The part of your post I think is factually in error is this:
You are incorrect. Zoe is trying to annoy PRR, making the same accusation she’s been making for years, even during the time that PRR was not posting on the board, and when we thought he might never return. Several credible people, including tomndebb, who has no reason to lie, have told her she is wrong, but she persists. How can you say that PRR is trying to annoy her enough to get her to melt down or get banned, when it is she who accused him of socking and asked for mods to check him out, and she who has made false and obnoxious accusations about his job repeatedly? She could easily choose to ignore him and leave him alone, but she doesn’t. Instead, she looks for opportunities to repeat her accusations, even going to far as to hijack unrelated threads like this one.
You may not like PRR and like Zoe, but she is the one who is at fault here. He is not harassing her, hoping for a banning. It is very clearly the other way around. I hope you can see that.
Way to miss my point. You get accused of trolling fairly often (and wrongly I believe) for your political views and **PRR **gets accused of trolling fairly often for atheist views (and wrongly again I believe). Do I need to make it simpler? I know you are a smart guy.
As to **Zoe ** no one in anyway encouraged her to come into this thread and start her irrational behavior again that even **tomndebb **advised was wrong and unwise to continue. She then played the “Get off my lawn you pesky kids card” to ensure we thought she was somewhat unbalanced mentally. You cannot fairly accuse **PRR **of trolling **Zoe **when she gives every appearance of stalking him instead.
It should be noted that Zoe is clearly NOT stalking prr. My comment was that her actions appeared to be something between a compulsion and stalking–thus not falling into either category. The actual number of posts Zoe has submitted on the topic of prr’s actual employment is fewer than ten spread over more than two years.
I find it odd that she brings up the issue based on only her own formidable skills correcting English, but I see no reason to move from puzzlement as to why she mentions it, at all, to a position that she is “stalking” a poster when she has clearly NOT followed him about the SDMB repeatedly making the same accusation.
Based on her explanation regarding the requests to “release” information, I will note that I have never seen any post or e-mail from her seeking any personal information about another poster.
I think there are 2 definitions of stalking going on here. Yours is that she is following him around on the Dope, making claims about his career. Fenris is pointing out that she has admitted that she is doing research to find out information about him in real life. That could constitute stalking, depending on exactly what she’s doing. If I were PRR, I’d find it pretty creepy, to think a fellow board member was digging around for my personal information because of a board grudge.
Also, I think bringing up the same baseless accusation around 10 times in 2 years, despite the testimony of various and disparate people about the truth, is indicative of an irrational fixation and is not cool at all.
I disagreeTom-she’s “stalking” him in real life, not on the SDMB. She’s checking into universities to see which ones match his description. Call it “pre-stalking” if you want. That’s the behavior of a deeply disturbed person.
And while that kind of behavior is funny in Lois Lane circa 1955, it’s creepy as hell in real life. And while there’s not much the SDMB can do about it if she didn’t shoot her mouth off (how would you know?) her public admission that she’s trying to find out his real identity is/should-be ban-worthy (or at least garner a warning). I believe others have been warned for publishing that they’re trying to find someone’s personal info.
FTR, the ten (or so) posts are not ten separate occasions, but approximately two or three occasions involving multiple posts as others argued with her. (And I recall no time that she brought up prr’s employment during his hiatus.)
A couple of Google searches based on interpretations of stuff he has posted does not rise to a level that I consider stalking. We may disagree on that point, but I am not sufficiently interested to pursue it.
Just as I suggested that Zoe drop the inquiry into prr’s employment, I suspect that everyone else dropping the subject of her actions–particularly as it relates to her state of mind–would be the wiser course, here.
Sorry, tom, but you’re wrong about this. Zoe posted her “opinion” about PRR’s employment in the two Pit threads about the $500 bet between PRR and Liberal, after PRR had agreed to stop posting on the SDMB for two years.
Thanks Dopers, and (eventually) Pitters! is the thread where the bet happened, and Zoe was still making her accusations after PRR had accepted the money and could not respond to her.
She continued her insinuations in this spin-off thread about the bet:
These may be the only times she brought it up during his hiatus, I’m not sure and you won’t blame me for being indisposed to checking.
I think it’s the trying to figure out which university he works for that Fenris meant. But if you think it’s not worth of action, that’s your call. On your request, I will drop it now.
in case someone with a sarcasm impairment thinks I’m serious