I want my thread removed after your write up

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doxing is when you post on an anonymous forum and the forum owner gets his rocks off taking your anonymous posts and using them in his Perez Hilton write-ups to smear you as a liar, troll, and/or racist.

Oh! That would explain some confusion. That is not what doxing is. Hope that helps

Doxing is two-fold. One, you have a webmaster casually abusing his trust and authority, exploiting unknowing victims (anonymous posters on an anonymous forum) to attach their anonymous threads to their other anonymous posts, then revealing this publicly on his front page snarky blogs. Two, you have an OP worried about the fact they revealed too much personal information in a thread, which could dox them. The latter concern becomes more elevated because the webmaster is now showing himself to be a casual doxer, if it gets him an extra few clicks and laughs from his sycophantic toadies. OP asks for their thread to be removed, per well-established precedent, and the totally-not-at-all-mean-spirited webmaster refuses because he's getting his rocks off ridiculing, mocking, and cyberbullying the OP.

The webmaster is wondering why the OP is talking about herself in the third person. The webmaster finds this to be trollish and sock puppety.

Because a previous comment suggests this is not isolated, so I'm speaking in general terms. But go ahead and do what you have to do to demonize and ridicule me some more to rationalize your rotten behavior and abuse of power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doxing is when you post on an anonymous forum and the forum owner gets his rocks off taking your anonymous posts and using them in his Perez Hilton write-ups to smear you as a liar, troll, and/or racist.

Oh! That would explain some confusion. That is not what doxing is. Hope that helps

Doxing is two-fold. One, you have a webmaster casually abusing his trust and authority, exploiting unknowing victims (anonymous posters on an anonymous forum) to attach their anonymous threads to their other anonymous posts, then revealing this publicly on his front page snarky blogs. Two, you have an OP worried about the fact they revealed too much personal information in a thread, which could dox them. The latter concern becomes more elevated because the webmaster is now showing himself to be a casual doxer, if it gets him an extra few clicks and laughs from his sycophantic toadies. OP asks for their thread to be removed, per well-established precedent, and the totally-not-at-all-mean-spirited webmaster refuses because he's getting his rocks off ridiculing, mocking, and cyberbullying the OP.

The webmaster is wondering why the OP is talking about herself in the third person. The webmaster finds this to be trollish and sock puppety.

Because a previous comment suggests this is not isolated, so I'm speaking in general terms. But go ahead and do what you have to do to demonize and ridicule me some more to rationalize your rotten behavior and abuse of power.

ma'am be so for real rn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if Jeff decides to delete the OP’s post, wouldn’t the wayback machine already have archived the post?

the internet is forever

[Anonymous]

LOL, this is great! And specifically, the totally unwarranted and meaningless drama I depend on DCUM for.

Re the summaries - I like them but I think they encourage more trolls bc people suck and probably want to be featured there at some point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The way things are going, this might be one of the most active threads that I have to summarize tomorrow.

A real mask-slip moment for you. You're showing your unprofessional true colors, eroding any trust we had in you. Others are reading this and will now think twice before posting anything here.

Jeff is being his regular, awesome self.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Jeff decides to delete the OP’s post, wouldn’t the wayback machine already have archived the post?

the internet is forever

Hope OP is following then. No point is asking for a deletion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The way things are going, this might be one of the most active threads that I have to summarize tomorrow.

A real mask-slip moment for you. You're showing your unprofessional true colors, eroding any trust we had in you. Others are reading this and will now think twice before posting anything here.

Ah yes. Please report Jeff to the Webmaster Board of Ethics for violating his solemn code of professional conduct he took to uphold the sanctity of listserv posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The way things are going, this might be one of the most active threads that I have to summarize tomorrow.

A real mask-slip moment for you. You're showing your unprofessional true colors, eroding any trust we had in you. Others are reading this and will now think twice before posting anything here.

Ah yes. Please report Jeff to the Webmaster Board of Ethics for violating his solemn code of professional conduct he took to uphold the sanctity of listserv posts.

Speaking of listservs, I'm pretty sure OP is my neighbor.

OP, next time I say hello, I'm going to give you the all knowing smirk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The way things are going, this might be one of the most active threads that I have to summarize tomorrow.

A real mask-slip moment for you. You're showing your unprofessional true colors, eroding any trust we had in you. Others are reading this and will now think twice before posting anything here.

Ah yes. Please report Jeff to the Webmaster Board of Ethics for violating his solemn code of professional conduct he took to uphold the sanctity of listserv posts.

Speaking of listservs, I'm pretty sure OP is my neighbor.

OP, next time I say hello, I'm going to give you the all knowing smirk.

Oooooh how do you know?!?!

[Anonymous]

OP I think you are really confused. It's an honor to have a thread so popular that you are privileged enough to be analyzed by Jeff on the blog. Are you new to DCUM?

I can see where you might be embarrassed that you posted so much identifying information in your post but why did it take Jeff's mentioning it as one of the most popular threads to get you to ask for it to be deleted? He did nothing to embarrass you further other than call you out as possibly being a troll, which you are only confirming with your multiple crazy rants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP I think you are really confused. It's an honor to have a thread so popular that you are privileged enough to be analyzed by Jeff on the blog. Are you new to DCUM?

I can see where you might be embarrassed that you posted so much identifying information in your post but why did it take Jeff's mentioning it as one of the most popular threads to get you to ask for it to be deleted? He did nothing to embarrass you further other than call you out as possibly being a troll, which you are only confirming with your multiple crazy rants.

LIBEL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really dislike Jeff's summaries. I've been on this website since 2006 (when it was a listserve!) but the summaries make me not really want to post much of anything here.

I also think the summaries are often inaccurate and/or designed to rake up more controversy. As one small example, in the summary the other day of the MCPS bathroom policy change, he stated "Other posters are not convinced that armed police officers raiding school bathrooms is the solution." But that's not really what anyone suggested, and it's a pretty belittling way to frame the discussion (which is complicated and doesn't really have easy solutions). People are already inclined to over-simplify and disparage viewpoints -- do we really need these summaries to further inflame the situation?

I don't know if Jeff is doing this because he's bored, or to drive more clicks to the website, but I'm not a fan.

Just my two cents.

Yeah, he summarized one thread that I was active on once, on a topic that is very raw for me, and described me in an unkind way. Maybe I am being too sensitive, but it hurt my feelings and made me feel bad about being on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really dislike Jeff's summaries. I've been on this website since 2006 (when it was a listserve!) but the summaries make me not really want to post much of anything here.

I also think the summaries are often inaccurate and/or designed to rake up more controversy. As one small example, in the summary the other day of the MCPS bathroom policy change, he stated "Other posters are not convinced that armed police officers raiding school bathrooms is the solution." But that's not really what anyone suggested, and it's a pretty belittling way to frame the discussion (which is complicated and doesn't really have easy solutions). People are already inclined to over-simplify and disparage viewpoints -- do we really need these summaries to further inflame the situation?

I don't know if Jeff is doing this because he's bored, or to drive more clicks to the website, but I'm not a fan.

Just my two cents.

Yeah, he summarized one thread that I was active on once, on a topic that is very raw for me, and described me in an unkind way. Maybe I am being too sensitive, but it hurt my feelings and made me feel bad about being on DCUM.

Maybe? Yeah, perhaps.

[Anonymous]

I freaking love the write up posts. Best part of the website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really dislike Jeff's summaries. I've been on this website since 2006 (when it was a listserve!) but the summaries make me not really want to post much of anything here.

I also think the summaries are often inaccurate and/or designed to rake up more controversy. As one small example, in the summary the other day of the MCPS bathroom policy change, he stated "Other posters are not convinced that armed police officers raiding school bathrooms is the solution." But that's not really what anyone suggested, and it's a pretty belittling way to frame the discussion (which is complicated and doesn't really have easy solutions). People are already inclined to over-simplify and disparage viewpoints -- do we really need these summaries to further inflame the situation?

I don't know if Jeff is doing this because he's bored, or to drive more clicks to the website, but I'm not a fan.

Just my two cents.

Yeah, he summarized one thread that I was active on once, on a topic that is very raw for me, and described me in an unkind way. Maybe I am being too sensitive, but it hurt my feelings and made me feel bad about being on DCUM.

Frankly, a lot of people on DCUM should feel bad about being on this site. People behave really badly, say a lot of nasty things to each other.