(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

inalasahl
2009-12-28 10:24 pm UTC (link)

I can and will help of course.
>
> I need a general idea of where they are. If you have a pic
> you could email that would help. Their names, if you know
> them. Anything that would help me zero in on them,
> y'know?

Wait, so idiomagic asked for the personal information? That would not be my first reaction after getting an e-mail stating that someone was trying to eat my friends' kids. Even were I stringing them along for the lulz, I'd probably ask something like "How did you find out someone was trying to eat the kids?" not "Send me pictures of the kiddies, plz."

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	lied_ohne_worte 2009-12-28 10:30 pm UTC (link)
	Agreed. (Reply to this)(Parent)

isaiddietpepsi
2009-12-28 10:44 pm UTC (link)

From my very limited understanding of the situation, it sounds like idiomagic may have been purporting to help drive out or "purge" the evil undead shaman-wizard, perhaps through some esoteric exorcism ritual...or something. (I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm using the wrong terminology here.) In which case, I imagine that asking for pictures or names would make more sense, because it might be easier if you know more about the subject...? Or something. I don't even know.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2009-12-28 10:50 pm UTC (link)
	Don't worry. There is no right terminology. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	puipui 2009-12-29 01:07 am UTC (link)
	You say that now, but when we're overrun with Wiccan wankitywank, you'll be sorry. attempts to say "when we're overrun with Wiccan wankitywank" three times fast, fails (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	oulangi 2009-12-29 03:24 am UTC (link)
	Wiccitywic? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	asparagirl 2009-12-31 03:04 am UTC (link)
	Don't talk back. /The Coasters (Reply to this)(Parent)

	inalasahl 2009-12-29 06:18 pm UTC (link)
	I think it's the pictures and names and locations and ages bit that feels a little off to me. But then, this whole situation is a little off, heh. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	tetradecimal 2009-12-29 06:28 pm UTC (link)
	It seems like a pretty widespread belief that if you're using super special powers on an individual, the more information/personal effects/proximity you have that belong to them, the better. See also: voodoo dolls, demon names, touch telepathy, Death Notes. Of course, those same things are also useful for ordinary stalking. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	inalasahl 2009-12-29 07:04 pm UTC (link)
	I think I might have been less creeped out had idiomagic asked for hair clippings or something, rather than personal information on the kids. As it is, though, it still would have made more sense to do something like, "I've been trying to shield, but I'm not sure if it's helping. How can I tell?" (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	tetradecimal 2009-12-29 07:08 pm UTC (link)
	That would creep me out more, but only because I watched that X-Files with the fingernails. And the hair. shudder (Reply to this)(Parent)

	issendai 2009-12-30 09:24 am UTC (link)
	I think that would have been way creepier. It's not hard to learn children's names if you know their parents, but to get hair clippings? That requires close personal contact, forethought, and presumably some time alone with them and a sharp object. Hrrrrr. Now don't think about VB's wish to babysit kids for a couple of hours. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

inalasahl
2010-01-04 08:07 pm UTC (link)

For the purposes of stringing someone along, asking for hair clippings is less creepy, imo. Mostly, because if you actually get them you cannot use them to stalk someone. Also, hopefully, the person is conning you and just sent you their own hair, not actually the hair of children.

If someone actually really truly wanted hair clippings and was trying to get them, it would be a toss-up, I think, as to whether that was more or less creepy than trying to get pictures and addresses of real children.

You just had to remind me, didn't you?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	duraniedrama 2009-12-28 11:04 pm UTC (link)
	I was a little puzzled by that one, as well. It's standard cold reading practice to ask for a few details to help one along, so it's not an unusual request in these sort of situations. But if idiomagic was just stringing these people along, why did she need the info? Was she testing to see how far they'd go? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	issendai 2009-12-30 09:19 am UTC (link)
	I'd vote yes. That, or she guessed that the story was going to go farther, and asked for the info to sound sincere. She also may not have thought through this particular request until after she got back a flood of information. In any case, it seems like an obvious, if unwise, question for a mole to ask. (Reply to this)(Parent)

bacon_lover
2009-12-28 11:08 pm UTC (link)

Apparently yes, they asked for personal information (name, general location of kids) and a picture. And then they were shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU! that any of this was given out, especially to such an obviously untrustworthy source as themselves.

I'm a bit confused on how this secret information was supposed to appear on f_w though, if the only people with it was idiomagic and three other people--one of whom was the parent. Was thanfiction supposed to deliver it here? Or idiomagic supposed to leak it? I don't even know.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

shadowmonkey
2009-12-28 11:24 pm UTC (link)

Well, to be fair, if I know that you know that I'm the mole I'd expect the reply to have been more along the lines of "Haha, you stupid gullible fool?" rather than "of course, here's a big wedge of highly personal information." But most people I've interacted with aren't completely batshit.

Probably good for the DAYDians she asked though, now they know he'll pass on their personal details at a drop of a hat.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

inalasahl
2009-12-29 06:22 pm UTC (link)

And then they were shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU! that any of this was given out, especially to such an obviously untrustworthy source as themselves.
Heh, yes, exactly. Though I live in hope given the source that the pictures are all of sparrows.

Maybe idiomagic was planning to leak it anonymously and then back up the anon with "he gave me the info, too!" ?

I don't get that either. I can't figure out if luvscharlie and idiomagic honestly misunderstood how fandom_wank works, or if they had some plan that got flubbed.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	ghostmaster 2009-12-29 05:52 pm UTC (link)
	That kind of confused me, too. She doesn't sound like someone stringing people along for the lulz. She sounds perfectly sincere. Maybe, like someone else said, she was just testing to see how far they'd go, but then why not end it right there? Isn't that all the proof you need that they at least mean for you to believe this, even if they don't? (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -