Please don't drag Dr. Ken into this. He has nothing to do with any of it. Point your guns at me.

If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.

Because the leap in comparison Chus made also made no sense.

It's pretty safe to assume that is anything is communicated over the internet, it's "published" and probably at risk for being circulated. So, no, it probably won't make the New York Times, but that's not even close to the point.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I fail to see how multiple people isn't "a wider audience". If I sent a PRIVATE MESSAGE to everyone on the planet with your dick size, would I have published it?

Sorry, had to read Charlotte's Web. Anyway: Civil disobedience (if you dox someone despite knowing it's a pretty shitty thing to do) and self-defense. Only problem is that some people (SJWs, wacko Christian fundamentalists, and everyone in between) interpret self-defense differently.

Otherwise, it's informing. We don't need that kind of society. There are alternatives.

Because the leap in comparison Chus made also made no sense.

It's pretty safe to assume that is anything is communicated over the internet, it's "published" and probably at risk for being circulated. So, no, it probably won't make the New York Times, but that's not even close to the point.

I fail to see how multiple people isn't "a wider audience". If I sent a PRIVATE MESSAGE to everyone on the planet with your dick size, would I have published it?

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

That's stupid. How is a private message on the board more public than a text message? Is it because it's on a website? So any private communication via the web is public? Like your online banking or if you chat on your credit card website with an agent about charges on your card? How utterly ridiculous.

I've not said any of those things. What's "stupid" is assuming that people with information about an unpopular poster won't share that information on the board when the information was originally given for that purpose.

I've not said any of those things. What's "stupid" is assuming that people with information about an unpopular poster won't share that information on the board when the information was originally given for that purpose.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I've not said any of those things. What's "stupid" is assuming that people with information about an unpopular poster won't share that information on the board when the information was originally given for that purpose.

So, I should never share anything with anybody, because they might share that information down the road? And if they do share, then it's my fault that it got out?

So it's a number of people? Ok... so if I have a party of 100 people for dinner at a resturaunt i cannot call it a private party and anything i say at that event is published info?

I think that's something only you can answer in the moment.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

You will have "published" that information to your guests, yes. You're getting hung up on the erroneous equation of "publish" with "public".

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

The incident in question occurred during the Obama administration's failed 8 years in power. There have been less solicitation cases since Obama left office.

Why don't you answer it. You're the one throwing the stones now.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

Not for me to answer. But I also didn't have the information.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

27 more posts and this will be more popular the the McNeil podcast thread.

Chus moves meters.

The incident in question occurred during the Obama administration's failed 8 years in power. There have been less solicitation cases since Obama left office.

Wow. So I literally cannot have a private conversation which you wouldn't consider publishing information then.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Come on, Chus. The rub is that you went on the podcast and acted like you were almost against this whole thing. That simply doesn't jive with sending mass PM's advertising it. Just admit you were part of it and move on.

If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.

A private conversation with 100 people?

Wow. So I literally cannot have a private conversation with 100 people which you wouldn't consider publishing information then.

Chus has admitted it. Darkside is so busy white knighting you may not have noticed.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

A private conversation with 100 people?

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Fixed that for you. And yes, telling multiple people something they otherwise would not have known--despite it being publicly available--is "publishing" it to them for the purposes of the common definition of doxxing.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

No? 10 people? Can one have a private conversation with 10?

So I'm guilty of doxxing for having told my wife about this over dinner that night?