On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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? > Got it. As long as I annoy you and continue my unwanted behavior publicly, that's OK and not harassment. Definitely crystal clear. -- Chase Peeler chasepee...@gmail.com
