(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	cleolinda 2009-12-28 05:04 am UTC (link)
	Why do they think FW would post personal information? We've never done that, and we've taken it down when a commenter has. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kitt_in_socks 2009-12-28 05:06 am UTC (link)
	Because we are terrible, terrible people. Unless we're mocking someone they don't like. Or something. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	o_o 2009-12-28 05:08 am UTC (link)
	It's funny considering she's the one who's reported real names and information to Homeland Security. Maybe she doesn't want us to steal her thunder? I kid, I kid . . . (Reply to this)(Parent)

	eilisliana 2009-12-28 05:08 am UTC (link)
	Not only would that get deleted right away but the banhammer would be swinging quick. (Reply to this)(Parent)

keri
2009-12-28 05:12 am UTC (link)

And the comments where

julian_black and I mentioned being curious about what was said in those emails were, at least on my part, typed without any intention of wanting personal details blasted. I had no idea there was personally identifying information in them - I just thought that it'd be interesting to see the stories that VB/Andy/than was giving out about the undead shaman-wizard. :(

Which, you know, is pretty much not "trying to get the entirety of the emails referenced", which to me sounds like someone was going out of their way to dig them up or convince someone to put it in public.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cleolinda 2009-12-28 05:15 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, I was confused about where anyone "tried to get the entirety of the emails" in the first place. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	keri 2009-12-28 05:22 am UTC (link)
	I think luvscharlie might be jumping at shadows. Not that I really blame her, but dang, I thought "no private information" was one of the top three rules about what can be posted here. (Reply to this)(Parent)

julian_black
2009-12-28 09:04 am UTC (link)

Yeah, I just wanted to see the crazy-ass storytelling firsthand, because making up whoppers like that? That takes some fucking nerve.

I had no idea the emails disclosed personal information, however--especially info that the person in question seems to have taken great pains to keep private.

It was thoughtless of me to comment as I did; I didn't intend it as fishing, but looking at it now I realize that it can be read as exactly that. [cringes]

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	lasha 2009-12-28 05:12 am UTC (link)
	I know that was my first thought: F_W would never post anyone's real name or address. While I admire luvscharlie for coming here and giving us info on VB/Andy, she really needs to understand we are here to point and mock not to stalk or harass. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sparklepuss 2009-12-28 05:18 am UTC (link)
	We are?!?! Well, damn... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sparklepuss 2009-12-28 05:14 am UTC (link)
	I'm not getting where in this (so far) small amount of comments someone says "Oh yes! Let us post private emails with personal information about some of the participants in this wank!" Am I going blind or something? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cleolinda 2009-12-28 05:18 am UTC (link)
	It might have referred to the comments at the tail end of the last entry where this first came up? Where I didn't see anything about that either? I don't know. (Reply to this)(Parent)

keri
2009-12-28 05:20 am UTC (link)

Check the first link in this OP (or click this right here!) - two of us did mention wanting to see these emails, but I don't think either of us had any idea there'd be anything more than the usual outlandish bullshit stories from VB/Andy/than. It's clear that

julian_black wasn't entirely serious about digging them up, and I certainly wasn't about to waste time trolling the wank to find them. If they surfaced in their (presumed) absurd glory, then fine. If not, also fine, because there's plenty of batshit to be found in VB's wake anyway.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sparklepuss 2009-12-28 05:22 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, that seems like a pretty big jump from wanting to see some possibly incriminating emails to maliciously posting personal information on F_W (which totally wouldn't happen). (Reply to this)(Parent)

kylenne
2009-12-28 05:17 am UTC (link)

I've noticed people who aren't regulars around here tend to have this weird ass view of f_w that fluctuates between two states. If we're not a vicious hive vagina of harpies raised by wolves then we're the Fandom Police and it's our duty to be good fandom citizens or some shit. And they often hold these views simultaneously, flipping between them depending on who gets wanked.

As an aside, luvscharlie strikes me as this type, with a side helping of Internet White Knight Syndrome.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2009-12-28 05:21 am UTC (link)
	When luvscharlie posts here, it is of course done entirely with all good will. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	snacky 2009-12-28 05:29 am UTC (link)
	Or to ride in on a moral high horse, to shame us all: http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1232249.html?thread=209175161#t209175161 (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)