|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 18, 2012 12:52:46 GMT -5
Somehow Linda, I highly doubt Techie is concerned.
I should ask though: What's the acceptable use policy at Tax for internet usage? According to people I know there, they allow no personal use and the Labor Relations staff there are relentless if thers a complaint. Keep playing games with my users Linda - I doubt it will work out the way you think it will.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Rea on Jun 18, 2012 13:50:29 GMT -5
Your contact in my department is incorrect. The statement below was taken directly from our Code of Conduct regarding internet usage. If you don't believe me, please contact Ken, John or Dave in our Labor Relations area. I've just spoken with them and they assure me their caseload from our department is too heavy for them to worry about my posting on a blog.
Personal Use of Department facilities As a general rule, the Department provides employees with telephones, internet access, and electronic communication methods as tools to help them conduct official government business. However, employees may make occasional and incidental use of Department telephones, internet, and electronic communication for personal purposes. Personal use is permitted only if it is: limited in amount and duration, and doesn't conflict with the proper exercise of the employee's duties. An employee's use of Department telephones, internet, and electronic communication for personal purposes is subject to the following guidelines: it must be infrequent and brief. it must not interfere with the Department's electronic communication and computer operations (e.g. large attachments such as photographs or the forwarding of chain e-mails). it must not interfere with the employee's work responsibilities or cause a decrease in productivity.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 18, 2012 14:02:17 GMT -5
Well, lets put things in perspective Linda: You are about to find out if what you are doing is "acceptable use" if you keep pissing me off. This discussion is over. One more immature, off topic comment, one more threat, basically ANYTHING that annoys me in the slightest, the banhammer comes down and an email gets sent to the webmasters at Tax letting them know an employee is threatening and harassing others via a department IP address. This is your last motherfucking warning. Comprende?
In other words, STFU unless you have something on topic to add.
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 18, 2012 14:15:00 GMT -5
Ms. Rea:
Since you are apparently so annoyed about the issue, I have moderated out the two posts you were concerned with, i.e. the ones asking the QUESTION of where Tom and Pete were filming their videos. The posts have been moderated, although it was neither slanderous nor libelous to ask a reasonable question about the production of a video and discuss the matter with other chatroom visitors. Plainly, madam, no slander or libel has taken place, but I have still removed that content which you found upsetting.
I would like to point out that Tom actually answered the question about the production of the video, and the matter was dropped. At most, what you've got is a short conversation in which someone asked "Hey, it looks like he's doing A; Is he doing that?", he answered "No, I didn't do A" and everyone changed the subject.
In any case, I have edited the offending posts and removed that which offended you.
Now I must point out three things:
1) I have not made so much as one single solitary slanderous or libelous statement about your husband or his friend Tom, whether here or at the Times Union blogs. I have certainly disagreed with them, but that is protected speech under the first amendment. The fact that they have deliberately made themselves into public figures reinforces my RIGHT to do so.
2) I am not posting on the Times Union blogs any longer. Not that my posts were slanderous anyway, they have never been (I'm quite polite and careful about what I say); I've left because I don't like the class of people who post there. Obviously, Darth and I are two entirely separate people, despite your husband's ridiculous theories. We don't even work in the same agency, the very idea that we're the same person is idiotic.
3) Suing me would be a complete waste of time, since I've done nothing that rises to the standard of slander. You would need to prove to the court that I was deliberately LYING about your husband (which you won't be able to prove -- being incorrect but sincere is not the same as lying), that there was malice involved (there wasn't, merely curiosity), and that there were real, provable damages (which there weren't, since the question was only phrased on an obscure chat room and very few people even saw it before I took it down AT YOUR REQUEST). I know a lot of lawyers too. The difference is that mine live in this state and can practice here.
Why don't you accept my olive branch (the removal of the posts you were annoyed about) and agree with me that this matter is closed. Choosing to pursue your lawsuit in hope of "unmasking me" will gain you nothing but a counter-suit (you should see some of the vicious things your husband and Tom have said about ME! Those, by the way, DO rise to the level of slander).
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Rea on Jun 18, 2012 18:58:40 GMT -5
Dear Mr. Techie, If you read my posting, my only objective was to stop the posting of a "photoshop contest" as you had suggested. I'm a true believer of the old sticks & stones theory. As I stated, continue to shout each other down. No harm, no foul. But your suggestion of a photoshop contest went, in my opinion, a little too far. I never mentioned slander. Slander & libel are as different as you & Mr. State worker. As you are obviously an adult, capable of carrying on an adult conversation, you'll notice that I've used no expletives and called no one any names. As you've said, we're all entitled to our own differing opinions. I have mine, you have yours and if the two do not coincide, so be it. I was simply trying to right what I thought was a very big wrong. Period. I understand that by filing a suit that then opens me up to be counter sued. However, you already have my name, etc. I appreciate you taking down your suggestion & I appreciate your ability to discuss things rationally and with a level head. I sincerely apologize if my statement came off as a threat, however, I also felt threatened by the use of anyone's photos being used as a joke. As it is one has already been posted of Tom with ethnic slurs. However, that's his issue to deal with, not mine. While I'm sure we'll never be friends, we have at least agreed to disagree and have proven that civil discussions can take place and the need for everything else is simply a waste of time & energy. Again, thank you for being civil and understanding.
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 18, 2012 19:24:46 GMT -5
Ms. Rea:
Thank you as well for being cordial and level-headed. Oddly enough, I thought it was the other thing you were angry about, i.e. questioning where and when the videos were being shot. I was not aware you had a problem with the photoshop contest, which was actually being approached in a whimsical, non-hostile way. As a matter of fact, one of the rules of the contest was "don't be mean; unkind posts will be removed".
The use of photos of a public figure in parody is protected speech, and done well is not offensive in the slightest. However, since I am a gentleman, I will end the contest and ask the admins to take down the thread in which the entries were posted. Please consider this another olive branch, an offer of peace.
You can thank me for deleting what would have been a truly hilarious and epic photoshop contest by informing your husband and Tom that we are all separate people here, and their comments about us all being a single schizophrenic, or alternately a "human centipede" sewn butt to mouth were completely offensive, much more so than someone making fun of tom with Mario Brothers. The tone of their argument with Darth et al disturbed me a bit. If they had not been so rude and unpleasant, I would likely not have decided to parody them. A certain hostile paper bag video comes to mind... Perhaps you should take that one down.
P.S.
I've decided that from now on, I'm going to react to all unpleasantness with parody and satire. I'm not the type of person to get all riled up and hire a lawyer, or try to get someone in trouble. I'm more the humorous type, and I've got some skill in this area.
So, you know, if Pete or Tom put up an attack video I'll come back with a hysterically funny advertisement parodying their political and union efforts. Maybe it'll be on a billboard, maybe a newspaper ad. Whatever's the funniest. If they talk trash about us on their websites, I'll come back with a spoof website somehow making fun of their websites.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth! The code of Hammurabi, Internet style! And as funny as I can make it.
If Pete and Tom leave things alone, and they don't do attack videos, and they don't try to find out who we are, no worries. If they don't pick on us, I won't pick on them.
Now, how can it get any fairer than that? Let's keep to the issues and argue without all the ad hominem.
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 19, 2012 19:37:28 GMT -5
By the way, Ms. Rea, some corrections: 1) Peter and Tom ARE "public figures" according to your own post: (3) Public Figures on Specific Issues: "those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." You yourself have shown that your husband and Tom are in fact limited purpose public figures. Therefore, we may discuss or make fun of them as much as we want as long as we concentrate on their union-related activities. These, incidentally, would include the hunt for Darth's and my identity, since they've made such a big deal about it in numerous public forums (like the Times Union blogs). QED. 2) A photoshop gag, being visual parody and satire, is protected by the first amendment of the constitution. Also, since it involves purely visual images designed to amuse, it CANNOT be slander or libel because it makes no claims that can be shown to be false or malicious. It is obviously a joke, clearly not meant to infer anything, etc. The best you could hope to sue for is "intentional infliction of emotional distress" which is "very difficult" to prove. As long as an image isn't vicious or cruel, and there are no false claims made, it's probably safe from your lawyers. Here's a useful article for you: www.quizlaw.com/personal_injury_law/what_is_intentional_inflicti.php . Note that they say it is "very difficult to prove". 3) Here's a useful site for you: www.firstamendmentcenter.org/parody-satire . I'm sure you'll find it educational. Make sure you read about the Jerry Falwell/Mother/Outhouse satire case. Note that he lost, despite the parody being quite vicious in nature.
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 21, 2012 19:52:28 GMT -5
It would appear that Ms. Rea, Pete, and Tom have accepted the truce I've offered. They haven't made any more videos about Darth and me, I haven't heard anything about any stalking, and they haven't gotten nasty with us in this or the other forums. The paper bag video is still online, but I can live with that (it makes Tom look worse than it does Darth, anyway).
As far as I'm concerned, we have a truce. Peace, y'all.
See my reply to Darth.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 22, 2012 14:48:53 GMT -5
Not really. They just don't like this sandbox because they think we "censor" them. Tom was running his trap on CapCon referring to me as "evil". My response was priceless:
He'll never learn.
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 22, 2012 15:08:39 GMT -5
Hmm... That's unfortunate. He can't take a hint, I guess.
But the Reas do seem to be being polite... I can't hold Tom's big mouth against them, it's not their fault he's blabbing about you. I wonder if they've accepted the truce? This would be so much easier if they would just SAY SO.
Ah, well, like I said, I won't pick on 'em unless they pick on me first.
|
|
|
Post by feduptro on Jun 22, 2012 21:22:32 GMT -5
If someone's scratching at you, it just means you've gotten under their skin. The best reaction is indifference -knowing that you've gotten their goat -or ewok or whatever is comparable in techie's genre of choice.
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 22, 2012 21:54:27 GMT -5
Oh, Feduptro, you're so wrong!!! The best reaction is biting SATIRE!!!
I haven't figured out how best to approach the mocking of Tom. I think it will involve his giant chin, but aside from that, I haven't been inspired yet. My muse will call, I'm sure... Don't worry.
|
|
|
Post by feduptro on Jun 22, 2012 22:05:07 GMT -5
A giant chin and a smallish guy? Sort of like a cross between Jay Leno and Mr. Burns from the Simpsons?
Well, I'm not sure I agree, but how about a few bad jokes to get you started lol:
wanna hear a joke about your chin??? never mind, its too long ==================== That's not a chin it's a Hong Kong phone directory opened at the pages with all the Chins on...
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 25, 2012 20:03:17 GMT -5
Woah, nelly! They took down the paper bag video!
Very well! I shall not mock Tom! Fair trade!
Far be it from me to disregard an olive branch...
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 25, 2012 20:34:20 GMT -5
I suspect someone from the KMF slate told them to stop embarrassing them. If it was me, that's EXACTLY what I would have done - along with publicly disavowing myself from being involved with them so people didn't mistake their surrogacy for what I myself wanted to say.
|
|