Anna Perenna EXPOSED!!!! Worthless 25 year old skank.

[builder]

Ownage dispensed.

 

CES proves himself to be among the saddest, most depraved Anna-stalkers of all time.

 

It's a serial offender you are discussing here. You might have just pencilled yourself in for the next target.

[Pinky]

It's a serial offender you are discussing here. You might have just pencilled yourself in for the next target.

 

I'm trembling in my moon boots.

[builder]

I'm trembling in my moon boots.

 

..........Fucking >10<

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

LMAO.

 

Anna my dear...

 

The day your pathetic 25 year old puke Australian skank life has even a semblance of value to me in my life is the day the Earth will stand still. I spend about as much time on you as I do taking my morning shit and give you about as much value.

 

You flatter yourself way too much.

 

In reality, you just happened to be the convenient chew toy of the moment, although now that you are no longer Ms. Enigmatic, quite frankly you're boring as hell and I have lost all interest in you.

 

Have a nice life.

[Lethalfind]

It's quite simple, really.

 

Upset a moderator with too much time on his hands and no life outside of the forum, and he'll quickly become obsessed with you.

 

 

Anna, I didn't have a problem with you and still don't but lets keep your insults on point here.

If you were talking about Cogito with this statement, you can't be more wrong, he is Mr. Mom to how many boy? 3-4.

 

(CES says: Just 3)

 

Anyone with that going on definetly has a life outside of the forum.

 

To be frank the more intense life gets outside the more I enjoy coming on here and talking shit and reading what other people say, it takes my mind off things. On the other hand we have some people who derive their own personal worth off places like this. Its sad but true.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

That would be a

 

> 10 <

[Hugh G. Rekshun]

It's quite simple, really.

 

Upset a moderator with too much time on his hands and no life outside of the forum, and he'll quickly become obsessed with you.

 

Wanna try for 2?

[Pinky]

I don't quite understand the whole Anna hatred here (although I admit I wasn't really paying attention to the specific goings-ons at GF when Anna first came here).

 

First, I don't understand where the whole "Anna has no life" statements come here. The people saying that are the ones with post counts in the thousands. By contrast, Anna only posts here a couple times a week.

 

Additionally, any statements demeaning her intellectual capacity are blatently false. Only an idiot blinded by rage would have a hard time admitting that her serious-minded posts are actually well-researched and articulate.

 

I think that, despite their claims to the contrary, most of the people who hate Anna are jealous of her.

 

Grow up.

[Lethalfind]

The more I read her posts the less connected her personality becomes to me, I don't get the ebb and flow like I do with AIG or MRIH.

[Lethalfind]

Maybe I'm just incredibly observant but I really don't see Cogito being obsessed with someone as OBVIOUS as yourself.

It really doesn t count as stalking if you were the dumbass who posted the pictures to begin with. If you don't want them seen, then why would you put them on the internet for Gods Sake.

 

"Stalking is repeated harassing or otherwise intruding upon a person's privacy in a manner that causes fear, commonly exemplified by acts such as following or observing a person persistently and surreptitiously. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking"

 

The key words are "a person's privacy" When your on the internet, or your pictures you have no "expectation of privacy", therefore nothing you say or post in the way of pictures can be construed as private. Therefore your privacy has not been invaded by anyone. Has Cogito been down under to follow you? If so then Cogito, why didn't you bring me a present, lololol.

[Pinky]

Maybe I'm just incredibly observant but I really don't see Cogito being obsessed with someone as OBVIOUS as yourself.

It really doesn t count as stalking if you were the dumbass who posted the pictures to begin with. If you don't want them seen, then why would you put them on the internet for Gods Sake.

 

"Stalking is repeated harassing or otherwise intruding upon a person's privacy in a manner that causes fear, commonly exemplified by acts such as following or observing a person persistently and surreptitiously. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking"

 

The key words are "a person's privacy" When your on the internet, or your pictures you have no "expectation of privacy", therefore nothing you say or post in the way of pictures can be construed as private. Therefore your privacy has not been invaded by anyone. Has Cogito been down under to follow you? If so then Cogito, why didn't you bring me a present, lololol.

 

I reject this argument. When someone posts their picture on the internet, they usually do so with the assumption that it'll only be viewed by their friends/family/trusted contacts... or at the least, by neutral and psychologically-balanced strangers.

 

Strictly speaking, you're correct that once your picture graces the internet, your reasonable expectation of privacy plummets. Nonetheless, it's perfectly reasonable for Anna to be annoyed with the asshats both here and on Off Topic Forum who tracked down her personal information and spewed it all over the place. Why? Because I strongly doubt she posted her information with the intent of having jealous, foaming-at-the-mouth nutcases on debate forums posting it all over the place. I mean, if you put a picture of your kids on the web, and an insane sex offender gets ahold of said picture and jacks off to it for 6 hours a day (I'm looking at you, OCP), does that mean you're not allowed to be mortified since "hey... you posted it on the internet, no expectation of privacy"? Of course not.

[builder]

Well said, Pinky.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I reject this argument. When someone posts their picture on the internet, they usually do so with the assumption that it'll only be viewed by their friends/family/trusted contacts... or at the least, by neutral and psychologically-balanced strangers.

 

Strictly speaking, you're correct that once your picture graces the internet, your reasonable expectation of privacy plummets. Nonetheless, it's perfectly reasonable for Anna to be annoyed with the asshats both here and on Off Topic Forum who tracked down her personal information and spewed it all over the place. Why? Because I strongly doubt she posted her information with the intent of having jealous, foaming-at-the-mouth nutcases on debate forums posting it all over the place. I mean, if you put a picture of your kids on the web, and an insane sex offender gets ahold of said picture and jacks off to it for 6 hours a day (I'm looking at you, OCP), does that mean you're not allowed to be mortified since "hey... you posted it on the internet, no expectation of privacy"? Of course not.

 

You are young and stupid, so I'll help you out here.

 

PRIVACY, ends at your front door.

 

Anybody who thinks that it exists at all on the Internet, is a complete idiot.

 

It's that simple.

[skategreen]

I don't quite understand the whole Anna hatred here (although I admit I wasn't really paying attention to the specific goings-ons at GF when Anna first came here).

 

Go to her user profile and find the earliest posts. (they are many and pedestrian) It was a tiresome advent onto GF. I don't think it engendered "hate", more rather a gnat like annoyance.

[phreakwars]

I say enough with picking on Anna already, she has more then proven her worth not only as an excellent debater, but an artist in linguistic expression and flame. She gets enough shit tossed at her on Off Topic Forum, only over there, they get obsessively nasty, like I have noticed has been going on again as of recent.

 

.

.

[builder]

I say enough with picking on Anna already, she has more then proven her worth not only as an excellent debater, but an artist in linguistic expression and flame. She gets enough shit tossed at her on Off Topic Forum, only over there, they get obsessively nasty, like I have noticed has been going on again as of recent.

 

.

.

 

Yeah, back off CES. She can't post while she's laughing her head off at your fixation issues.

[Pinky]

PRIVACY, ends at your front door.

 

You are profoundly and densely stupid. So stupid that my head hurts just trying to comprehend the sheer ignorance and stupidity of what you've just posted.

 

PRIVACY ends at your front door?

 

Seriously, are you aware that all Western democracies have privacy laws? Furthermore, are you aware of the fact that many of these laws extend beyond the confines of your home... beyond you front door, as it were? For example, do you think that you have no legal recourse if a fat, naked man runs up to your children and takes a picture of them at a public pool? By your logic, no, since you forfeited your right to privacy once you left your home. In reality, of course you can take legal action. In Canada, it's an indictable offence under the Criminal Code (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ ), and unless you live in some third world country, it'll be illegal in your jurisdiction too. Ever heard of a photographer's release form? People can't just walk up to you in public, take your picture, then post it in the media without obtaining your consent. If they do so, they open themselves up to any number of lawsuits.

 

Of course, you must be right that the internet is a free-for-all zone of privacy infringement, right? Wrong again, you fukking ignoramus. In the European Union, it's illegal to publish "embarrassing pictures of people without their consent" (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/27/eu_internet_privacy_laws_tightened/ )...

 

...oh, but what about privacy laws in the United States? A cursory Google search reveals that indeed, if you violate someone's privacy in an inflammatory fashion, you can be held responsible for defamation by the affected individual and sued accordingly. Additionally, all sorts of private information is protected on the internet (SIN#, financial information etc.).

 

So next time you want to make retarded statements like "privacy... it ends at your front door", why don't you think long and hard about it, and STFU to spare the rest of us from your blinding idiocy.

[Lethalfind]

Pinky, you literally have no idea about privacy if you think you can really expect privacy over the internet, your smokin crack.

Maybe just young and stupid.

Point of advice, never say or do anything you wouldn't do in a crowded room, on the internet, pure and simple.

If she really thinks someone is stalking her, please have her contact the police and they will laugh her out the door.

God I hate histrionic people...

[Pinky]

Pinky, you literally have no idea about privacy if you think you can really expect privacy over the internet, your smokin crack.

Maybe just young and stupid.

Point of advice, never say or do anything you wouldn't do in a crowded room, pure and simple.

If she really thinks someone is stalking her, please have her contact the police and they will laugh her out the door.

God I hate histrionic people...

 

What part of of "there IS such a thing as internet privacy laws" failed to permeate your thick skull?

 

Please show me evidence that you can divulge any type of someone else's personal information on the internet with total freedom from legal reprecussion. When, and only when, you've done that will I consider anything you say with regards to issues of internet privacy worthy of merit.

 

Or, perhaps you agree with CES that not only on the internet but also in real life, privacy ends at the front door of your home.

 

God, I hate dense people.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Pinky,

 

You are so young and so stupid, yet so self absorbed, it's truly painful to have to even read your dribble.

 

Reality and the law are two very different things, and if you ever spend a moment in a court of law worth a grain of salt, you will learn this.

 

When you post any picture to which you have ownership onto the internet, into a non-regulated web space, it becomes the public domain.

 

Simply linking to an existing website is just that, a simple link to something in the public domain. Get over yourself.

 

No, in fact

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I say enough with picking on Anna already, she has more then proven her worth not only as an excellent debater, but an artist in linguistic expression and flame. She gets enough shit tossed at her on Off Topic Forum, only over there, they get obsessively nasty, like I have noticed has been going on again as of recent.

 

.

.

 

 

Fuck You Phreak! If the Bitch can dish it out, she can take it.

 

But then again, you can be just like builder and AIG and have internet oral sex with the skank and become her protector. LMAO.

 

You do love to stir the shitpot don't you?

[Pinky]

<snip>

 

Your post reeks of someone whose argument was destroyed, and while I don't expect you to admit it, we both know it.

 

Beyond this, you have FURTHER demonstrated that you a complete ignoramus (I didn't think that was possible, but the power of human stupidity never ceases to amaze me).

 

By your logic, once something is posted on the internet on a "non-regulated server", it becomes public domain... wrong again, Einstein. Do you think that corporate trademarks become public domain once they grace the internet? Can I go use the McDonalds logo for my store because I saw it on a website and hey, everything on the internet is public domain. No. What about photographs? In most countries, authorship remains with the photographer. A photographer/artist doesn't automatically forfeit their rights to a work just because they post it on the internet, dumbass. "Fair use" often ends up as an excuse for copyright/artistic infringement, and just as often gets a judicial smackdown.

 

Your uninspired rebuttal to the "privacy ending at the front door comment" is blatent backtracking. You made an incredibly stupid comment. Why don't you just own up to it? In a 'practical sense of the concept', you could have your throat slashed by a psychotic maniac the second you walk out the door. Does this mean that "hey, if you have your throat slashed the second you leave your home, tough luck"? Only a clinical retard would agree with that assessment. And are you saying that you wouldn't mind if you were pursued by the paparazzi 24/7?

 

"Dumb kid" Wow, I'm truly in awe of your complex, scathing and cunningly brilliant insult. How ever did you know I was in that demographic??? I tremble in fear of your vastly superior intellect... of course, I shouldn't be suprised, since you're the mastermind that came up with "Worthless 25 year old skank".

 

Get a life.

[phreakwars]

And to think he even idiot boxed pinky for merely stating his free opinion, for shame C.E.S.

 

 

I released him, that was unwarranted.

.

.

[Pinky]

And to think he even idiot boxed pinky for merely stating his free opinion, for shame C.E.S.

 

 

I released him, that was unwarranted.

.

.

 

Thanks.

 

Clearly, CES doesn't like having people point out when he says something proufoundly retarded.

[Lethalfind]

I'm starting to feel like I need to find a forum that gives an IQ test and asks for minimum age because I hate babysitting pre-pubescents...

What a waste of time, at least AIG is interesting...

 

posted by CES

"But then again, you can be just like builder and AIG and have internet oral sex with the skank and become her protector. LMAO."

 

that brings up an interesting question,

 

Are you really worthy of having a computer at all if you need someone to be your protector??

I say not.

 

Its like at daycare centers, they divide the children by age, so they won't get hurt. I think Anna and Pinky are playing in the wrong age group and I don't mean just chronological age. If you need someone to stand up for you, fight your so called battles (lolol) then you need to go back to the kindergarten group.