On Jan 8, 2016 3:34 AM, "Chase Peeler" <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2016 3:14 AM, "Chase Peeler" <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > And none of those caveats exist in the definition you provided. >> >> Hmmm. Which one did you read? >> >> "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to ..." >> >> If I asked him to stop and he continues, aggressively, then it matches the "unwanted", "annoying" and "to force". >> >> > That is a prime example of one of the main concerns we all have - the ability for anyone to reshape definitions as they please. Even if you assume they will do so in a way they believe is in everyone's best interest, we all know that won't always happen >> > >> > -- >> > Chase Peeler >> > chasepee...@gmail.com > > > Where is the requirement in the definition that you have to ask him to stop? I don't see the word "aggressive" in there either. As far as the "to force" part, that's part of the phrase preceded by "The purposes may vary, including..." which means that it is not a requirement to meet the definition. > > Again, you might call this nitpicking, but I'm trying to show how a simple definition for a term that we all think we know the meaning of can be twisted and reinterpreted. All it takes is one person in a position of power to abuse that.
Let make it crystal clear: "Stop message me privately, no matter the channel" The person continues. It starts here. Got it?
