<[log in to unmask]> Eric Thomas wrote:

>Trying to use Internet methods to address physical abuse issues just does
>not work. People will get hotmail accounts, write anonymously, find a new
>ISP, etc.  I wouldn't even bother  to get the account  closed. Before you
>think I am pontificating, check:
>

First off: My Sympathies. What a mess. You are handling it
very well. (I'm sure I'd simply be wildly gesturing at the screen
at this point... )

Consider what follows to be a sort of wild gesturing at the screen ...

>I could probably get  his account closed for X days,  but what would this
>accomplish? Right now he is just being a major pain in the butt, although

It would inconvenience the jerk. That's better than nothing.

Online, there's really no "penalty" of consequence, other than
to terminate service.

I think this person crossed a line and should be inconvenienced
by having to get a new account somewhere else. If (s)he does the
same thing at another account, then that account ought to be
pulled too.


*********************************************************
This happens to spammers all the time. Their accounts get
pulled repeatedly for spamming.
*********************************************************


Since she's not a subscriber, I can't unsubscribe her. Since
all posts from non-subscribers are moderated, her posts *can* be
dumped easily. My list header is set up as securely as possible
for a self-moderated, gated list, due to the methods I've learned
from people here on lstown-l and in the manual.

Taking out the gateway isn't an option. It doesn't even cross my
mind anymore, although I understand and *appreciate* why people
suggest it.
The gateway to and from usenet is what makes the list work. Some
of our best posters post from rec.music.dylan and aren't
subscribers.

Yet, I'm left feeling very uneasy that somehow I'm being forced
into accepting something that I'd never accept In Real Life:
having to say, "Oh alright ... I'll be a *good sport* and
let people talk about hitting me as a fun topic." I have nowhere
else online but right here to go to say: IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT.

Why should I have to (in order to do the list that I do by choice)
be in the same online space as this creep? This creep may have
been the person who hit me, or she may know the person who hit
me. In any case, it seems that she made a clear choice to align
herself with that violence when she made her post. She should live
with the consequences.

What I'm hearing though is that there aren't any consequences for
her.

BTW, This person has posted an RFD for a new newsgroup. So,
where does this leave me? Usenet sets up a vote for a newsgroup
proposed by this jerk? This jerk becomes a solid netizen and her
"only problem" was that time that she suggested someone hit me
again at a concert?

This is _crazy_. This is *nuts*.

I've been told a number of things. (Not here.) Among them ... that
because I moderate posts from non-subscribers I should be prepared to
take this. (I disagree.)
That listowners are "public figures" who are fair game for this
kind of post. (I disagree.)

aol.com can't require its membership to have ... *taste* or
*good judgement* or whatever your favorite term for what this person
lacks might be, but can't it require its members to be legal? Isn't
there something illegal about suggesting that someone take another
physical hit in real life?  Doesn't speech have to be legal in
order to be protected?

Where is the outrage (or is it common sense?) that would allow a
provider like aol to say: "You've gone too far. We don't *want* you
as a customer, because we don't want to be involved in this."

Where are aol's terms of service written out so that I can read them?
Does anyone know? Is it *illegal* for aol to dump her as a customer?
Is *that* the real problem? Or... Is it something more along the lines
of the Terms of Service stating, "For the first physical threat against
another user, the customer shall be denied usenet access for 24 hours."
(I just made that up, but will bet that it's close.)

>Anyway, what you  need to do is find  out the name of this  person who is
>making the  threats, and  this is  what you should  press AOL  for, which
>probably requires filing a complaint  with the police first. If something
>happens to you and they did not  cooperate with the police, they may very
>well be liable, so I think they would cooperate.
>
>  Eric
>

My county court clerk wanted $185 for the subpeona to require aol to
give me her identity. Yes, I'm worth it, but by far less expensive means
I have her name, a street name and city and state.

She's not geographically close to me, which doesn't mean much at a
Dylan concert. (People come from around the world.) Right now though,
it's definitely a good thing. I was pretty da*ned shocked to see her
posting again last night. This person should be *gone*. That screen
character be *history*. I honestly believe that considering what she
posted, and the circumstances, that this is not a lot to ask, and
wonder why I have to ask for it again and again.

At least my husband and I know who to go after if I'm hit again
and the person who did it gets away again: This person and aol.

Thanks for bearing with me. Thanks for the space to get this out.
It's been tough. What happened was very tough. Letting this go
by seems to be saying that it was all somehow ok, and I wish that
aol would "get" that part of it all.


These aren't simple issues, and I'll bet that I'm not the last guy
who'll have to confront them.


Peace

Maureen

"have you seen dignity?" bd