Reported Abuse message to Cary regarding the outing and intimidation tactics directed towards the household suspected to be that of Gerrymanderer2, and related matters; for the record, for whatever that is worth....as follows:



Mr. Weidemann,

what's going on in this thread is deplorable and I hope you remove all reference to the people and their address, whether they are this Gerrymander person or not. eesh openly admitted to phishing for this household's personal info--everything--names, phone numbers, address, e-mails, now photos of their house. Please stop this. Whoever these people are, they do not deserve this...I know from personal experience what can happen when certain borderline criminal elements from this site find out your address. I'm begging you to stop this before it goes any further. This is not right. It is not ethical. Do ethics play no part in your version of freedom of speech? Is it okay to allow possible harm to come to people only because you have no legal obligation to intervene? Is the legality of it all that matters to you? People have been harassed and harmed as a direct result of the actions of users of this site. You, under law, have no obligation to intervene in any way; but do you have an ethical obligation? This is a hollow expression of free speech...to defend something only because it can be defended, according to the letter of the law. There is no larger ideal--here--specifically...there is no defensible reason in it; I would not invoke the cliche of shouting fire in a crowded theater...but what has gone on here for far too long comes close. You know who the offenders are, who do these things. You're aware of the stalking and harassment that's arisen from certain pernicious elements here, who engage in this behavior.

Please take some action, ethically. There's no monolithic ideal bigger than yourself in question in what I'm talking about, specifically; it's without reason, completely, and criminal activity has been proven to come of it. No one even knows if these people are the user in question. They WILL be harassed. You can put a stop to it, or at least stem it a bit.

There's no reason to this. This is not an ideal. That's not a substantive defense. If this is left up (and content like it),if it continues unabated, it will be nothing more than a pedantic and reckless defense--of yourself and no one else. This is out of control, needless, and morally and ethically irresponsible, if it stays. Please put a stop to it. Just because you can--legally--defend something, is not reason to do so. This is not reason, sir. You have every legal right to do what you do. I have no recourse, these people who've just been put in the crosshairs have no recourse...you are free and immune to run this site as you wish, under law, I understand. But do you have reason.

The sleep of reason produces monsters, Mr. Weidemann...even in the invaluable necessity of free speech. Perhaps especially in it.

thanks for allowing me to exercise my right to speech on this matter; I will post this on the forum, because I want it documented this has been reported. It's been reported more than once. You know how I feel, you know I have a questionable past here...but what I'm saying is not without question.

I think you created a great thing with this site, initially; but it is in need of maintenance. If you can't police it effectively enough, I think you have a moral problem on your hands. How you deal with that is your personal moral burden. You are legally protected, however. I just hope that's not all that matters to you.

Thank you


**amended to add that I do not expect Cary can absolutely control the actions of the few criminal elements active on this forum.....but it is flatly untrue that he can exercise no control whatsoever. For one, by allowing personal information (particularly that of the innocent) to remain here, it is welcoming google to index whatever lies libel and false accusations may be associated with people's names. That is a damaging tool, and Cary does have total control over the use of that tool as a weapon.

Second, by not making an example of the truly malicious (you all know who you are), who many times have plainly stated their intentions to harass and stalk others in real life, I believe Cary creates a culture of tacit acceptance--even promotion, however unintentional--for these malicious and criminal elements to continue to operate in the way they do. To say he has no control over what happens offline is in my opinion untrue; just as laying down the banhammer on a troll in spectacular fashion can set an example and lay a template for others to follow (as was rightly done in my case years back), so can he do this with the elements who are not only trolls, but are malicious and borderline criminal and even go so far as to CLEARLY STATE THEIR MALICIOUS INTENTIONS ON THE SITE. This has happened. It still happens. The usual suspects always rear their ugly heads, and few have ever received more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Reason is not only asleep where this is concerned...it's in a coma. And the monsters are running loose.

This site is in desperate need of maintenance. There are those on here who cross a line into the real world that is not only alarming but sometimes illegal; and legality aside, charges filed, convictions made or not--victimization still occurs (sometimes to people who have never even heard of this site, as when a malicious element gets it wrong and outs an innocent person). This site can embolden them to do this, as long as Cary neglects to deal with them as he would any common troll. He has stated much of what I'm saying himself, albeit in more circumspect fashion. Unfortunately, he has very rarely held himself to it. The driver is asleep at the wheel..the car is out of control...we're going 50 miles per hour looking at the road pass us by sideways here...if that's how Cary wants to continue to run this site, it's his legal right apparently. How he bears the ethics and morality of that cross, that's his personal business. No more can be done or said.

To sum up....this is bullshit. Whatever you think of me, my critique is not without reason or precedent. I think the moderator started with good intentions and was fair and effective for a long time...but I think his particular species of 'free speech' has officially become a sham. It stinks. It's without substance or merit. It's pedantic, hollow, without reason. It's a personal legal shield for him and a weekend hobby, nothing more.

If you aspire to hold up this great monolithic vision of our 1st amendment, basically, it's going to fall to shit when you phone it in. Please don't phone in the 1st amendment. You end up tarnishing it, trivializing it. Not all publicity is good publicity. Controversy over free speech does not by default equate to a thing worthy of rallying behind; think about it...there is a way to defile free speech. This forum does just that, and sadly, it was not always this way. Cary is no William S. Burroughs, he's no Larry Flynt, no Lenny Bruce; he's a guy, I think, who simply can't or won't take the time necessary to preserve the sanctity of speech. The 1st amendment is to be treated with care; it's a fragile object. This is my opinion.

I expect you all to have a good laugh now. Thanks for your serious consideration of the matter at hand, all....

goodnight

Misery, you stalk and threaten every day. STFU


BTW, you swatted your own home. The police know this.

jimmylegs is william moreno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Misery, you stalk and threaten every day. STFU
>
>
> BTW, you swatted your own home. The police know
> this.


Thank you for reading and considering the points made.
goodnight

God damn I need a bigger monitor because your wall of text took me a year to scroll down...

The simple truth is that this is Cary's forum, not yours, and he can moderate it (or not) however he sees fit.

If you don't like the species of free speech he allows on this web site, stop using it.

Lastly, if someone says something untrue or defamatory about you and it really bothers you that much, hire a lawyer and get it taken down.

It really is that simple.

simple answers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The simple truth is that this is Cary's forum, not
> yours, and he can moderate it (or not) however he
> sees fit.
>



I believe I emphasized that fact multiple times.

This was what you would refer to as 'editorial', friend, meaning it is opinion in nature. And the point--and the question posed--in this 'editorial' (say it with me), was not regarding the hard-and-fast rules that I'm well aware Cary is legally allowed to operate by. It was an expression of concern for the recklessness I personally see as a product of Cary (not) moderating the outing of some Indian family who have probably never heard of this website, and a question to him personally regarding the ETHICS involved in this kind of disregard for innocent people.

That's not the issue. I simply have a question of ethics for Cary. I believe, in certain venues, the question of ethics is quite germane to the discussion of free speech. I feel Cary differs. And here we have editorial. Or, we can just name-call as usual.

Good day.

I find it interesting that you decide to butt into something unrelated to you or your family. Crying for attention because eesh isn't giving you any. I actually believe you like the "harassment" you are the only person left who has been outed, stalked or harassed who continues to come here, being an attention whore and doing whatever you can to somehow exact some fake revenge on eesh that isn't working. Just leave. The more you type about eesh the more he "wins" if you can't leave then post about anything but eesh. But of course you can't. You love the attention which is why you're latching on to this. You should be happy you aren't his target but you obviously like it. So carry on.

jimmylegs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reported Abuse message to Cary regarding the
> outing and intimidation tactics directed towards
> the household suspected to be that of
> Gerrymanderer2, and related matters; for the
> record, for whatever that is worth....as follows:
>
>
>
> Mr. Weidemann,
>
> what's going on in this thread is deplorable and I
> hope you remove all reference to the people and
> their address, whether they are this Gerrymander
> person or not. eesh openly admitted to phishing
> for this household's personal
> info--everything--names, phone numbers, address,
> e-mails, now photos of their house. Please stop
> this. Whoever these people are, they do not
> deserve this...I know from personal experience
> what can happen when certain borderline criminal
> elements from this site find out your address. I'm
> begging you to stop this before it goes any
> further. This is not right. It is not ethical. Do
> ethics play no part in your version of freedom of
> speech? Is it okay to allow possible harm to come
> to people only because you have no legal
> obligation to intervene? Is the legality of it all
> that matters to you? People have been harassed and
> harmed as a direct result of the actions of users
> of this site. You, under law, have no obligation
> to intervene in any way; but do you have an
> ethical obligation? This is a hollow expression of
> free speech...to defend something only because it
> can be defended, according to the letter of the
> law. There is no larger
> ideal--here--specifically...there is no defensible
> reason in it; I would not invoke the cliche of
> shouting fire in a crowded theater...but what has
> gone on here for far too long comes close. You
> know who the offenders are, who do these things.
> You're aware of the stalking and harassment that's
> arisen from certain pernicious elements here, who
> engage in this behavior.
>
> Please take some action, ethically. There's no
> monolithic ideal bigger than yourself in question
> in what I'm talking about, specifically; it's
> without reason, completely, and criminal activity
> has been proven to come of it. No one even knows
> if these people are the user in question. They
> WILL be harassed. You can put a stop to it, or at
> least stem it a bit.
>
> There's no reason to this. This is not an ideal.
> That's not a substantive defense. If this is left
> up (and content like it),if it continues unabated,
> it will be nothing more than a pedantic and
> reckless defense--of yourself and no one else.
> This is out of control, needless, and morally and
> ethically irresponsible, if it stays. Please put a
> stop to it. Just because you can--legally--defend
> something, is not reason to do so. This is not
> reason, sir. You have every legal right to do what
> you do. I have no recourse, these people who've
> just been put in the crosshairs have no
> recourse...you are free and immune to run this
> site as you wish, under law, I understand. But do
> you have reason.
>
> The sleep of reason produces monsters, Mr.
> Weidemann...even in the invaluable necessity of
> free speech. Perhaps especially in it.
>
> thanks for allowing me to exercise my right to
> speech on this matter; I will post this on the
> forum, because I want it documented this has been
> reported. It's been reported more than once. You
> know how I feel, you know I have a questionable
> past here...but what I'm saying is not without
> question.
>
> I think you created a great thing with this site,
> initially; but it is in need of maintenance. If
> you can't police it effectively enough, I think
> you have a moral problem on your hands. How you
> deal with that is your personal moral burden. You
> are legally protected, however. I just hope that's
> not all that matters to you.
>
> Thank you
>
>
> **amended to add that I do not expect Cary can
> absolutely control the actions of the few criminal
> elements active on this forum.....but it is flatly
> untrue that he can exercise no control whatsoever.
> For one, by allowing personal information
> (particularly that of the innocent) to remain
> here, it is welcoming google to index whatever
> lies libel and false accusations may be associated
> with people's names. That is a damaging tool, and
> Cary does have total control over the use of that
> tool as a weapon.
>
> Second, by not making an example of the truly
> malicious (you all know who you are), who many
> times have plainly stated their intentions to
> harass and stalk others in real life, I believe
> Cary creates a culture of tacit acceptance--even
> promotion, however unintentional--for these
> malicious and criminal elements to continue to
> operate in the way they do. To say he has no
> control over what happens offline is in my opinion
> untrue; just as laying down the banhammer on a
> troll in spectacular fashion can set an example
> and lay a template for others to follow (as was
> rightly done in my case years back), so can he do
> this with the elements who are not only trolls,
> but are malicious and borderline criminal and even
> go so far as to CLEARLY STATE THEIR MALICIOUS
> INTENTIONS ON THE SITE. This has happened. It
> still happens. The usual suspects always rear
> their ugly heads, and few have ever received more
> than a slap on the wrist, if that. Reason is not
> only asleep where this is concerned...it's in a
> coma. And the monsters are running loose.
>
> This site is in desperate need of maintenance.
> There are those on here who cross a line into the
> real world that is not only alarming but sometimes
> illegal; and legality aside, charges filed,
> convictions made or not--victimization still
> occurs (sometimes to people who have never even
> heard of this site, as when a malicious element
> gets it wrong and outs an innocent person). This
> site can embolden them to do this, as long as Cary
> neglects to deal with them as he would any common
> troll. He has stated much of what I'm saying
> himself, albeit in more circumspect fashion.
> Unfortunately, he has very rarely held himself to
> it. The driver is asleep at the wheel..the car is
> out of control...we're going 50 miles per hour
> looking at the road pass us by sideways here...if
> that's how Cary wants to continue to run this
> site, it's his legal right apparently. How he
> bears the ethics and morality of that cross,
> that's his personal business. No more can be done
> or said.
>
> To sum up....this is bullshit. Whatever you think
> of me, my critique is not without reason or
> precedent. I think the moderator started with good
> intentions and was fair and effective for a long
> time...but I think his particular species of 'free
> speech' has officially become a sham. It stinks.
> It's without substance or merit. It's pedantic,
> hollow, without reason. It's a personal legal
> shield for him and a weekend hobby, nothing more.
>
>
> If you aspire to hold up this great monolithic
> vision of our 1st amendment, basically, it's going
> to fall to shit when you phone it in. Please don't
> phone in the 1st amendment. You end up tarnishing
> it, trivializing it. Not all publicity is good
> publicity. Controversy over free speech does not
> by default equate to a thing worthy of rallying
> behind; think about it...there is a way to defile
> free speech. This forum does just that, and sadly,
> it was not always this way. Cary is no William S.
> Burroughs, he's no Larry Flynt, no Lenny Bruce;
> he's a guy, I think, who simply can't or won't
> take the time necessary to preserve the sanctity
> of speech. The 1st amendment is to be treated with
> care; it's a fragile object. This is my opinion.
>
> I expect you all to have a good laugh now. Thanks
> for your serious consideration of the matter at
> hand, all....
>
> goodnight
Attachments:

This thread is full of the ghey..

What do you think the person was on when they wrote that? Stoned, PROZAC, drunk out of their mind?

Take into account it was posted at 4:45AM.

Ive just realized how fucked in the head people on this site are. Hey shit for brains. Go fixate on the next the thing you pack of filthy rabid dogs.

Dude, stfu, all of you stupid motherfuckers.

The Coz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you think the person was on when they
> wrote that? Stoned, PROZAC, drunk out of their
> mind?
>
> Take into account it was posted at 4:45AM.


I could not finish reading. Maybe when I take my first morning shit I will

I'm taking my morning shit now and I still didn't read that shit.

Funny

Well I'm on the toilet now and still can't do it.

RE: outing of some Indian family who have probably never heard of this website"



What the fuck? You can't out somebody who was never "in" in the first place.

simple answers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The simple truth is that this is Cary's forum, not
> yours, and he can moderate it (or not) however he
> sees fit.


"The ferocity of personal attacks and attempted "outing" has picked up considerably in the past few days. Some moderation (based on reports) has been performed every day this week, but it was obviously insufficient to stem the tide. I'm performing a full investigation now that will likely result in warnings and several bans.

I'm really just posting this (sticky) thread to reiterate:
PERSONAL ATTACKS INCLUDING "OUTING" ARE PROHIBITED ON FAIRFAX UNDERGROUND!"

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/943464.html


What were you saying about the great and hypocritical, Cary?

Reporting won't un-butthurt you.

Blessed are the murderous.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> simple answers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The simple truth is that this is Cary's forum,
> not
> > yours, and he can moderate it (or not) however
> he
> > sees fit.
>
>
> "The ferocity of personal attacks and attempted
> "outing" has picked up considerably in the past
> few days. Some moderation (based on reports) has
> been performed every day this week, but it was
> obviously insufficient to stem the tide. I'm
> performing a full investigation now that will
> likely result in warnings and several bans.
>
> I'm really just posting this (sticky) thread to
> reiterate:
> PERSONAL ATTACKS INCLUDING "OUTING" ARE PROHIBITED
> ON FAIRFAX UNDERGROUND!"
>
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/94
> 3464.html
>
>
> What were you saying about the great and
> hypocritical, Cary?



"Personal attacks including 'outing' are prohibited on Fairfax Underground. Full investigation."

Once again, this is not a discussion about Cary's right to run his site how he desires. We see he is free to disregard the very stern words he himself wrote in stone, above.

It is a discussion of his ETHICS. And it has become painfully, humiliatingly clear that ethics play no role whatsoever in his moderation (or lack thereof) of this website. This is a discussion, a dissection: is 'free speech' always a catch-all, no questions asked, immovable object, silencing final word when the question of harassment, stalking, and threatening behavior stems from your creation? Is it truly a panacea? Or is it a flimsy excuse to not mind the store?

Is there reason? Or is crying 'free speech' when real people's real lives are disrupted as a result of indifference on the moderator's part just a bulletproof vest, designed to protect only the wearer? You may not enforce your own rules. That is your prerogative. But is it with reason? I can't imagine it is. Appeal to reason. Without it, one becomes ethically bankrupt.

I believe fiercely in freedom of speech. That is why I also believe fiercely in handling it with very, very great care and reverence. And I do not see much care in the administrator's handling.

ETHICS in SPEECH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It is a discussion of his ETHICS.





Is this some high school philosophy class?

Blessed are the murderous.

Gaurdians of the Galaxy is out now on dvd

Star-Lord is the son of Thanos\\

spoilers

bump

ETHICS in SPEECH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Personal attacks including 'outing' are
> prohibited on Fairfax Underground. Full
> investigation."
>
> Once again, this is not a discussion about Cary's
> right to run his site how he desires. We see he is
> free to disregard the very stern words he himself
> wrote in stone, above.
>
> It is a discussion of his ETHICS. And it has
> become painfully, humiliatingly clear that ethics
> play no role whatsoever in his moderation (or lack
> thereof) of this website. This is a discussion, a
> dissection: is 'free speech' always a catch-all,
> no questions asked, immovable object, silencing
> final word when the question of harassment,
> stalking, and threatening behavior stems from your
> creation? Is it truly a panacea? Or is it a flimsy
> excuse to not mind the store?
>
> Is there reason? Or is crying 'free speech' when
> real people's real lives are disrupted as a result
> of indifference on the moderator's part just a
> bulletproof vest, designed to protect only the
> wearer? You may not enforce your own rules. That
> is your prerogative. But is it with reason? I
> can't imagine it is. Appeal to reason. Without it,
> one becomes ethically bankrupt.
>
> I believe fiercely in freedom of speech. That is
> why I also believe fiercely in handling it with
> very, very great care and reverence. And I do not
> see much care in the administrator's handling.



eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------
> Lol...
>
> I don't practice "freedom of speech".
>
> I shit on it every day by using this board as
> a tool for acting out my sociopathic aggression.

It is people like eesh (a sociopath, who uses Fairfax Underground as a tool to advance his sociopathic aggression)

and Cary (who is, at best, a "useful idiot" for eesh, and at worst, eesh's accomplice)

who are going to wreck section 230 (the law that allows a forum like Fairfax Underground to exist)

by abusing the spirit of the law.

Cf. Andrew M. Sevanian, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: A Good Samaritan Law without
the Requirement of Acting as a Good Samaritan, 21 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 121 (2014) (arguing that courts have
interpreted section 230 too broadly by ignoring the "good Samaritan" requirement that the law's safe harbor
provision requires).

On Sevanian's view, Cary would clearly be excluded from section 230's safe harbor since (as "jimmylegs" and
"ETHICS in SPEECH" explain in some detail) his behavior does not square with Congress's intent of encouraging
"good Samaritan" behavior by website operators.
Attachments:

IOW, the issue goes beyond the "it's Cary's sandbox" argument that some people use to dismiss any criticism of Cary's management of this website.

It goes to a question of the meaning of the law that allows FU to exist.

And whether FU, under Cary's management, is consistent with, or repugnant to, the meaning and purpose of that law.

In short, whether FU belongs to the class of "predatory websites" that are outside the scope of First Amendment protection.
Attachments:

Still never finished reading this...it Is oh so sad at how much time and thought this retard puts in his postings and for no one ever to agree with him or see eye to eye. Even Gerry told him to fuck off lol

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ive just realized how fucked in the head people on
> this site are. Hey shit for brains. Go fixate on
> the next the thing you pack of filthy rabid dogs.
>
> Dude, stfu, all of you stupid motherfuckers.


LOL! Now Gerry is sucking his dick, HARD!

That why you're hiding behind an anonymous screen name like a coward?

Aren't all the names on here anon? Coward.

.

Makes sense now.