You might also want to read the Wikipedia page on Biographies of living persons. I get the impression that Wikipedia is very sensitive to anything that might cause it to be sued.
It just occurred to me that Ed Zotti is an author, editor and journalist. His locked thread can be linked to as authoritative and it can be quoted or characterized directly.
I think the sympathy goes to the guy who left an awards ceremony to be with his dying mom, not the guy who said that he was using his dying mom to drum up sympathy for an award that’s usually used to give people a good time to go take a bathroom break.
Note that the internet Wayback Machine has Equipoise’s thread archived (and might have the other) and Wikipedia has the basic info there as well.
I’d also note that if MM hadn’t threatened Equipoise, this wouldn’t have come up again or been an issue, so it’s sad to see that bullying people on the internet works.
Also, on behalf of Dan Quayle, I’d like all posts about the “potatoe” thing removed from the SDMB, since there’s no doubt that Quayle has learned the correct spelling and “in any case [we] have no desire to prolong his embarrassment indefinitely”
Fair enough. I retract my statement.
Exapno Mapcase said what I was going to say, only more politely.
I feel this sets a bad precedent. Some one can bully a poster, threaten to sue the SDMB, and so get their way.
To Those Who Say The Thread Was Rightly Vanished
Redacted said what he said on video. At that point, he accepted the consequences of his speech and risked the possibility it would follow him forever. He made his bed, and he shouldn’t whine when he has to lie in it. People saying negative things based on his speech is one of the myriad consequences he accepted. We weren’t being cruel or vindictive when the thread was the top Google result. Redacted did that to himself.
The one thing I would like to know, just for the sake of clarity is this: Are we allowed to mention the name of redacted at all from now on, even if it is not about what happened 7 years ago? He is currently a working celebrity, and also has done things recently which are certainly discussion worthy.
If the answer to the question is no, then we should just stop kidding ourselves that the meat of the matter is a 7 year old thread.
Only if your post is entirely positive and points out what an awesome person he is. If you post anything which might be construed as a negative opinion you might receive a message from him threatening legal action against you.
Fair enough. I said some funny but hurtful things about Dan’s intellect. I retract all those statements. [redacted] remains a dick however.
As I recall, people disagreed with me. And Google knows you and your interests and habits. It would not have been on the front page for someone who has never looked for or visited the Straight Dope. That’s what makes people think they spent their money well when they gave it to a guy whose search engine optimization business is advertised on a grocery store bulletin board. The SDMB is not at the center of the Googleverse.
I’m going to politely disagree with this.
We’ve all heard how our current laws haven’t caught up with modern technology.
Well, IMO, another thing that hasn’t caught up with modern technology is our culture. Specifically, the way in which we judge people. Our thinking needs to evolve. If the way in which you judge a person is the same way you were judging a person pre internet days; then that’s just wrong.
If this incident would have happened in the 80’s, it would have been forgotten about. Sure it would have still been caught on tape, but seven years after the fact, the whole incident would have been little more than a faded memory.
Or maybe Redacted should perhaps remember the old addage: “Don’t talk the talk if you can’t walk the walk.”
And it also doesn’t sound like he’s changed, if he’s blaming people for criticising his behavior, rather than than the behavior that prompted the criticism. That’s also something he should consider.
It is strange how high this particular article showed up in the Google search results for his name.
One can only assume that either some people working on the Google search algorithm are fans of the Straight Dope or that a LOT of people dislike [Redacted] and linked to the article. The other articles are to his workplace, trade magazine articles, etc. and should have ranked much higher.
I’ve tested the search using different browsers and platforms, in maximum privacy mode, and the results from a Google search were quite consistent. The person in question may really have a long history of obnoxious behavior. Equipoise vented in 2007, came back in 2012 when someone woke the zombie and posted a few responses, then nothing until 2014 when [Redacted] and [Mrs. Redacted] started bigfooting around. It is not as if Equipoise did anything to make the Pitting particularly popular.
If Micheal Minter is still threatening posters with legal action within the past year, Minter is the one keeping it alive. He’s still an asshole.
And since Equipoise probably won’t be saying it on SDMB, I’ll mentioni that by using some of the search engine links posted earlier in this threat, I learned she’s very unhappy about the administration’s actions.
And that’s all I say about that.
tiptoes in
Since I’m forbidden to speak my mind and give opinions on all that’s been said and done, let me just +1 all three paragraphs here.
tiptoes out
Minkler. Guy’s name is Michael Minkler, not Minter.
Kinda like Budd Dwyer in 1987?
STRONG MODERATOR WARNING:
Ed had said, “Users are asked to refrain from posting additional comments about this matter.’”
We don’t object to a metadiscussion of the wisdom of removing old threads, but we don’t want to see a rehashing of the original incident. PLEASE DO NOT POST DETAILS OR NAMES.
Yeaah… Because we want to give people a fresh start, and we’re not afraid of any lawsuits. That’s it.
Thank you for saying “please.”
I think it’s surprisingly nice and understanding to even allow a meta-discussion, and I’m really disappointed that others are trying to spoil it by posting names, facts, statements of reality, history, and statements that would fight ignorance.