sf wrote:

>> Simply using the Internet to find out someone's personal information is
>> not stalking because there has been no threat, credible or otherwise.
>
> We part ways yet again. I think it's not only weird, it's obsessive and
> that's what stalkers, internet or otherwise, a obsessive.

You realize that your "logic" there is flawed, don't you? It's like saying,
"Dogs have fur. Cats have fur. Therefore, dogs are cats." Sure, stalkers are
obsessive, but not all obsessive people are stalkers.

You're perfectly free to disagree with me, but your disagreement doesn't
change the fact that your personal definition of "stalker" is not correct.


> When some stranger wants to know so badly about where you live, your real
> name etc etc etc that they actually research it in some form... you think
> there's a screw loose upstairs.

You seem to think it's some kind of major effort to find someone's personal
information. I'm here to tell you that it isn't. As I mentioned recently, I
found Jill's address in about five seconds. If it took any significant
amount of time or money to discover the information in question, then it
becomes a bit unsettling to consider someone willing to make those
sacrifices, and you wonder about their motives. But when the information is
just as readily available as Wikipedia, then it says nothing of the sort.

Moreover, you've apparently assumed that stalkers are STRANGERS to the
people they're stalking. Why would you think that? And doesn't that
completely invalidate your characterization of clueless AOL newbie Sheldon
"Pussy" Katz as a stalker, since by Jill's own admission they had been
conducting some personal communications before Pussy called Jill on the
phone?

Bob