fireworks_god said:

1d10t3k said:

I feel like breaking your own anonymity should make YOU liable for anything that is said about you. 

---

So his existance as a human being makes him liable for your actions?

---

fireworks_god said:

You didn't imply it; you directly stated it. You stated that not being anonymous holds one acountable for the actions of others. While it is a reasonable conclusion that one who prefers to not have their personal identity associated with such remarks should not reveal said identity, it does not hold them liable for the actions of others, duh.

---

Diploid said:

He threatened to involve the police with the Shroomery. Once he did that, it no longer matters if he's a pedophile or not. He does not belong here. Good riddance.

I had a girlfriend threaten to tell the cops about my grow once. After that threat, I changed the locks and never spoke another word to her again.

Certain behaviors should never be given a second chance.

---

shroomydan said:

Why should anybody care what you think? Who are you?


MJ's major problem was allowing himself to get all riled up by the words of a few anonymous nobodies. Anonymity is for cowards. Furthermore, the shroomery is not a drug site. It's a mushroom site. Just because anonymous junkies are tolerated here does make the site an anonymous drug site.


Those who ran MJ off should be ashamed of themselves, and the admins who allowed it to happen should also be ashamed of themselves. We traded the world's premiere professional mushroom hunter for a bunch of pussy ass little boy internet thugs. It's nice to know the shroomery has its priorities right. 

---

Diploid said:

He threatened to involve the police with the Shroomery. Once he did that, it no longer matters if he's a pedophile or not. He does not belong here. Good riddance.

I had a girlfriend threaten to tell the cops about my grow once. After that threat, I changed the locks and never spoke another word to her again.

Certain behaviors should never be given a second chance.

---

shroomydan said:

Diploid said:

He threatened to involve the police with the Shroomery. Once he did that, it no longer matters if he's a pedophile or not. He does not belong here. Good riddance.

I had a girlfriend threaten to tell the cops about my grow once. After that threat, I changed the locks and never spoke another word to her again.

Certain behaviors should never be given a second chance.

---

I'm not arguing for a second chance for John. He made his choice to burn the bridge; it's his choice. However, the admins choose the not hold up their agreement to stop the unfounded pedo accusations. There was an agreement if I recall correctly. 

A few little cowards thought they could get their jollies by tormenting a grumpy old man. Those with the power to stop it, those with the responsibility to stop it, failed. MJ is gone from the shroomery but still here are those who got there laughs tormenting him as he self-destructed. That tells you something about us as a community and its not good.

Dreamer all drugs are not the same. I'm sorry to hear you are into heroin. That stuff is very bad for you, and bad for the people around you.

A little research will turn up my real name. It's not a secret.

---

shroomydan said:

Why should anybody care what you think? Who are you?


MJ's major problem was allowing himself to get all riled up by the words of a few anonymous nobodies. Anonymity is for cowards. Furthermore, the shroomery is not a drug site. It's a mushroom site. Just because anonymous junkies are tolerated here does make the site an anonymous drug site.


Those who ran MJ off should be ashamed of themselves, and the admins who allowed it to happen should also be ashamed of themselves. We traded the world's premiere professional mushroom hunter for a bunch of pussy ass little boy internet thugs. It's nice to know the shroomery has its priorities right. 

---

shroomydan said:

I just checked your post stats, not a single mushroom related post. No wonder you don't care about mjshroomer, you don't care about mushrooms. I wish all the druggies who don't care about mushrooms would find some other corner of the internet to infest.

---

Are you fucking kidding me? I agree with Dreamer, that is some very elitist bullshit right there.

Speaking for myself I had never heard of this "Mushroom John" character before I signed up here at the Shroomery. His existence on this earth had/has nothing at all to do with my mushroom experiences. Mushrooms were around long before John and they'll be around long after he's dead and gone. "Who are you" to say somebody doesn't care about mushrooms because they think "Mushroom John" is a crazy old cunt?

Don't get me wrong, thats cool he dedicated his life to picking actives, however I just don't see the man as being anything special, he's just another face in the crowd like the rest of us.

1d10t3k said:

I did not directly state that they should be accountable for the actions of others, rather I said they should be liable for the things said directly about them.  They give people the power to make disparaging remarks about them by giving away their personal info, name, whereabouts, photographs, etc.

BTW, not being anonymous is not the same thing as "existing".

---

Yes, that is how you stated it, yet I see no true distinction between the ways of phrasing it, beyond that of ensuring those who engage in disparagement are legally protected when they otherwise might not be. My statement regarding his existance is quite apt. His existance implies that he has personal nature; name, whereabouts, photographs, etc.

I've already conceded that, reasonably, it is one's responsibility to not reveal such information if they do not wish others to have the power to disparage them for it; however, this does not make them liable for it actually happening, nor should it.

Quote:

What I meant by my original statement was that nobody who has voluntarily shared their real name/photographs should have the right to complain about anything on an anonymous forum - particularly one like OTD.

---

Quote:

My point here is that the Shroomery shouldn't be responsible for anything involving libelous remarks about anyone.

---

Quote:

Regardless of the fact that it was serious allegations, it still shouldn't give MJ the right to bring the Shroomery into any legal matters - they didn't force him to reveal his name/photographs.  It's a bad analogy, but it's like blaming a gun maker for shooting yourself in the foot.

---

Quote:

the admins choose the not hold up their agreement to stop the unfounded pedo accusations. There was an agreement if I recall correctly.

---

Quote:

I had never heard of this "Mushroom John" character before I signed up here at the Shroomery... he's just another face in the crowd like the rest of us.

---