Posting personal or private information that wasn’t intentionally divulged to the board by the member is considered doxxingcrimsongulf » 16 Jun 2020, 5:42 pm » wrote: ↑ It seems that he was provided the info freely and he did nothing to obtain it "illegally".
So, I guess I need a clarification. If a person is exposed due to readily available online info accessible by anyone...is that an issue?
I know the case in this topic is different.
Isabel and I rarely agree politically but I have never seen her lie. Misinformed perhaps but not dishonest.
posts
Then why was it allowed before I wonder?GeorgeWashington » 17 Jun 2020, 8:05 am » wrote: ↑ Posting personal or private information that wasn’t intentionally divulged to the board by the member is considered doxxing
I don't reconcile these things. It was an oversight. I am far from perfect.Ghostofkf » 17 Jun 2020, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑ Then why was it allowed before I wonder?
You not only enabled by making a thread for it,but also responded to screen shots of it.
Now you call foul?
How do you reconcile these things?
ROTFL.Ghostofkf » 17 Jun 2020, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑ Then why was it allowed before I wonder?
You not only enabled by making a thread for it,but also responded to screen shots of it.
Now you call foul?
How do you reconcile these things?
Isabel » 17 Jun 2020, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑ ROTFL.
The petty little bitch who suspends and bans people nonstop, on a whim or to show off or every time his feelings get bruised, whines about the unfairness of his being banned for intentional, malicious, vindictive doxxing.
Too funny.
It was a pm between 2 people... No dozing.
DennisTheMenace » 17 Jun 2020, 7:08 am » wrote: ↑ You think like a redneck. Who's in charge here?
There has to be someone driving the boat?
The very essence of the matter, laid out by the missed target who is STILL **** LAUGHING.Isabel » 17 Jun 2020, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑ ROTFL.
The petty little bitch who suspends and bans people nonstop, on a whim or to show off or every time his feelings get bruised, whines about the unfairness of his being banned for intentional, malicious, vindictive doxxing.
Too funny.
Are you looking for daddy dick?
Cannonpointer » 17 Jun 2020, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑ Are you looking for daddy dick?
Go wash your **** hands, sploogey.
Huey » 17 Jun 2020, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑ Does he need the speech about making the mods mad OR making them work?
duck615 » 16 Jun 2020, 8:19 am » wrote: ↑ screw you... the more I hear about Isabel... the more I believe it!!!
Isabel has no character...Cannonpointer » 17 Jun 2020, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑ That is how character assassination works. Google it.
GeorgeWashington » 17 Jun 2020, 8:05 am » wrote: ↑ Posting personal or private information that wasn’t intentionally divulged to the board by the member is considered doxxing
It's NOT readily available to everyone.
Cannonpointer » 17 Jun 2020, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑ The very essence of the matter, laid out by the missed target who is STILL **** LAUGHING.
She out-wrestled a tar baby in the matter of that **** movie-of-the-week she supposedly "stalked" - a feat already worthy of one who comports with blue oxen, - and now she shakes her *** at her vanquished foe from high ground while putting his attempts to e-ssassinate her character on her **** e-ice cream.
When the lynch mob is out of ammo and you never fired a shot, that's called a boss.
AnnoyedLiberall » 17 Jun 2020, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑ It's NOT readily available to everyone.
That's the point.
Kfools gave Str8 access to her private messages on the other site.