks. You have no fucking idea who you are about to meet. Just because he's a good-looking attorney doesn't mean shit.

PLFM effortlessly acquired all the information posted in this blog entry in less than three minutes, and we didn't even make the unfortunate mistake of blowing Seth in his car first.

Ironically, in producing a blog about stalkers, we've learned quite a bit about how they operate. We suggest you turn the tables by utilizing the same stalker tactics when researching your potential online dates. Which you should do. It's easy stuff, and well worth your efforts.

Nearly every state, county and city posts all criminal records online, and some even post civil cases online. You can determine whether your potential date has recently murdered someone, or whether they have 16 lawsuits currently pending in civil court for failing to pay a debt. Divorce cases, child custody battles, this stuff is all posted online for free in many states. Or, if you'd like, you can pay some hack online search company $50 to find the same information you can get yourself for free in three minutes. Fun!

PLFM also learned stalkers can find surprisingly good results by cutting and pasting email addresses into the Google search bar. Often, you can determine which forums a person might visit, and even read their posts. In fact, as we've mentioned before, that's exactly how we discovered one of the stories we posted to our blog wasn't exactly truthful. Thanks, stalkers!

(Sound of everyone googling their own email addresses.)

Of course, we're not just picking on men here, as this same advice applies to men trying to find out about women they're interested in dating. You won't get off the hook that easily, ladies, and you have to admit there's quite a few of you out there that are just a few croutons short of a salad.

If you've recently met someone online who didn't exactly turn out to be what they claimed, please feel free to post it in the comments.

(After producing WWHM Blogs for over a year now, we're determined to earn one US dollar for our efforts. As such, we've teamed up with Babeland, a classy, reputable female owned and operated sex boutique with four stores in Seattle and New York, as well as Amazon.com. If you'd like to buy anything off Amazon, please just link to Amazon through one of our unsightly, box-like banners!)

117 comments:

  1. That is absolutely terrifying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the warning Weaz! But, come on, this masterful DB of inhumanity shouldn't be spared having his name plastered any and everywhere. I hope you didn't do so to protect yourself from any recrimination from "Seth"??

    ReplyDelete
  3. I dated a friend of a friend who turned out to be a registered sex offender. My story is very tame compared to this one, though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey you left his last name in one spot, in the last italicized section. I'm guessing you didn't mean to do that since you have him referred to as Seth everywhere else..

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm deleting my motherfucking online profile right at this fucking minute.

    Fuck this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good catch Ella.

    I go over these a thousand times, and I still miss them.

    Up next on PLFM, we have another letter from a insufferable, entitled dickhead.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for this post. I know so many women who think checking out a potential date is somehow invasive and improper.

    WOULD YOU RATHER SOMEONE FIND YOU DEAD IN A FOREST?

    There's a REASON the criminal stuff is so publicly accessible...it's SO that you can protect yourself from someone who is violent or criminally deviant. Use it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "WOULD YOU RATHER SOMEONE FIND YOU DEAD IN A FOREST?"

    Or, not find you at all. Green River Killer/Gary Ridgeway ring any bells for anyone?

    Background checks. They're important. Especially if you're dating someone you met online. Duh, people lie online all the time. They lie about their height, age, weight, hair color, eye color, criminal record, everything. Why would you not want to check someone out thoroughly?

    And that goes for guys, too. Fellas, remember Aileen Wournos? Or Andrew Cunanan? No, not everyone out there is a crazed serial killer. But, there is nothing wrong with checking someone out. And sane people recognize this, and don't have a problem with it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. why wouldn't you google someone you want to swap body fluids with? i mean how is that rude?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey, kudos for teaming up with Babeland. They're a great company.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh man. His poor ex-wife.

    Good to see you back, Weasel. I'd been missing your blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If you want to check on people without having everything about them revealed before the date, do a search for them on www.pipl.com.

    That will bring up the standard search results like facebook pages and such (only about one sentence will be revealed though) but it also brings up public records like court records and where they are registered to vote.

    I used this to do a little research on my psycho ex boyfriend dude when he contacted me out of the blue 15 years later. Yeah, from what I found there, he hasn't changed and I'm very glad he's a psycho EX boyfriend dude now living in another state.

    Just be careful that you are looking up the correct person (a middle initial would help) or you might accidently get results for the wrong person and condemn someone prematurely.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That's some good research.

    But angry sex-offenders need love too!

    lol, good job justifying e-stalking, ie online research. I'm glad to see someone convince the alarmist blockheads here it's okay to inform yourself. e-stalking is a biased, judgmental word for basic research. It's completely unlike physically tracking prey (ie, stalking).

    However,...
    I know so many women who think checking out a potential date is somehow invasive and improper.

    WOULD YOU RATHER SOMEONE FIND YOU DEAD IN A FOREST?

    there are other ways to inform yourself, like getting to know someone in real life (as you would at a party or club). And no, you won't end up dead or missing if you use responsible judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Somehow I don't think that a person who is a repeated sex offender would automatically inform you of this fact, if you happened to meet one at a party or a club. They do exist in real life, after all.

    In fact, I'd bet "repeated sex offender" is one of those little minor details that y'know, it might slip one's mind to mention, if one was a guy attempting to date (or at least sleep with) some random girl from a club or party.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Holy fuck. If I were this guy's ex-wife, the first thing I'd do is get my concealed carry permit and buy myself a gun.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Somehow I don't think [...] a repeated sex offender would automatically inform you of this fact [...] I'd bet "repeated sex offender" is one of those little minor details that y'know, it might slip one's mind to mention

    Yet people in real life situations do just fine figuring out they don't like someone without the internet, y'know? Paradox? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In my case, the said sex offender not only covered it up but lied about it and his entire life, basically. I'm glad his ex told me the truth, though. Of course, I googled it just to make sure it WAS true before I dumped him.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In my experience, men who complain the most about "drama" are the ones creating it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ooo, I love Toys In Babeland. Good call on teaming up with them. Also, Seth is clearly nuts and deserves to have his full name and youtube moniker printed on PLFM for all the world to see.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A good friend of mine met a super-nice guy on a beach; they dated a while, then he dropped her. Not long after he was convicted of drug-assisted sex offenses. Good thing she wasn't his type after all.

    It's a good idea to do some research even if you meet someone offline, such as meeting their friends.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I met a guy once, yes, in person even. He was hanging out with friends of mine and as such I assumed he was okay. Never once did anything clue me in to the fact he might not be. He asked me for a ride to his house in a remote rurual area nearby. I agreed but I was waiting for my boyfriend to show up so I could let him know I was going to give this guy a ride. When my boyfriend showed up his best friend was with him. I explained what was going on and the best friend took one look at the guy and told me I wasn't taking him anywhere. Turns out he lived in the same apartment building downtown as our friend and definitily not in the area he wanted me to drive him too. We confronted him and he had no good excuse regarding why he lied to me about where he lived.

    About a month later he was arrested for serial killing homeless people in a series of brutal assaults.

    That was when I learned not to trust my instincts on anyone. Creepers can seem normal enough to trick victims. It happens all the time...online and in person.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks to Fugly, found petabuse.com and the info there validated my feelings about my ex-farrier. He alledgedly helped to starve 31 horses to death. Hasn't gone to court yet, but I know he did it. Initially came off as a kind, good old boy, who was great with horses, reasonably priced and even came on a holiday once for an emergency, seriously bad, rescue at risk for mechanical founder. He started to creep me out with some casual touching, you know, straighten out my hoodie, brush my hair out of my eyes, iccck! Then he started to pare out too much sole, despite my orders to leave it alone. Replaced him. Had I known about his history, he would have never come within a country mile of me and mine. The internet is a wonderful thing, unless you have something to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's lovely to know that there are people who can spot a sex offender at a party or club with such devastating accuracy. Truly you are marvels of perception!

    For those of us not so blessed, the internet's a good thing. Since I've known at least one sex offender who I would never in ten million years have guessed was one--and I knew him for quite awhile, he was hardly trotting it out at parties--I'm glad the resource is there.

    ReplyDelete
  24. >"Yet people in real life situations do just fine figuring out they don't like someone without the internet..."

    Sure, but sometimes it's only AFTER the damage has been done. A friend of mine married a guy who molested both her kids. She dumped him as soon as she found out, of course, but had she checked him out online maybe she could have prevented it as he did have a prior accusation against him. (No, I'm not blaming her - just saying there's nothing wrong with doing an online search to be safe.) But there was no prior sign of creepiness, he was in the military, clean cut, had that boy scout-ish type image. The only tip-off until her daughter said something was that he drank too much but even the extent of his drinking was hidden from her until after they married. (BTW, he was court martialed but only got 3 years!)

    There are many pedophiles and serial killers who not only are capable of getting girlfriends but even wives. They can become very good at fooling people into thinking they are nice guys.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This is a super creepy ad. Wow.. now I feel an urge to Google an ex's email address just out of curiosity, or something.

    Also, Babeland is cool. I just recently found one on Capitol Hill in Seattle. Very fun.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Since I've known at least one sex offender who I would never in ten million years have guessed was one--and I knew him for quite awhile, he was hardly trotting it out at parties--I'm glad the resource is there.

    If you didn't dislike him, then what's the problem? You know people do change...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Gee, I dunno. Maybe it would have been good to know these things because his behavior towards me, an adult female, might not be exactly the same as his behavior to, oh, young boys? Like the ones that happen to be in my family? And possibly it would be good for me to be aware of this whole child molestation problem, lest those two worlds someday intersect in a very bad way?

    People do change. Sometimes they also don't. I'd just as soon not be unwittingly using my underage relatives as the guinea pigs to find out which it is.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The name Ted Bundy ring a bell? None of those women had a clue that he wasn't anything other than what he appeared to be; a clean cut white single male.
    Gee, guess they didn't manage to 'figure it out without the internet'.
    Now they are all footnotes in a sordid story.
    We have the tools to use to try to up the odds of remaining safe. It's NOT wrong to use them to try to protect yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "people do change"

    People only change if they want to, and statistically pedophiles don't want to change. They have a much higher rate of recidivism than other criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Holy fucking shit.

    Though also, I guess: where's the psychotic letter?

    ReplyDelete
  31. If you didn't dislike him, then whats the problem? You know people do change....

    You know considering the recidivism of sex offenders (conservative estimates, not incorporating estimates of unreported offenses, place this around 50%) and a society that tells women we are responsible for not getting sexually assaulted, I feel likes its not that unreasonable for women to want to play it safe and make sure the men in their lives are who they say they are

    ReplyDelete
  32. Casual Encounters, I'll take the threatening voicemail to the ex-wife as payment.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Casual Encounters- The "letter" is the email used as evidence against him in court. I just figured that kind of qualified.

    These stories you guys posted reminded me- a female friend of mine dated a guy for a couple months several years back. Never got too involved, she said the guy was too, um, "eccentric."

    Flash forward three years later, and the exact same guy she dated is on the news for murdering his current girlfriend and burying her body in the backyard.

    Nice.

    Here he is:

    http://www.komonews.com/news/39966532.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Williams said there was nothing suspicious about the woman's disappearance in July 2007, and the matter was listed as a missing person case."

    Wow, gotta love how a woman disappearing with no notice and leaving everything is not "suspicious."

    ReplyDelete
  35. I've read that recidivism is more like 17%.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And possibly it would be good for me to be aware of this whole child molestation problem

    A sex offender is a child molester?
    You'd hold yourself responsible for someone else's actions? The name Ted Bundy ring a bell?

    Gee, guess they didn't manage to 'figure it out without the internet'.

    lol
    And with the internet they would figure it out?

    It's NOT wrong to use them to try to protect yourself.

    Anyone say it was?

    People only change if they want to, and statistically pedophiles don't want to change.

    Sex offender is pedophile?
    People do change.

    You know considering the recidivism of sex offenders...

    Yet people do change. Surprising?

    society that tells women we are responsible for not getting sexually assaulted

    Your safety is your responsibility unless you're a child. Is everyone else's yours? Yours is not theirs.

    make sure the men in their lives are who they say they are

    Define make sure. The name Ted Bundy ring a bell?

    Did he wrong you? Will he wrong you?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous -- This particular sex offender of which I speak was, in fact, a child molestor. Had a thing for boys. So yes, as a matter of fact, in this case sex offender DID equal pedophile.

    But hey, thanks for playing!

    ReplyDelete
  38. This particular sex offender of which I speak was, in fact, a child molestor.
    Are there children/family at the parties? Was he molesting people? Because it looks like you're ostracizing someone who's paid his debt to society and may not be doing anything...

    But whatevs! gg

    ReplyDelete
  39. Gosh Ursulav, how dare you think about other people! Define society! You can't 'cause it's a lie!

    Oh, but be sure you talk to everyone who forces you to interact in inappropriate ways. Being polite and accomodating to men is the foundation of society. And society is the most important thing of all!

    Also people are responsible for their own actions and safety which is why I'm so interested in yours.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hey Anonymous, if you want to defend child molesters and rapists, why don't you do it under your own name? If your position is so defensible, why don't you stand by it?

    ...?

    Yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  41. if you want to defend child molesters and rapists
    A sex offender is an active child molester or a rapist? Rly?

    There. A name. Satisfied? lol

    ReplyDelete
  42. Without getting into the gory details of a truly odd situation over a decade old, the players in which I haven't seen for nearly that long, yes, these were people with whom I would engage socially OUTSIDE of parties, and there is an excellent chance that, had his wife not informed me in an awkward and roundabout fashion of the legally-mandated need for locks on bedroom doors if they came and visited, I would have introduced him to a situation where there would have been children present.

    My initial point was that you really can't tell just by "getting to know someone." Which I stand by, as I certainly wouldn't have known if his wife hadn't explained it.

    (Now THERE was a weird relationship, but that's getting far too much into stories that aren't mine to tell.)

    ReplyDelete
  43. My initial point was that you really can't tell just by "getting to know someone."
    But you DID. What do you think 'getting to know someone' means? Point contradicted.

    ReplyDelete
  44. God, Weasel, what happened to the garden variety, awkward male trying to get laid? Totally clueless, but mostly harmless. Miss those, they were good for a laugh. They're looking pretty "normal" right about now. Two Psycopaths in a row is really getting scary. Oh, wait!It is "Psychotic Letters from Men." Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Nice attempt there, anonymous, but no, sorry, that's really not how it went down. His wife told me, and not exactly with his consent. HE had nothing to do with it, and if she hadn't been around...well.

    I realize you're trying to win this argument rather desperately, but you weren't there, and you should probably stop trying to play psychic. You're kinda bad at it, and if you keep flailing like that, I might start to doubt your god-like powers to pick sex offenders out of a crowd, and THEN where would we be?

    ReplyDelete
  46. His wife told me, and not exactly with his consent. HE had nothing to do with it...
    Getting to know someone means getting to know someone. You think it means 'knowing by direct, personal admission' (what you appear to mean by 'consent')?

    you're trying [...] rather desperately, [...] stop trying to play psychic.
    O rly? Because it looks like you put words into someone's mouth instead of figure out what they say. Heard of straw man?

    Knowledge not gained online is psychic?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Don't feed the anonymous trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Wow, ursulav, that's a scary story.

    I can't imagine why someone would stay married to a pedophile.

    ReplyDelete
  49. nightspoken- to make sure they dont do it again. Paedophiles go way unpunished/unattended until there's a string of abused kiddies. Also shame and spinelessness.


    violent_rabbit (my open id wont verify for some reason

    ReplyDelete
  50. A caveat about googling people:

    ONLY look at official records (police reports, etc) because it's pretty easy for false information to be put out there. I've been harassed online, called a whore, accused of having an STI (which I don't and never have), etc.

    Criminal records are one thing, but stuff on sites like "Don't Date This..." isn't always true.

    ReplyDelete
  51. violent_rabbit (my open id wont verify for some reason
    Fails @ internet.

    ReplyDelete
  52. anon @ 1:23


    lol summerfag

    ReplyDelete
  53. Weasel, I seriously think you should post this guy's name. I've worked with abused women and the stuff he's saying to his ex wife is exactly what a guy would say who ends up killing her. Seriously, this guy sounds very very dangerous. If legally you can publish his name, please do. His next potential date might just google him and see your post and know to stay away. Honestly, not to 'get revenge' on him or point out what a douche he is - but to keep women in his area safe. Please publish! xx

    PS - Any women interested in finding out more about learning how to spot dangerous men could read The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker. I've just finished it and it's excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  54. read The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker
    The Gift of Fear is a great self-promoting, unscientific piece of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I checked me out on that PIPL site, and was a bit horrified to see some posting I had done late night on a Google group sex site was listed (after 10 years). I'm trying to get it purged just on general principal...

    ReplyDelete
  56. Nice link usage, Anon @ 11:30. Some people doubt the validity/usefulness of MOSAIC threat assessment, therefore the book de Becker wrote (for laypeople, not as a prospectus for potential clients) is crap? Points for the html technique, but none for the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anon 1130 - in your opinion. I and many other people have greatly enjoyed it and found it very helpful. If it works for some people, where's the harm? Lighten up a little.

    ReplyDelete
  58. That wiki page is just a stub. There is more info on the actual site: www dot mosaicsystem dot com

    Of course it's going to be biased in favor of the system, but at least you get a better idea of what they are actually trying to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Some people doubt
    Researchers

    the book de Becker wrote is crap?
    It is. Do researchers back it? Have his particular ideas been tested/studied? Or it just popular?

    If his ideas were sound, then shouldn't their implementation be?

    ReplyDelete
  60. There were only two researchers cited in the Wiki stub. One source was not linked and is to an old New York Times article, so I did not follow further. If you know more about that, I'd be interested. The other source links to an article in Wired magazine in which the main objection is that the Mosaic software casts too wide a net.

    I think hypothetically, it's possible that certain advice in the book - such as trust your instincts and be wary of x, y, z type of behaviors - could be valid while at the same time the software based on these same ideas might in fact cast too wide a net. When we're making individual decisions for our own safety, we need to be able to make snap judgments that might not be fair in order to keep us safe - but we can't apply the same sort of thinking in school and government policy decisions because too many innocent people would be treated unfairly.

    >If his ideas were sound, then shouldn't their implementation be?

    The ideas in the book are meant to be implemented by the individual concerned about their own safety. The software has a different use and purpose. So I think it's entirely possible for the book to have some valid ideas while the software, being used for institutions, perhaps does cast too wide a net?

    I don't have a firm opinion on either the book (especially since I haven't read it) or the software (haven't used it), but I think they should be judged separately.

    ReplyDelete
  61. A customer came through my line last night with her boyfriend. Somehow the topic of her having googled him came up. He was shocked and kind of offended, but she said, "I had to make sure you weren't crazy! And see if you were rich..." He was stunned.
    I have the convenience of being married to my high school sweetheart, as well as being very good friends with all of his ex-girlfriends. He has no secrets :)

    ReplyDelete
  62. it's entirely possible for the book to have some valid ideas
    Any hypothesis could be true. The important matter is 'is it?'. Only experiments can definitively tell.

    1) Where are the studies verifying each of his guidelines? Using 'pre-incident indicators' is not a total reliance on instinct.
    2) What studies affirm the vague notion that instincts promote safety better? Better than what?
    3) Does his assessment account for instinct failure? How would it?
    tl;dr: How does he know?

    we need to be able to make snap judgments
    Maybe in self-defense. Social choices, however, (eg, who do I get vulnerable around?) rarely do.

    the software, being used for institutions, perhaps does cast too wide a net
    Which makes his authority and claims based on it questionable. They demand actual studies.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Above thread amounts to a majjor snoozefest, people. Seriously. Lighten up.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Uhm. I probably meant "major." But you knew that.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anon 10:13: Getting to know someone means getting to know someone. You think it means 'knowing by direct personal admission' (what you appear to mean by 'consent')?

    Great, so you can jog on down to the court house and look up any local criminal charges against someone, call around to surrounding states just in case, and canvas their friends and family to see if they have any dire warnings to impart? Since that's all "IRL" the fact that it's not a "direct personal admission" should no longer bother you.

    Or you can save time and just use google.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Since that's all "IRL" the fact that it's not a "direct personal admission" should no longer bother you.
    No, that's fine, though there are far less contrived ways. How do you know your friends? Do you call knowing their peers 'canvassing'? It's really quite easy.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anon big words only impress people when used correctly.

    Weasel, I have to say I'm a little disturbed that you've hidden this persons identity. I can understand not going out of your way to provide the information. But here you've gone out of your way to hide it. I get that your point wasn't to out this person, but to warn readers about potential dangers. Still, hiding his name is the same as protecting him.

    Yes, yes. I know we need to be responsible. But what if providing this information was the difference between a woman living or dying at the hands of this psycho?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anon big words only impress people when used correctly.
    Maybe you don't know correct word use...

    ReplyDelete
  69. You know, even if a pedophile did pay their debt to society- he/she is still someone that MOLESTED A CHILD. Don't think I'd be giving them a pass on that one, or having them around my hypothetical children.

    Bed. Made. Lie.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Now this reminded me of why I find this blog a bitter sweet experience: I'm reminded of how awesome and non creepy my bf is, while feeling worried on behalf of my single friends.

    If I were ever to reenter the dating scene I'd definitely google the contenders. For once Doctor Phil has a point: The best predictors of future behavior is past behavior!

    The alternative; Killing the person in a very painful way who hurt the little ones I'm related to post the traumatic event in question, is hardly the superior option.

    ReplyDelete
  71. My Dearest Katie,
    You are Andrew/ Retarded Douche Bag that I was exchanging ideas with from the other blog post, soo desu ne?
    I see you are still lecturing us all with proper word "use" or, as those of us with adequate book-learnin' might say, "usage."
    I see as well you have yet to learn to use quotes when quoting.
    Perhaps one should google MLA format, ja?

    You are absolutely right.
    People do change.
    There are some people who are so horrified by what they have done, so completely disgusted with themselves that they never do it again.

    There are people who are listed as registered sex offenders simply because they urinated out of doors. Wrong place, wrong time.
    (I have no idea why men are so obsessed with pissing outside, totally beyond me.)

    If someone steals a piece of candy once, does it mean they will become a habitual thief?

    If certain people (my older sister for example) researched their significant others (both men and women) it would save themselves and younger relatives a good deal of trauma.

    I think you will agree, it being public information and all.
    Ja mata ne!

    ReplyDelete
  72. I hope you didn't do so to protect yourself from any recrimination from "Seth"??

    kobe beef

    ReplyDelete
  73. soo desu ne? ... Ja mata ne!
    weeaboo. eat pocky.

    I see you are still lecturing us all with proper word "use" or, as those of us with adequate book-learnin' might say, "usage."
    Splitting imaginary hairs? Both are correct.

    MLA format
    A style convention only for humanities and media publications?

    Your grammar policing is misguided. Language prescriptivism is the myth of a 'proper' language. It perpetuates intolerance towards less privileged people who speak different language variants that are nonetheless sound.

    If certain people (my older sister for example) researched their significant others (both men and women) it would save themselves and younger relatives a good deal of trauma.
    Knowing people, rather than jumping straight to bed with them, is prudent. I still maintain researching them online is not the essential life or death deciding matter someone else claimed. People often do fine knowing their friends other ways, and this should be no different.

    ReplyDelete
  74. If the information is public, what's wrong with looking at it? It is easy to do and does not violate anyone's privacy since the information is not private.

    ReplyDelete
  75. My Dearest Katie/ Andrew / Retarded Douche Bag
    "Both are correct."
    (There I go with those damn quotation marks again.)
    Did you just inadvertently admit I was right about something?
    My, my, we are really getting to know each other just swimmingly.
    Tell me, Katie, do you enjoy these little convos as much as I do?
    I hope so.
    The few words in Japanese were meant as a little joke.
    You were correcting my English so I typed in another language.
    Haha??
    Well, I thought it was funny anyway.
    Prefieres Espanol?
    Personally, I use MLA for everything.
    Keeps life a little bit saner.
    These lovely women and men don't necessarily just jump into bed with people.
    You could leave the person alone with your child or younger sibling, thinking them harmless, for hardly any time at all.
    Then, BAM. Damage done, too late to do anything about it now.
    I don't think there is anything wrong with doing a quick background check on people you intend to get involved with.

    ReplyDelete
  76. My Dearest Katie,
    As promised I'm not posting comments on the other blog anymore since you and I have successfully rounded out 140.
    Though for some odd reason I do feel compelled to respond it, convoluted though it may be.
    If you had a vast intellect like mine you would know that those of us with vast intellects want nothing whatsoever to do with ruling the universe.
    Only the truly stupid would vie for that power.
    Ah, my dear sweet Kate, I am having trouble figuring out which of us is Batman and which of us it the Joker?
    Which do you think?
    Please, I am anxiously awaiting your opinion.
    Oh, dear Katie, I have not been challenged like this in years.
    Post script:
    For the love of all that is good in this world stop typing lol after things that aren't funny.
    Post Post Script:
    Just remember, if you think it's funny it probably isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Though I do sincerely apreciate the compliment to my intellect.
    You think it's vast?
    Really?
    Aw, Shucks.

    ReplyDelete
  78. If the information is public, what's wrong with looking at it?
    Where does anyone say it is?

    Did you just inadvertently admit I was right about something?
    You wrongly suggest 'use' is incorrect. It's fine.

    You were correcting my English
    No, you were. I purposely don't police language: it's a petty, misguided pursuit—often of failures sore at losing arguments who have nothing meaningful to say.

    I use MLA for everything.
    MLA is not that great. Few disciplines that deal in objective knowledge (sciences, engineering, etc) use it. It pointlessly complicates citation: author surname and page in parenthesis "placed at a natural pause preferably at the end of a sentence". If author is unknown? Title. Sentence already states author? Exclude it. Multiple authors for a work? All their surnames or et al. Multiple works, same author? Include title. Different authors, same surname? Include their first initial. Same first initial? Full first name. Same first name? Don't know. Work is literary or verse? Different numbering rules. List works cited in alphabetical order. MLA charges access to its official specification.

    IEEE keeps it simple and less noisy: a number between brackets. It's used as a proper noun or goes right after a reference. The reference list shows entries in cited order, which is useful. IEEE offers free access to its official specification.

    However, style has no bearing on content. Any decent publishing software will cast the same content in any style. I prefer to focus on what matters: content.

    These lovely women and men don't necessarily just jump into bed with people.
    They complain about trusting an inadequately known person in a sensitive situation despite abundant opportunity (in their control) to know that person in secure situations.

    You could leave the person alone with your child or younger sibling, thinking them harmless, for hardly any time at all.
    A responsible guardian doesn't.

    As promised I'm not posting comments on the other blog anymore since you and I have successfully rounded out 140.
    Yet you're talking about it. And 3 consecutive posts?

    ReplyDelete
  79. My Dearest Katie,
    Why should you care how many times I post?
    You could at least answer my questions if you are going to go on insulting me.
    You give the longest response for the topic I care the least for.
    What do I care what format you use?
    I don't have anything to do with the sciences or engineering, not my field of interest whatsoever.
    Katie darling, it seems you simply don't get my humor.
    So what if I discuss the other blog here?
    Does it hurt you in some way?
    If you object that strongly I'll stop.
    Situations occur that even responsible guardians haven't prepared for.
    According to that rationale, no one should trust anyone, ever.
    Yes, yes, I understood that part, what I meant was you were agreeing with me that "usage" was also correct.
    I didn't imply "use" was incorrect, I simply stated a preference.
    Gee whiz! Talk about splitting hairs.
    There is one point I would like clarification on.
    On the other comments page for "How to get your ass fired" you defended "Andrew" looking up information on "Sarah."
    Here you seem to contradict that feeling saying people shouldn't look up information on people.
    I'm not sure how you are differentiating between the two.
    I would think that looking up information on a coworker (full name, home address, so on and so forth, which in and of itself wouldn't be such a big deal since you can find these things out in a phone book. What is so disturbing is that he says he has recurring dreams about her and he knows where she lives.) would be worse than seeking information on people in order to protect yourself.
    Katie dearest, if this keeps up I'm going to start sounding as convoluted as you do.
    I'm just not sure I understand.
    Here is a little scenario for you so perhaps you can understand my point a little better.
    Say there is a young lady in her early twenties who has been dating Prince Charming for just over a few months now. Mom and Dad ask her to babysit her much younger sister in elementary school as they have to go out of town for whatever reason.
    Big sis may call Prince Charming to cancel her plans for that evening.
    "Come over anyway," he might say, "I don't mind helping you babysit."
    Little does Big sis know Prince Charming has a fondness for the younger ladies. Seven year old ladies, for instance.
    Maybe she goes to get something from her car, freshens up in the bathroom, or takes a phone call outside.
    In even that short amount of time something could and does happen.
    Does it mean Mom and Dad are irresponsible for leaving her in the care of Big sis who they trust?
    Does it mean Big sis is irresponsible for temporarily leaving her in the care of someone she trusts?
    If Big sis had looked up whether or not he had a record for child abuse when she first began dating Prince Charming, she probably wouldn't have left little sis alone with him.
    I never said I wouldn't stop talking about it. I just said I wasn't going to post comments on that board anymore.
    I prefer to have one conversation with you than two separate ones.
    I prefer to focus on content as well.
    Conversely, italics used in the context you use them is starting to make me twitch.
    XoXo, Katie Darling.
    Post Script: Ah, engineer. Makes so much more sense now.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I don't have anything to do with the sciences or engineering
    It shows.

    longest response for the topic I care the least for
    Then don't raise dumb topics.

    I didn't imply "use" was incorrect, I simply stated a preference.
    by emphasizing "adequate book-learnin'" and using scare quotes. It's unfounded.

    you were agreeing with me that "usage" was also correct.
    Why shouldn't I?

    I prefer to focus on content as well.
    You raise an awful lot over word choice and style convention for that.

    Post Script: Ah, engineer.
    Incorrect.

    you defended "Andrew" looking up information on "Sarah."
    Did he? In what way?

    saying people shouldn't look up information on people.
    Did I?

    and he knows where she lives.
    Does he?

    would be worse than seeking information
    Knowledge is bad?

    who has been dating Prince Charming for just over a few months now.
    I wonder what they were doing those months, because it doesn't look like she made any effort to know him. It's not easily kept secret, you know. Information gets around on and offline.

    Does it mean Mom and Dad are irresponsible
    They misplaced their confidence.

    Does it mean Big sis is irresponsible
    Yes. She doesn't know the guy despite months AND leaves children there.

    If Big sis had looked up whether or not he had a record
    It's not the only way. Are your friends sex offenders? How do you know?

    stop typing lol after things that aren't funny.
    Claiming something is not funny ironically makes it funnier.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Women who could literally choose any man they want often repeatedly run into the arms of even the most obvious assholes. I refer to such women as "Enabling Females."

    http://columbine101.blogspot.com/2009/01/columbine-101-lesson-one-real-world.html

    ReplyDelete
  82. Yes, but why is Weasel protecting him???

    ReplyDelete
  83. "contrived"

    and canvassing friends is easier than Google.

    Ha, ha, ha.

    (I know I shouldn't feed the troll but it's like a car wreck- only this car is being driven by a clown who ran into a bus just to get some attention. And even though it's not funny- just sad- I can't stop laughing because it's so very pathetic. Which makes me sadistic. Damn it to hell=)

    Cheers troll, this drinks on me!

    ReplyDelete
  84. PS, I promise not to feed him again. In fact why don't we all promise. You just know he's sitting at his computer waiting to have the last word. Lets give it to him. I doubt he has much else to live for. If you're with me say

    Aye!

    ReplyDelete
  85. My deepest apologies Anonymous 6:31, I cannot say Aye!
    I'm having way too much fun with this.
    Why are they called trolls anyway?
    Does that make the rest of us billy goats?
    Now I shall address Katie Dear,
    Now just to show how nice I can be I shall focus on content only and not your writing style, which doth maketh me twitcheth.
    You can date someone for years and not be absolutely sure of that person's history.
    Some of us lie better than others.
    They hide it, obviously.
    They don't go around shouting it from the rooftops.
    "Don't let me near the youngins, I'm dangerous!"
    Fo shizzle.
    Postus scriptus:
    If it is a dude then that makes me calling him Katie that much funnier.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Men can almost always spot a male asshole during their first meeting. Why are women so often charmed by men who telegraph hostility and belligerence to other men?

    ReplyDelete
  87. and canvassing friends is easier than Google.
    I don't know what you call 'canvassing'. Getting to know friends doesn't require a computer with online access.

    Some of us lie better than others.
    You know a person only by what they say firsthand about themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  88. It's true that men (or women) who you meet online could be lying through their teeth, and I'm glad Weasal put this reminder up for us. It's also true that people you meet in person could be lying through their teeth. It's true that the person you have been married to for many years could be lying through his/her teeth. Stay alert and check out the goods, regardless of how you meet.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Before a few months ago, I believed in redemption and the power of change. Not I'm not so sure.

    I met a charming guy at a party - his friends seemed to adore him and he was personable and smart. Within a week of meeting - he had just broken up with a girlfriend half his age - he told me he was a divorced registered sex offender (trawling for kiddies on teh webz) , that he was in serious therapy, and that he was set on changing. I believed him.

    Only when we spent more time together - again, in a platonic way - did I realize everything he said and did was calculated to make him come across as a 'nice guy'. After one night out (mind you, we'd only hung out 4 times at this point) he screamed at me and told me I was stupid.I'm not accustomed to being yelled at by friends. I finally realized that he was a raging narcissist/sociopath who was perfectly nice until he felt like he wasn't getting the attention he deserved.

    I started ignoring him.

    He continues to text and call, leaving 'concerned' and 'thoughtful' messages for me. I know he isn't genuinely concerned (he never ever asked me, during the time we were 'friends' a single thing about me) but rather hates to feel rejected. Too bad.

    I wish I had more thoroughly googled him before agree to spend time with him after we met. I would have found a complete record of his offenses in public documents. I probably wouldn't have wasted so much time on him. Because even if people change their behavior, the fundamental person inside hasn't. Sure he isn't diddling strangers and little girls anymore, but the part of him that drove him to that behavior still exists.

    And will come out in other ways.

    ReplyDelete
  90. he told me he was a divorced registered sex offender (trawling for kiddies on teh webz) , that he was in serious therapy, and that he was set on changing. I believed him.

    See, you already knew, which makes

    I wish I had more thoroughly googled him before agree to spend time with him after we met. I would have found a complete record of his offenses in public documents.

    moot.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Not necessarily. You seem to forget hindsight is 20/20 and people, armed with new knowledge, often regret accepting what they once believed.

    Not moot. Just wishing for a re-do.

    ReplyDelete
  92. armed with new knowledge
    Except there is no new knowledge. She already knew what public records could only confirm. Incredimoot.

    ReplyDelete
  93. "Incredimoot" is not a word. Before you try correcting others, why not correct yourself first?
    I'm not even calling you a retarded douche bag anymore, because it just seems redundant.
    Like when you commented something like
    unfounded blah blah is unfounded.
    See, because that was redundant.
    I don't want to be redundant like you.
    What with your redundant redundance and all.

    ReplyDelete
  94. "Incredimoot" is not a word...Like when you commented something like unfounded blah blah is unfounded.
    You think either was accidental? Someone's hyper-correcting.

    Before you try correcting others, why not correct yourself first?
    Do I bother telling others they use their own language wrong? Contesting language policing (ie, others' claims of language misuse) is not language policing.

    And what are you debating? There's nothing to debate here.

    ReplyDelete
  95. S And Mother Fuckin' WJanuary 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM

    Ah, Katie Dearest,
    You are absolutely correct. There is nothing to debate here. You are mentally retarded and clinically insane. Glad to see you've decided to stop arguing the point.
    I'm laid up from a car accident and have decided to read through some older comments to see how long you have been blessing us all with you wisdom whilst I while away these hours here in bed.
    That thing someone posted about you not being David Bowie was soo funny.
    I LOL ed in my pants.
    I think from now on I will be addressing you as David Bowie Dearest instead.
    Maybe if you stop hating women you will actually be able to sleep with one. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  96. For the record, if a woman (or a man--anyone) doesn't do everything in their power to get information on a person they might date, they are not responsible for their victimization. That's victim-blaming, and it's a way to condone violence. It's entirely inappropriate.

    It's great if you Google your date, find some unsavory information about h/er, and protect yourself for not going. But if you don't Google, and you go on the date, and you're, say, assaulted, it's not your fault. It's THEIR fault for assaulting you.

    Yes, I agree, it's good to take steps to protect yourself. It's like wearing a seat belt in a car or a helmet while biking. But when someone commits a crime against you, it is not your fault. You did not bring on the crime because you didn't Google the person. You are not to blame for it. Sure, maybe you and others might wish that you had Googled. But you did not in any way CAUSE your own victimization.

    Sexual violence 101, people.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Tell that to our wonderful little anonymous troll. Aparently not only is it TOTALLY your fault if you are victimized, but you shouldn't google the person you are interested in either. No forming judgments on people for having criminal records! Shame on you!
    I'm just saying I would be a little more understanding of someone with say one DWI, than someone with nine.

    ReplyDelete
  98. You are mentally retarded and clinically insane.
    Notice who's resorting to petty insults.

    from now on I will be addressing you as David Bowie
    I'm glad you like David Bowie. I like him, too.

    Maybe if you stop hating women you will actually be able to sleep with one.
    Already have. It's overrated. Who's speculating into whose bedroom habits?

    Criticizing specious arguments has nothing to do with hating women. Apparently, you think bad reasoning and women are intrinsically linked. That's unfortunate.

    But you in no way are MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for your own victimization.
    Fix'd.

    Aparently not only is it TOTALLY your fault if you are victimized, but you shouldn't google the person you are interested in either.
    Straw man. Scroll back and read. The record speaks for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  99. feeding trolls is never advised...they lose their fear of humanity, become dependent on their garbage dump feeding grounds - which they've created by mind-barfing and defecating common sense, and eventually have to be tranquilized and removed. Such a shame, really, when all they truly want is a good bridge or rock to crawl under.

    In other news, I survived the heart attack I had when I found myself looking at a new WWHM column. I had re-titled the blog:"Why (does) Weasel Hate Me?" as a result of your heart-breaking absence and found myself unprepared for the new edition. My lawyer will be contacting you.

    I now believe we have been behaviourly modified into expecting fewer columns and being glad of it. Won't work. I'll still check in on the 15th, when the SS check shows. That way, my disappointment is mitigated by receiving the money I need to shop for kindle books and babes in toyland merchandise.

    Glad to see you back!

    ReplyDelete
  100. and yes, I'm aware I'm on PLFM, but it's really just the messier little sister of WWHM,
    and the same holds true.

    Seth is a certifiable psychopath...google up "The Mask of Sanity" and get an eyeful. The current figures estimated by experts say 1 in 25 people is a psychopath/sociopath. I love this site because it makes no joke about it. These people are very dangerous and although they may not all be serial killers, they cause extensive, life-threatening damage.

    ReplyDelete
  101. 'Common sense' died long before trolls started appearing. I'd say its death is why they started appearing.

    ReplyDelete
  102. As opposed to playing devil's advocate on topics you most likely have no real interest in?
    I call "BULLSHIT!" on you.
    That is why you contradict yourself blog-to-blog.
    Perhaps this troll is one of th 1 in 25.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Do I think either one was an accident?
    I think you were an accident.
    Incredimoot, accident or not, still not a fucking weird genius.
    Unfounded blah blah is unfounded is still redundant. This also does nothing to expound on the point you were trying to make.
    You illiterate fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  104. It's like trying to argue with a goddamn chia pet. There three more consecutive posts for you. Now fuck off and die you shithead cereal box eater. That isn't David Bowie.

    ReplyDelete
  105. so the next post will be when? next year?

    ReplyDelete
  106. I am a sex offender, and I find this demonization of my people hurtful and unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Don't worry, casualencounters, Trollie up there thinks you are just "different" and will find your behaviour perfectly acceptable, being the only one here, after all, who understands that nobody should have to deal with negative social circumstances just because they are "different".

    ReplyDelete
  108. You're right. Treating people negatively does not promote social good. It didn't involve you. You don't know that person now.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Last night I was extremely bored. I found this link. (Beverage alert)

    http://www.authonomy.com ReadBook.aspx?bookid=15979#chapter

    Its sexist, racists and just wrong in so many ways. But I love it.

    Weasel, we need a new post please!

    ReplyDelete
  110. Methinks Weas has got himself a gf...If that is the case then I am willing to forgive the lack of new posts. Cuz this time he at least PROMISED us he'd come back:P

    ReplyDelete
  111. This is a great blog, we are going to add it to out free online dating internet blog http://www.universityloveconnection.com/blog so our visitors can read your news, as you are a reputable source. Thanks online dating .

    ReplyDelete
  112. Even if you have googled someone, it doesn't have to say much; just that that person was never caught doing something horrible. That doesn't neccessarily mean that they never did it, or won't in the future.

    So you can google someone and look up their criminal record and everything, but in the end, if you don't want to end up dead you might invest in a self-defense course and train yourself in spotting warning signs.

    Things I thought that felt wrong in the original add:

    "I am single no kids just a cute little puppy."

    I might be too quick of judgement, but I distrust people who mention that they have a "cute little puppy"; they own a dog, no need to mention how young and/or cute it is here.

    "I am looking for someone drama free"

    Any guy asking for someone drama-free usually has a lot of drama himself; at the very least he's probably mentally unstable (not that there's much wrong with that, but it usually isn't what you look for in a boyfriend).

    "Any race and legal age is fine."

    Either he's not critical at all or he hasn't thought this through; or would he really date a seventy year old lady?

    "I have a facebook and myspace so if you contact me send me your links and a pic of yourself in the reply. I also have aim and yahoo messenger chat so we can get to know each other better that way first."

    Too many different ways of contacting him.

    From just this text, I'd say that at the very least he's a lonely loser with some mental problems. Definitely not someone you'd want to contact.

    ReplyDelete
  113. i just punched a bearFebruary 13, 2010 at 11:27 AM

    Were people seriously fucking debating the pros and cons of MLA style? Jesus dog fucking Christ! What the fuck is wrong with people?!?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  114. After finding this blog and finding this entry, and reading of this...troll..I'd love to meet him in person.I think a thorough background check and surveillance on him might be a good idea for public safety. Public notices might be a good idea too. Even if it is that an scumbag lives there, so the community knows.

    - Psicorps

    ReplyDelete
  115. im lost.. this is some Sick Stuff !!

    ReplyDelete