Monday, June 14
Is this case closed yet?
In reply to this, point-by-point (ie, my point 1 in reply to her pt 1, pt 2 to her pt 2 etc). It's boring. I suggest you skip this.
1. No, it's not cyber rape. I'm sorry to get that wrong. It's mutually consented cyber exhibitionism.
2. First up- I never once said that you said that.
Even though you did know that the photos had been used as a public warning and did not oppose the move to use the photos as a public warning. Then you further endorsed public warning by supplying a friendster photo to serve as a mugshot.
3. No, you didn't host the pictures on your blog. You just uploaded them and gave permission for them to be used on another high-traffic blog.
4. You're darn right. Just like I didn't say that you said anything like that.
(So is this considered "putting words into my mouth"?)
5. Downloading a photo without authorization to complement a discriminating article is not comparable to linking to a public blog.
*
Long long time ago...
For those of who are scratching your head at this point about what's going on, let me put the whole situation down without all its fluff, reasons or assumptions.
Girl and Boy (online acquaintances) chatted online via webcam.
Boy flashed his dick.
Girl didn't object.
Boy wanked.
Girl "got playful" and took snapshots at every stage (including the climaxing).
Girl uploaded pictures.
Pictures appeared on a friend's high traffic blog. Entry was called a public warning.
Yours truly penned about the entry.
Girl got upset, fired back with five (non-consequential) points in her blog.
Yours truly answers her points (above).
*
And they live happily ever after
I don't enter blog entries with an aim to attack anyone. I pen what I think about situations/ issues.
As far as that entry goes, I did try to write it as accurately as possible pertaining to what happened, with all available information online and by verifying points with Girl in question.
No, you may not like what I wrote, but at the end of the day, facts are facts.
One may change her stand as frequently as necessary to explain the situation to her favor, but it's hard to erase the apparent motives underlining her actions.
So now, if I may, I'm turning my back on this mini R(A) stir up.
P2P time!!
In reply to this, point-by-point (ie, my point 1 in reply to her pt 1, pt 2 to her pt 2 etc). It's boring. I suggest you skip this.
1. No, it's not cyber rape. I'm sorry to get that wrong. It's mutually consented cyber exhibitionism.
2. First up- I never once said that you said that.
Even though you did know that the photos had been used as a public warning and did not oppose the move to use the photos as a public warning. Then you further endorsed public warning by supplying a friendster photo to serve as a mugshot.
3. No, you didn't host the pictures on your blog. You just uploaded them and gave permission for them to be used on another high-traffic blog.
4. You're darn right. Just like I didn't say that you said anything like that.
(So is this considered "putting words into my mouth"?)
5. Downloading a photo without authorization to complement a discriminating article is not comparable to linking to a public blog.
*
Long long time ago...
For those of who are scratching your head at this point about what's going on, let me put the whole situation down without all its fluff, reasons or assumptions.
Girl and Boy (online acquaintances) chatted online via webcam.
Boy flashed his dick.
Girl didn't object.
Boy wanked.
Girl "got playful" and took snapshots at every stage (including the climaxing).
Girl uploaded pictures.
Pictures appeared on a friend's high traffic blog. Entry was called a public warning.
Yours truly penned about the entry.
Girl got upset, fired back with five (non-consequential) points in her blog.
Yours truly answers her points (above).
*
And they live happily ever after
I don't enter blog entries with an aim to attack anyone. I pen what I think about situations/ issues.
As far as that entry goes, I did try to write it as accurately as possible pertaining to what happened, with all available information online and by verifying points with Girl in question.
No, you may not like what I wrote, but at the end of the day, facts are facts.
One may change her stand as frequently as necessary to explain the situation to her favor, but it's hard to erase the apparent motives underlining her actions.
So now, if I may, I'm turning my back on this mini R(A) stir up.
<< Home