got an email from exsMM's W

[Dark-N-Romantic]

I only read a few posts and I agree with you and most others...It does not matter how she feels or he feels or even you feel. It does not matter if the site sent out the message or not... Just leave it alone. And someone else made a valid point... Block them. If you have contact information, loose those.

 

Now personally I would not have looked them up at all. In my opinion if its over, let it be over and put them out of your life. And just a little insight into her... She may know about you (if she had not before) and if she knows the history, why wouldn't you think she would question your looking them up? Or why it is that you were on his friends list? The history is there and the wounding is done. However, your resurfacing might of opened up old scars. No one can fault her fears and imaginings.

 

 

DNR

[OWoman]

That was my take on it' date=' too. But it doesn't change things much. The woman's right to privacy has been violated (not meant to be so strong but couldn't find a better word).[/quote']

 

That's a novel idea - something you put in the public domain, for any old body to look at, gets looked at and suddenly your privacy is being violated??? Gosh! I'll bet Picasso is spinning in his grave with dispair at the continued violations of his privacy, with everyone looking at his paintings hanging in galleries. Ian McKellen must want to slit his wrists at the violations each time anyone views any of the movies he's made. Stephen King likewise any time someone reads one of the novvels he's published.

 

I think we should abolish the public domain immediately! We need to protect people's privacy from themselves! Someone might actually look at something that they put out there for others to look at...

[Terminator]

LF could have stirred up a real hornet's nest by responding, especially if she had been in a not so nice mood when she did.

 

I think it's to her credit she simply ignored it.

 

I have to agree with OW's take on the 'violation of privacy' issue too, if you don't want to be searched and found, don't put it out there. People can search all they wish if you have nothing to find.

[NoIDidn't]

I have to agree with OW's take on the 'violation of privacy' issue too, if you don't want to be searched and found, don't put it out there. People can search all they wish if you have nothing to find.

 

I agree with this point as well, but its not so black and white as a simple violation of privacy. LF was the woman that was once with this woman's H while they were separated. In the eyes of this woman, her M and life is being intruded upon.

 

I can search for myself online and find tons of things that I never put out there myself. There are scientific papers that I helped write (that I was never told would one day be on the internet since they are over 10 years old), obituaries written to list me as a survivor of the deceased that I didn't write.

 

Don't get me wrong. I, too, am glad that LF decided not to respond. She would have gained nothing from responding to such a direct message. To respond to "leave us alone" is just asking for a fight.

[bish]

I have to agree with OW's take on the 'violation of privacy' issue too, if you don't want to be searched and found, don't put it out there.

 

I wonder if this is the argument an attorney for a stalker has ever used?

 

"yes your honor, my client stalks the plaintiff and its creepy as hell, but since her information is out there and she actually roams out in public, the plaintiff is fair game!"

[Terminator]

To respond to "leave us alone" is just asking for a fight.

 

The W's email wasn't really a "leave us alone" missive as LF hadn't actually done anything to be told "leave us alone", no contact was made, just a search as I understand the OP.

 

It seems more a case of the W is just gun shy re her taken back WS.

 

I wonder if this is the argument an attorney for a stalker has ever used?

 

I do believe this argument has been used and upheld if the alleged "stalking" was not a violation of privacy or civil rights, but merely what was already public domain, especially in the case of those in the public eye.

[NoIDidn't]

The W's email wasn't really a "leave us alone" missive as LF hadn't actually done anything to be told "leave us alone", no contact was made, just a search as I understand the OP.

 

 

You are right. It didn't *say* leave us alone, just implied that the W is wondering why LF won't leave *her* AND her *H* alone.

 

I wouldn't care enough to send a message to the OW in my case for searching for me online and my being alerted to it. But it does seem that the W wants to know why LF won't just go away. The relationship is over. They are staying married and aren't separated anymore.

 

She (the W) hopefully has addressed the Friend attachment thing with her H, though.

[bish]

I do believe this argument has been used and upheld if the alleged "stalking" was not a violation of privacy or civil rights, but merely what was already public domain, especially in the case of those in the public eye.

 

so, I take it you think a "stalkee" is fair game to stalking? As long as they stand on the sidewalk which is city property eh?

[Terminator]

so, I take it you think a "stalkee" is fair game to stalking? As long as they stand on the sidewalk which is city property eh?

 

Often what the "stalkee" perceives as stalking is not considered so by a judge. You may not like that but it's just the way it is, and yes, even a "stalker" has rights to being on public property (barring being in violation of an RO of course).

[bish]

Often what the "stalkee" perceives as stalking is not considered so by a judge.

 

But of course. Unless the stalker does it to the judge, THEN all of a sudden it should be dealt with.

[GreenEyedLady]

Hello, what is wrong with being curious?

 

No one here can tell me that they haven't "googled" someone. That would be a lie.

 

The WWW is public.

 

Stalking is sitting outside someone's house or emailing them all day long. Or texting or calling a hundred times a day. I don't see the harm here. If anything it's the Xmm's fault for putting himself out there.

[NoIDidn't]

Hello, what is wrong with being curious?

 

No one here can tell me that they haven't "googled" someone. That would be a lie.

 

The WWW is public.

 

Stalking is sitting outside someone's house or emailing them all day long. Or texting or calling a hundred times a day. I don't see the harm here. If anything it's the Xmm's fault for putting himself out there.

 

There is nothing wrong with being curious, but why be curious about the W of the man you once dated before he was officially divorced (even though they weren't in an affair).

 

I have googled tons of people, so don't let me start lying. But this is a little different.

 

I know it may not matter to some, but to a woman that is still mending her marriage and knowing that her H was dating while they were separated, it matters. Or else the W wouldn't have bothered to respond.

 

Its like, you know we are still married and back to living together so why are you still here? Even though it was months ago that it was done. KWIM?

[OWoman]

I wonder if this is the argument an attorney for a stalker has ever used?

 

"yes your honor, my client stalks the plaintiff and its creepy as hell, but since her information is out there and she actually roams out in public, the plaintiff is fair game!"

 

 

Actually there are pretty clear guidelines (in the countries I'm familiar with, anyway - not sure about America?) about what does and doesn't constitute stalking - even online stalking. I've been stalked before (both IRL and online) so have researched this pretty thoroughly, and used it.

 

Googling someone, or searching them on a social networking site like MySpace, Facebook or Friends Reunited does not constitute stalking. That is the prime purpose of those sites (aside from generating advertising revenue for the owners...) and by signing up and putting your info out there, you're agreeing to be searched by others. More than. You're saying you WANT others to find you. (Most of those sites have privacy settings you can change to block certain people, or certain classes of people (eg adults, if you're a child) to prevent people who you don't want to find you, finding you, if that's an issue for you. By not tweaking your privacy settings, you're consenting to being searched by ANYONE who comes along. That isn't stalking. That's using something for its intended purpose. No one sues Starbucks because they supplied them with the coffee they ordered (unless there's something wrong with it).

 

Online stalking is REPEATED acts - in the UK, it's two or more - of harrassment, intimidation, invasion of privacy (such as hacking into someone's personal account information - not googling them or reading their blog posts) or transmitting unsolicited and unwanted information (emails, etc) ONCE YOU HAVE COMMUNICATED CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY THAT YOU DO NOT WISH SUCH COMMUNICATION TO OCCUR. So, a single offensive email does not constitute stalking; a single offensive email following a directive not to contact someone does not constitute stalking; two or more would.

 

In LF's case, even if she had initiated the contact with the BW or the xsMM (by emailing, messaging on the site, or other means - searching is not "contacting") she would still not be guilty of stalking. Assuming she'd been told directly by xsMM (or his BW) not to contact them at some time in the past, and then attempted to do so twice or more, they'd have grounds to consider her behaviour stalking. That wasn't what happened.

 

* She did not initiate contact. She searched online for information in the public domain, as is anyone's right.

* Contact was initiated by the BW. Responding to that would not have been stalking either, as the message itself sought a response, rather than stating unambiguously that it did not wish for one (or any futher contact of any nature).

* xsMM's friending of LF on the site is further contact initiated by them / him - and does not constitute an "unambiguous communication" about not wanting further contact - in fact, the exact opposite.

 

If there's any stalking happening here, it's the happily married couple stalking LF...

[Dark-N-Romantic]

Hello, what is wrong with being curious?

 

No one here can tell me that they haven't "googled" someone. That would be a lie.

 

The WWW is public.

 

Stalking is sitting outside someone's house or emailing them all day long. Or texting or calling a hundred times a day. I don't see the harm here. If anything it's the Xmm's fault for putting himself out there.

 

I haven't googled exs or past women of interest "just to see." History isn't a favorite subject of mine, so I don't even bother. Heck, I can't even remember the email addresses, physical addresses, or even phone numbers of my exs, let alone their faces (I guess I am blessed in that regard). I guess it is all a matter of what a person finds worth wasting their time on.

 

 

DNR

[GreenEyedLady]

There is nothing wrong with being curious, but why be curious about the W of the man you once dated before he was officially divorced (even though they weren't in an affair).

 

I have googled tons of people, so don't let me start lying. But this is a little different.

 

I know it may not matter to some, but to a woman that is still mending her marriage and knowing that her H was dating while they were separated, it matters. Or else the W wouldn't have bothered to respond.

 

Its like, you know we are still married and back to living together so why are you still here? Even though it was months ago that it was done. KWIM?

 

I understand it. It's just pure curiosity. Kinda like how the BS wants to know all about the OW even though it's over.