|
|
Wednesday, July 11th, 2007
|
3:39a - You made me cry on the internet - now I won't sue you!
Once upon a time, there was badbearprofiles, an lj community dedicated to, well, mocking bad profiles of bears on various online venues.
Pretty much a month ago, demianrufusmikeypup's profile (contains some nakedness) was highlighted in this post, resulting in a dozen comments* - originally.
For you see, about a month later, demianrufus found out, and he is not pleased. He sent the OP this lovely message:
"I saw the webpage you had where you and twelve otehrs or so, criticized and teased me quoting my profile text. I did a search on my name and it came up and I am really disgusted you and those otehr men did that. I want you to delete all that stuff about me off the internet.And if you refuse to I will consider taking you and the others to court."
And suddenly, there are sixty comments** in the new post, which seems small to those who know of Crystalwank, but is breathtaking for that community - and look at all the broken internet laws we have.
There are calls for bahleetion from other users (with srz bzns about censoring and mocking ethics in this thread), because...
![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) furmuslbulk: Please delete the original post and help this poor guy chill out!
Because we all know stepping away from the keyboard is hard, y'all!
urbear: The criticism was over-the-top and cruel, in my opinion. While I understand that it's tempting to dig in your heels after that ridiculous threat of court action, deleting the original post would be an act of kindness and reflect well on you.
Someone doesn't get the point of pointing and mocking...
The same gent also kindly plays online psychologist and tells us that demianrufus' profile used to be consistent with Asperger's, and therefore excused from being mocked for pretentious teal deering.
Meanwhile, demianrufus frolicks about in the original post telling everybody "if you do not remove this comment about me I will try to sue you in court." - needs a bit more Sockpuppet-at-Law, methinks.
He also tells us about his outrage. But alas, his will shall not be done, and he is moste sad.
Because having your dating profile mocked on the internet is also serious business. And maybe like rape, just for good measure.
At least, burlyinthebay sets us straight - we're just mean girls from high school raised by hyenas thugs.
* I made a comment here in the original.
** I pop in here and here.
If these warrant posting to ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif) i_wank, I shall transfer this and accept optional spanking as a punishment.
ETA:
This kind of bear. Not this. And not this, either.
Son of ETA:
The original profile, though, has been bahleeted.
Yes, I know, this is therefore a superfluous link.
current mood: Dramatic
current music: "Space Dementia" - Muse (128 comments |comment on this)
|
4:42p
I read about this in Smithsonian and had to share it. To summarize:
Anna Jarvis thought there should be a holiday to celebrate mothers. After years of lobbying, President Wilson signed Mother's Day as a holiday in 1914, and it took off like crazy.
But by 1923, Jarvis was mad. "Charlatans, bandits, pirates, racketeers, kidnappers and other termites that would undermine with their greed one of the finest, noblest and truest movements and celebrations," she wrote of florists and candy makers.
And she didn't stop at insults. In New York City, there was to be a Mother's Day rally to benefit handicapped children. But she called that they had violated her copyright on the term Mother's Day, and filed a lawsuit against the governor, the mayor, the police commissioner, a US senator, and two reverends. And so they were forced to cancel the event.
By 1943 and after decades of wank, she was committed, her bills being paid by the Florists' Exchange. And despite saying she was sorry she started the whole thing, people sent her Mother's Day cards every May.
If you want to read the whole article, I scanned it.
(17 comments |comment on this)
|
|
|
|
