Final statement on the Judith/Google affair

This is my final statement on the matter of Judith and her identity,
and I will not reply to any further posts (provocative or otherwise)
on the matter.

For some time, like many others on this group, I have been both
annoyed and intrigued by the jms phenomenon, and often wondered what
sort of person, and for what sorts of reasons, would so happily
disrupt a group that they apparently had no real interest in.
Additionally, she has always hidden behind her anonymity to enable her
to behave really unpleasantly with no possible repercussions on her,
unlike people who do not hide their identity. She also has had no
compunction about publicising information she has found on the web or
elsewhere about other people e.g. photos of Guy, or names of Wm..'s
relatives and ex-girl-friends, and has also made vaguely threatening
remarks about them. Accordingly when information was given in the
group about Judith I used it to try and find out a bit more about her
partly to satisfy my curiosity, and to let her know that she was no
longer as invulnerable to scrutiny as she once was. I therefore let
her know publicly that it was easy to find information about her,
*assuming the information given in the group was correct*. However I
did not give the information out.

I actually thought the matter would essentially stop there, but in a
private email pretending to be from another poster who I trusted, she
found out the Google search term I had used. She then publicised this
search term herself (note *I did not*). This search was the obvious
conjunction of what little information was given in this group
(Judith's name, and that she used a wheelchair, with a uk added to
filter out American results). From what turns up there it is easy to
find more.

I have no idea why Judith published the search term, making it even
easier for people to find the information I did. Why would she do
this? I can only think of two scenarios:

1) The information discovered really is about her, and basically she
has just been foolish publicising it wider, or she thinks the cat is
out the bag and she wants to somehow try and turn this into a cyber-
stalking incident. It is not - I have not threatened her, or her
family, or written to her work, or anything like that. In fact I
haven't even publicised any information about her - just let her know
she may not be anonymous any longer and that all sorts of information
is available about her (like I expect it is for all of us), or
2) The information is not about her since the original information
used in the search may not have been reliable, in which case she is
trying to create trouble for the Judith Smith found by the search. I
hope this is not the case.

At all times I have been careful to state that various sorts of
information could be found *provided* the original information was
correct.

It is a pity that Judith publicised the search term. As I said it has
made it easy for people who otherwise might not have bothered to find
things out.

I was not a party to any emails mentioned by Trollsworth-le-troll, or
by Wm.. I have simply taken claims made in this group and used them to
try and find out who Judith was. I have at no time actually tried to
find out phone numbers, pictures, etc. These, and other information,
simply turn up in documents found when searching.

I did satisfy my curiosity. It didn't really answer the question of
why she does what she does - in fact it appears she may even be a good
person in real-life (assuming it is the correct Judith), which makes
it even odder that she behaves like she does here. On the other hand
it may not be right person. Anyway I have no further interest in
Judith's identity.

*If* Judith's real identity has been found (and it is a big "if" given
the games Judith likes to play so we can't know for sure what is
correct and what isn't) then I hope she will moderate her attacks on
other people a little since if people know who you are they can
complain.

I shall now say nothing more about this. I am also cross-posting this
to unnc as there is another thread about this there. I hope this will
not lead to a long thread.

Rudi

On 8 Oct, 10:17, RudiL wrote:
This is my final statement on the matter of Judith and her identity,
and I will not reply to any further posts (provocative or otherwise)
on the matter.


Or, you have strayed out of your shallows and now want to put your
hands over your ears and shout 'la-la-la'.

she has always hidden behind her anonymity to enable her
to behave really unpleasantly with no possible repercussions on her,
unlike people who do not hide their identity.

and to let her know that she was no
longer as invulnerable to scrutiny as she once was. I therefore let
her know publicly that it was easy to find information about her,

just let her know
she may not be anonymous any longer and that all sorts of information
is available about her (like I expect it is for all of us)

I hope she will moderate her attacks on
other people a little since if people know who you are they can
complain.


If anyone considers themselves harassed or treated unfairly by Judith
then it is entirely up to them to take any recourse, through the legal
system or other channels available to them.

You've let her know that if she does not restrict what she says then
some form of action is a possibility.

It would depend on what interpretation is put on the extraordinary
lengths you've gone to to find out about her and let her know what
might happen to her, but you might care to look at the Harrassment and
Public Order acts.

Sometimes it is better, and advisable, to allow people free expression
and to let anyone offended take their own action. It is usually
inadvisable to try to police someone to 'moderate their attacks on
other people'.

Toom

RudiL wrote:
This is my final statement on the matter of Judith and her identity,
and I will not reply to any further posts (provocative or otherwise)
on the matter.

yawn Anything more to say or can I go to bed? You'll be responding
to the fat fourteen year old before the week is out or you wouldn't
have bothered with that crap.

RudiL wrote:

she found out the Google search term I had used.

I Googled myself. Apparently I am a Canadian(ice)hockey player, or a
company director, or director of a charity. I think today's lesson is
believe nothing/zero/nada/zilch about a person from searching for them
on Google (other search engines are available).

On 9 Oct, 18:07, soup wrote:

I Googled myself. *Apparently I am a Canadian(ice)hockey player, or a
company director, or director of a charity. *I think today's lesson is
believe nothing/zero/nada/zilch about a person from searching for them
on Google (other search engines are available).

And when I'm not writing books on cryptanalysis I'm a muscle bound
Israeli martial art guru.

--
Dave...

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:07:41 GMT, soup wrote:

I Googled myself. Apparently I am a Canadian(ice)hockey player, or a
company director, or director of a charity. I think today's lesson is
believe nothing/zero/nada/zilch about a person from searching for them
on Google (other search engines are available).

I'm a historian, a lawyer from New Zealand and a video game voice
actor, which is cool.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:22:11 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

At least you're not a despot, despised across the world and the cause
of creating the very notion of 'economic sanctions'.

Good grief, I'd completely forgotten him! Mind you, they are probably
not all that sure they are better off with the bloke they have at
present.

And whatever happened to that band that was always in the news?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

wrote:

Is there a specific way of searching for people? The generic search
for 'Maclaren' shows that I make baby buggies and racing cars, which
is how I usually tell people to spell my name. For 'Nick Maclaren',
my usual monicker, a lot of the hits are for me - but that is not
surprising, given my history.


You steal sports cars ?

In article ,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Se=F1or_Chris?= wrote:

Is there a specific way of searching for people? The generic search
for 'Maclaren' shows that I make baby buggies and racing cars, which
is how I usually tell people to spell my name. For 'Nick Maclaren',
my usual monicker, a lot of the hits are for me - but that is not
surprising, given my history.


You steal sports cars ?

You can find hits for that? Please do tell. I have never done that,
but shall add it to my list of possible activities for when I retire.
After all, if a group of 70 and 80 year old people can form a gang
to hold up supermarkets, I should be able to think of something.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Señor Chris wrote:

wrote:

Is there a specific way of searching for people? The generic search
for 'Maclaren' shows that I make baby buggies and racing cars, which
is how I usually tell people to spell my name. For 'Nick Maclaren',
my usual monicker, a lot of the hits are for me - but that is not
surprising, given my history.

You steal sports cars ?

Baby-buggies, surely?