Well, here's something some of you might find interesting.

[Sean]

It is unfortunate, if in fact KK is him and he did do all of those things. However, fair goes both ways. Even if he were a murdering rapist, he would still have rights. The rules are not made to be followed only for people you enjoy. Since Perg is notoriously neutral it would make sense that he would remain impartial, no?

As far as I know, Perg hasn't broken any rules. Ken hasn't , either, I'm gonna be biased and not persecute the person that hasn't been a lying cunt. I don't claim to be fair, I claim to be me. And I have a moral code. Ken violated it, Ken gets fucked up the arse with a barbed wire dildo as far as I'm concerned.

 

[semen4her]

What a fucking wind bag!

 

[December]

That's one way of seeing it, I guess. Another way is to take Karen's side and see the name **** as having nothing at all to do with her or any other poster here.

Right, Aloysius?

Have you even asked me what I think the truth is yet?

What you think the truth is doesn't matter at all. I couldn't care less who or what you believe, that isn't what I asked you in my initial post to you.

 

[Peregrinator]

What you think the truth is doesn't matter at all. I couldn't care less who or what you believe, that isn't what I asked you in my initial post to you.

If I think that Ken is NOT anyone's real name on this site, that doesn't matter?

 

[semen4her]

Point being, once the pics are out there...


I get that. In those two specific cases, yes, I'm sure they don't mind. Hell, SheRem was posting about housesitting for us. I think it's safe to assume that we've met if she's living in my house and scoping out my sex toy and underwear drawers. And then there's the time she did laundry and left a pair of panties, which I put on my head, took a picture of, and posted with her permission.

Glo has posted, herself, about us meeting up.

Generally speaking, I think you're right; it's possible that I've slipped in that sort of benign-neglect way. I could have emailed with someone and then assumed they, like I, didn't care if I mentioned such. It's an easy mistake to make.

I don't think I've ever done something like sent Nipples Powertone's facebook page. That crosses a line for me.

Sure you didn't.

 

[RedkneckCowboy]

The funniest shit in this thread is December acting like the moral high ground of the GB. Considering her track record she can go fucking jump of a building. Get cancer and die cunt.

 

[Peregrinator]

Sure you didn't.

That was that one day when I let Ken have my password.

 

[Sean]

The funniest shit in this thread is December acting like the moral high ground of the GB. Considering her track record she can go fucking jump of a building. Get cancer and die cunt.

You're a shithead alt, but you have a point.

 

[semen4her]

That was that one day when I let Ken have my password.

I knew it wasn't as simple as a lawyer, his 2 sons and a hollywood actress.

 

[December]

If I think that Ken is NOT anyone's real name on this site, that doesn't matter?

No. If you were just throwing the name out with no attachment to any poster here, then perhaps it would matter. But you've very clearly established just who you're talking about. So, if there is a chance at all that our super troll slueths actually got it right then there is a chance you are throwing someone's RL name around, not only that you're making sure any noob along the way knows exactly who you're talking about.

Your deal breaker is that KK said "no, I am not that person" and so that chance is absolved in your mind. Wouldn't/couldn't anyone instinctively say "no, that isn't my real name//home address//place of business//FB friends and family list etc" after reading their personal details on a forum they know thousands of psychopaths could be reading?

Yeah, sorry. The guy still has rights, whether he said it wasn't him or not. Besides which, the last name that goes with that first name was redacted. This tells me that Laurel doesn't want that name thrown around, I assume she can't star out a RL first name, especially not one as common, but I doubt she really wants the screaming PMs from KK demanding she do just that.

 

[Sean]

I knew it wasn't as simple as a lawyer, his 2 sons and a hollywood actress.

OK, I laughed.

 

[Sean]

No. If you were just throwing the name out with no attachment to any poster here, then perhaps it would matter. But you've very clearly established just who you're talking about. So, if there is a chance at all that our super troll slueths actually got it right then there is a chance you are throwing someone's RL name around, not only that you're making sure any noob along the way knows exactly who you're talking about.

Your deal breaker is that KK said "no, I am not that person" and so that chance is absolved in your mind. Wouldn't/couldn't anyone instinctively say "no, that isn't my real name//home address//place of business//FB friends and family list etc" after reading their personal details on a forum they know thousands of psychopaths could be reading?

Yeah, sorry. The guy still has rights, whether he said it wasn't him or not. Besides which, the last name that goes with that first name was redacted. This tells me that Laurel doesn't want that name thrown around, I assume she can't star out a RL first name, especially not one as common, but I doubt she really wants the screaming PMs from KK demanding she do just that.

No, the guy has no rights. He posted pics of Rob's kids and laughed about it. He referred to black posters as dumb niggers. He sucked in people with rape experiences. No rights. None.

 

[December]

No, the guy has no rights. He posted pics of Rob's kids and laughed about it. He referred to black posters as dumb niggers. He sucked in people with rape experiences. No rights. None.

Sorry, but you're wrong. *shrug*

 

[Sean]

Sorry, but you're wrong. *shrug*

No, I'm not. There are consequences of your actions. I'd be quite happy to meet Ken and stomp his head into a paste. You think it's OK to pose as a rape victim to elicit stories from genuine victims so you can jack off to it?

 

[Nerdy_Harold]

This whole discussion of exposing identity is moot. The person in question posted info on the net. Nobody was "exposed" No information that was gained in confidence was exposed. The person provided link to said info in their profile which made it public. The only person guilty of anything is the Karen/Ken person for stupidity.

 

[December]

No, I'm not. There are consequences of your actions. I'd be quite happy to meet Ken and stomp his head into a paste. You think it's OK to pose as a rape victim to elicit stories from genuine victims so you can jack off to it?

I never said it was ok. Not once did I say it was ok, nor would I ever say it was ok. Unfortunately, you're still wrong. I get where you're coming from. But yeah, you're still wrong.

The guy has rights, like anyone else. Assaulting him would be just as not ok as him allegedly trying to elicit rape stories from legit victims for god knows what perverse purpose.

 

[richard_daily]

I never said it was ok. Not once did I say it was ok, nor would I ever say it was ok. Unfortunately, you're still wrong. I get where you're coming from. But yeah, you're still wrong.

The guy has rights, like anyone else. Assaulting him would be just as not ok as him allegedly trying to elicit rape stories from legit victims for god knows what perverse purpose.

I actually agree with you, but let me ask you this;

What punishment should ken face for his actions?

 

[Sean]

I never said it was ok. Not once did I say it was ok, nor would I ever say it was ok. Unfortunately, you're still wrong. I get where you're coming from. But yeah, you're still wrong.

The guy has rights, like anyone else. Assaulting him would be just as not ok as him allegedly trying to elicit rape stories from legit victims for god knows what perverse purpose.

No, he gave up his rights.

Here's a story: I once worked behind a bar in Manchester. One of the barmaids was getting knocked about by the boyfriend. Four of us went down, kicked the fuck out of the boyfriend and moved her stuff to a friend's house. He had rights, we didn't give a fuck. Morality>rights.

 

[neci]

laurel never removed or edited this thread. she changed a bit, but kept it there.

ken. ken. ken. ken.

got a problem? take it up with the boss.

 

[Nerdy_Harold]

First off these are not RIGHTS. The forum has rules but they are not RIGHTS.

Under the law there is no right to privacy on rules set forth by the site owner. Nobodies rights were violated.

 

[December]

I actually agree with you, but let me ask you this;

What punishment should ken face for his actions?

I really don't know. For me, the evidence against him was pretty convincing, but ultimately not complete, not for me anyways. I am still not entirely sure KK isn't the actress, nor that KK is neither of them and is actually some kind of evil genius who played a real big dramatic hoax on everyone.

However, if the KK poster is the man everyone thinks he is and did the things everyone says he did, I'm really not sure what his punishment should be. The emotional girlie girl part of me is really icked out by the claims of trying to elicit rape stories to wack off and wants to lash out, but the rational and fair part of me says his punishment isn't up to me anyways. If I did have any say in it though, I think I would want him to publicly admit what he did. I think I'd want a public apology to the young lady in the photos he used, and mandatory psych evaluation. I'd definitely push for that. Maybe a fine of some sort for impersonating the actress without her knowledge.

I don't know though, because I have no idea what the actual facts are. Not truly. Not 100%

 

[KRCummings]

I really don't know. For me, the evidence against him was pretty convincing, but ultimately not complete, not for me anyways. I am still not entirely sure KK isn't the actress, nor that KK is neither of them and is actually some kind of evil genius who played a real big dramatic hoax on everyone.

However, if the KK poster is the man everyone thinks he is and did the things everyone says he did, I'm really not sure what his punishment should be. The emotional girlie girl part of me is really icked out by the claims of trying to elicit rape stories to wack off and wants to lash out, but the rational and fair part of me says his punishment isn't up to me anyways. If I did have any say in it though, I think I would want him to publicly admit what he did. I think I'd want a public apology to the young lady in the photos he used, and mandatory psych evaluation. I'd definitely push for that. Maybe a fine of some sort for impersonating the actress without her knowledge.

I don't know though, because I have no idea what the actual facts are. Not truly. Not 100%

Most juries aren't 100% yet they send people to the needle. I'm ok with being 95% on a scumbag pretending to be a woman.
And for the record no, he doesn't have any rights. Literotica isn't the government.

 

[zipman]

laurel never removed or edited this thread. she changed a bit, but kept it there.

ken. ken. ken. ken.

got a problem? take it up with the boss.

Exactly. Perg isn't a mod.

Laurel's site, Laurel's right to decide how to handle it.

And I have a feeling she won't do it in an overly sanctimonious way.

 

[neci]

informal courts

 

[Peregrinator]

No. If you were just throwing the name out with no attachment to any poster here, then perhaps it would matter. But you've very clearly established just who you're talking about. So, if there is a chance at all that our super troll slueths actually got it right then there is a chance you are throwing someone's RL name around, not only that you're making sure any noob along the way knows exactly who you're talking about.

Your deal breaker is that KK said "no, I am not that person" and so that chance is absolved in your mind. Wouldn't/couldn't anyone instinctively say "no, that isn't my real name//home address//place of business//FB friends and family list etc" after reading their personal details on a forum they know thousands of psychopaths could be reading?

Yeah, sorry. The guy still has rights, whether he said it wasn't him or not. Besides which, the last name that goes with that first name was redacted. This tells me that Laurel doesn't want that name thrown around, I assume she can't star out a RL first name, especially not one as common, but I doubt she really wants the screaming PMs from KK demanding she do just that.

What rights, exactly? To never have his first name appear on Lit? To have links in a poster's sigline that lead directly to him, but never have anyone mention that? If any poster is concerned about all those psychopaths, they'd be a dipshit to link it in their sig, no? And if they did, why complain about people pointing that out?

It's not that the chance is absolved in my mind. It's that I think if you say "I am not Spartacus," then I'm going to take you at your word and feel free to talk about Spartacus all I want, whether I think you are he or not. I respect your statement. You're not Spartacus. Okay. Karen is not Ken. Okay.

Look, there's a link in my sig to a picture of my body from years ago. If someone were to hotlink it and say "Hey look! This is a picture of Perg!" should I then go screaming to Laurel and demand that no one ever post it again? Does that even make sense? Especially if I claim it's not me? And Laurel could star out any damn thing she wants.

Also, this:

laurel never removed or edited this thread. she changed a bit, but kept it there.

ken. ken. ken. ken.

got a problem? take it up with the boss.