News:

TESTEMONAIL:  Right and Discordianism allows room for personal interpretation. You have your theories and I have mine. Unlike Christianity, Discordia allows room for ideas and opinions, and mine is well-informed and based on ancient philosophy and theology, so, my neo-Discordian friends, open your minds to my interpretation and I will open my mind to yours. That's fair enough, right? Just claiming to be discordian should mean that your mind is open and willing to learn and share ideas. You guys are fucking bashing me and your laughing at my theologies and my friends know what's up and are laughing at you and honestly this is my last shot at putting a label on my belief structure and your making me lose all hope of ever finding a ideological group I can relate to because you don't even know what the fuck I'm talking about and everything I have said is based on the founding principals of real Discordianism. Expand your mind.

Main Menu

Woman Arrested for Facebook Poke

Started by Shibboleet The Annihilator, October 12, 2009, 06:31:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Iason Ouabache

#1
October 12, 2009, 06:37:39 PM
 :pokewithstick:
You cannot fathom the immensity of the fuck i do not give.
    \
┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#2
October 12, 2009, 06:39:48 PM
Well, she DID have a protection order against her, and the poke was clearly a violation of that. It's sort of the digital equivalent of leaving your calling-card in someone's door, ie. creepy as fuck if you've been court-ordered to leave them alone.

You can't poke people who aren't your "friends", right? I'm surprised the other woman hadn't un-friended her. Maybe she didn't know how.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

Triple Zero

#3
October 12, 2009, 06:44:39 PM
seems quite clear to me:

The protective order against Jackson, filed on June 10, prohibited her from "telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly,"

Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#4
October 12, 2009, 06:46:43 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 12, 2009, 06:44:39 PM
seems quite clear to me:

The protective order against Jackson, filed on June 10, prohibited her from "telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly,"



But Facebook must be exempt from that, because it's on the Internet, and the Internet isn't contact, right? Besides, everything that happens on the Internet must necessarily be trivial or unbelievable!
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

Sir Squid Diddimus

#5
October 12, 2009, 06:49:12 PM
I think you can poke people who aren't on your friends list if they don't have all their privacy settings set up or some shit.

But for real, poking someone who has a freaking injunction against you is just creepy.
No contact means no contact.
By phone, letter, e-mail, 3rd party, whatever.

Shibboleet The Annihilator

#6
October 13, 2009, 01:35:59 AM
Yeah, but if I included that in the title it would have been less interesting and not funny.

Payne

#7
October 13, 2009, 01:19:53 PM
Should have maybe gone more puerile - "Woman Arrested For Poking"

or Creepy-Puerile - "Woman Arrested For Malicious Poking"

...

I would have laughed, but I laugh at Frankie Boyle jokes all the time.

Sir Squid Diddimus

#8
October 13, 2009, 04:45:24 PM
Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on October 13, 2009, 01:35:59 AM
Yeah, but if I included that in the title it would have been less interesting and not funny.

true
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions