So why is it that administrators will allow each other free reign to abuse unpriveleged users (especially homeless ones), but they go into a mod-bombing rage when the unpriveleged user dares to shoot back?

Usually it seems like Slashdot has a system in place to prevent the same person from posting too many AC posts in a row. I know that, in years past, even on accounts with excellent karma, anything after the second AC post was usually met with time limits in excess of sixty minutes and anything after a third AC post was, well, forget it. Just use an account.

But, AC or not, it's clear that the same person keeps coming back to post repeatedly. Is there a backdoor in the slashcode or is this just a case of administrative abuse of privelege?

So I have to wonder. What is it in some people's make up which causes them to have a need, a real psychological dependence, on stalking another human being? It's truly a predator/prey type relationship.

For example, if I'm driving down the road and someone cuts me off then, well, they may get a honk of the horn or a wave. If I'm at work and someone borrows one of my tools and forgets to give it back then they may get a word. What is it, though, that would cause someone to follow another person around and repeatedly cut them off in traffic? What is it that would cause someone to repeatedly borrow tools, forget to give them back, and then blame someone else for borrowing?

Obviously, if the predator never actually shows up for a personal confrontation, they have enormous amounts of free time on their hands. So why not do something productive? How is harassment productive?

Unless harassment is productive. Maybe they're getting paid to harass and stalk. While the legality of such an occupation is rightfully questionable we'll have to face the reality that the legal system doesn't become involved unless the target is a member of a social network of relatively important people. I guess I can't blame someone for doing their job but, if I'm the target of paid harassment, I'd like to receive a cut of the pay.

So why is it that administrators will allow each other free reign to abuse unpriveleged users (especially homeless ones), but they go into a mod-bombing rage when the unpriveleged user dares to shoot back?

Usually it seems like Slashdot has a system in place to prevent the same person from posting too many AC posts in a row. I know that, in years past, even on accounts with excellent karma, anything after the second AC post was usually met with time limits in excess of sixty minutes and anything after a third AC post was, well, forget it. Just use an account.

But, AC or not, it's clear that the same person keeps coming back to post repeatedly. Is there a backdoor in the slashcode or is this just a case of administrative abuse of privelege?

So I have to wonder. What is it in some people's make up which causes them to have a need, a real psychological dependence, on stalking another human being? It's truly a predator/prey type relationship.

For example, if I'm driving down the road and someone cuts me off then, well, they may get a honk of the horn or a wave. If I'm at work and someone borrows one of my tools and forgets to give it back then they may get a word. What is it, though, that would cause someone to follow another person around and repeatedly cut them off in traffic? What is it that would cause someone to repeatedly borrow tools, forget to give them back, and then blame someone else for borrowing?

Obviously, if the predator never actually shows up for a personal confrontation, they have enormous amounts of free time on their hands. So why not do something productive? How is harassment productive?

Unless harassment is productive. Maybe they're getting paid to harass and stalk. While the legality of such an occupation is rightfully questionable we'll have to face the reality that the legal system doesn't become involved unless the target is a member of a social network of relatively important people. I guess I can't blame someone for doing their job but, if I'm the target of paid harassment, I'd like to receive a cut of the pay.

So why is it that administrators will allow each other free reign to abuse unpriveleged users (especially homeless ones), but they go into a mod-bombing rage when the unpriveleged user dares to shoot back?

Usually it seems like Slashdot has a system in place to prevent the same person from posting too many AC posts in a row. I know that, in years past, even on accounts with excellent karma, anything after the second AC post was usually met with time limits in excess of sixty minutes and anything after a third AC post was, well, forget it. Just use an account.

But, AC or not, it's clear that the same person keeps coming back to post repeatedly. Is there a backdoor in the slashcode or is this just a case of administrative abuse of privelege?

So I have to wonder. What is it in some people's make up which causes them to have a need, a real psychological dependence, on stalking another human being? It's truly a predator/prey type relationship.

For example, if I'm driving down the road and someone cuts me off then, well, they may get a honk of the horn or a wave. If I'm at work and someone borrows one of my tools and forgets to give it back then they may get a word. What is it, though, that would cause someone to follow another person around and repeatedly cut them off in traffic? What is it that would cause someone to repeatedly borrow tools, forget to give them back, and then blame someone else for borrowing?

Obviously, if the predator never actually shows up for a personal confrontation, they have enormous amounts of free time on their hands. So why not do something productive? How is harassment productive?

Unless harassment is productive. Maybe they're getting paid to harass and stalk. While the legality of such an occupation is rightfully questionable we'll have to face the reality that the legal system doesn't become involved unless the target is a member of a social network of relatively important people. I guess I can't blame someone for doing their job but, if I'm the target of paid harassment, I'd like to receive a cut of the pay.

So why is it that administrators will allow each other free reign to abuse unpriveleged users (especially homeless ones), but they go into a mod-bombing rage when the unpriveleged user dares to shoot back?

Usually it seems like Slashdot has a system in place to prevent the same person from posting too many AC posts in a row. I know that, in years past, even on accounts with excellent karma, anything after the second AC post was usually met with time limits in excess of sixty minutes and anything after a third AC post was, well, forget it. Just use an account.

But, AC or not, it's clear that the same person keeps coming back to post repeatedly. Is there a backdoor in the slashcode or is this just a case of administrative abuse of privelege?

So I have to wonder. What is it in some people's make up which causes them to have a need, a real psychological dependence, on stalking another human being? It's truly a predator/prey type relationship.

For example, if I'm driving down the road and someone cuts me off then, well, they may get a honk of the horn or a wave. If I'm at work and someone borrows one of my tools and forgets to give it back then they may get a word. What is it, though, that would cause someone to follow another person around and repeatedly cut them off in traffic? What is it that would cause someone to repeatedly borrow tools, forget to give them back, and then blame someone else for borrowing?

Obviously, if the predator never actually shows up for a personal confrontation, they have enormous amounts of free time on their hands. So why not do something productive? How is harassment productive?

Unless harassment is productive. Maybe they're getting paid to harass and stalk. While the legality of such an occupation is rightfully questionable we'll have to face the reality that the legal system doesn't become involved unless the target is a member of a social network of relatively important people. I guess I can't blame someone for doing their job but, if I'm the target of paid harassment, I'd like to receive a cut of the pay.

So why is it that administrators will allow each other free reign to abuse unpriveleged users (especially homeless ones), but they go into a mod-bombing rage when the unpriveleged user dares to shoot back?

Usually it seems like Slashdot has a system in place to prevent the same person from posting too many AC posts in a row. I know that, in years past, even on accounts with excellent karma, anything after the second AC post was usually met with time limits in excess of sixty minutes and anything after a third AC post was, well, forget it. Just use an account.

But, AC or not, it's clear that the same person keeps coming back to post repeatedly. Is there a backdoor in the slashcode or is this just a case of administrative abuse of privelege?

So why is it that administrators will allow each other free reign to abuse unpriveleged users (especially homeless ones), but they go into a mod-bombing rage when the unpriveleged user dares to shoot back?

Usually it seems like Slashdot has a system in place to prevent the same person from posting too many AC posts in a row. I know that, in years past, even on accounts with excellent karma, anything after the second AC post was usually met with time limits in excess of sixty minutes and anything after a third AC post was, well, forget it. Just use an account.

But, AC or not, it's clear that the same person keeps coming back to post repeatedly. Is there a backdoor in the slashcode or is this just a case of administrative abuse of privelege?

Usually it seems like Slashdot has a system in place to prevent the same person from posting too many AC posts in a row. I know that, in years past, even on accounts with excellent karma, anything after the second AC post was usually met with time limits in excess of sixty minutes and anything after a third AC post was, well, forget it. Just use an account.

But, AC or not, it's clear that the same person keeps coming back to post repeatedly. Is there a backdoor in the slashcode or is this just a case of administrative abuse of privelege?

So I have to wonder. What is it in some people's make up which causes them to have a need, a real psychological dependence, on stalking another human being? It's truly a predator/prey type relationship.

For example, if I'm driving down the road and someone cuts me off then, well, they may get a honk of the horn or a wave. If I'm at work and someone borrows one of my tools and forgets to give it back then they may get a word. What is it, though, that would cause someone to follow another person around and repeatedly cut them off in traffic? What is it that would cause someone to repeatedly borrow tools, forget to give them back, and then blame someone else for borrowing?

Obviously, if the predator never actually shows up for a personal confrontation, they have enormous amounts of free time on their hands. So why not do something productive? How is harassment productive?

Unless harassment is productive. Maybe they're getting paid to harass and stalk. While the legality of such an occupation is rightfully questionable we'll have to face the reality that the legal system doesn't become involved unless the target is a member of a social network of relatively important people. I guess I can't blame someone for doing their job but, if I'm the target of paid harassment, I'd like to receive a cut of the pay.

Some people have really thin skin and are so easily incensed that they will never give up, will never stop, must repeatedly keep tracking down their target--but always make sure that they never do so in a way which will bring any of their actions back on them.

Gosh. If the world didn't have cowards to track me down then it might have to face reality that I'm right.

Wow. In this post I begin with a somewhat controversial statement and the readers are so filled with spite and rage that it gets modded through the floor.

I'm sorry, folks, did they not read anything after the first line? One little misstep and suddenly nothing else I say could possibly have any merit? What's the definition of a zero tolerance policy?

When the world gets its head back on straight I'll be here waiting patiently. Until then I can only sigh in disgust.

Usually, after morning mass, I hear the very pleasant sound of ladies singing an adoration to Jesus in Spanish. The Church is bilingual. This morning, after mass, I did not hear the usual singing. I hope that the practice isn't fading away. I think it's an important part of a Church to retain contributions from the history of both cultures which make up the congregation. Even though I don't speak any Spanish it may do some good if I were to begin attending the Spanish mass once in a while.

Like Donkey Kong.