Cheri wrote:

>>> It's ignorant to call someone a stalker when he or she clearly does not
>>> meet the definition. Suppose clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz
>>> physically drove to Jill's house (which a 5-second search says is on BB
>>> Sams Drive, Saint Helena Island, SC) and lay in wait outside watching
>>> her -- EVEN THEN he would not meet the definition of "stalker" unless
>>> Jill knew about it and was terrified for her life. That second part is
>>> essential to the definition of stalking.
>>>
>>> Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of words before throwing them
>>> around.
>>>
>>
>> Internet stalkers have to make a physical appearance to be considered
>> a stalker? Interesting. I didn't know that part.
>
> I don't think it's accurate.
>
> http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...ment-laws.aspx

Nobody said that physical appearance was necessary. sf misread what I wrote
above. The link you cited supports what I wrote: A credible threat must be
present before the definition of stalking can be satisfied. Simply
investigating someone (either online or in real life) is not stalking.

Bob