|
On May 30 2007 07:44 GrandInquisitor wrote:
I mean, that's the real meat of the issue. It's not like she lives in a little bubble where the outside world doesn't get in. Fucked up people exist on the Internet, and they get crazy ideas that they have to go find her and ask her out or talk to her or something. That's pretty uncomfortable for a person to deal with, and I don't see why people are like "SHE DESERVES IT CAUSE SHE'S HOT"
Exactly where did you get the idea that she's EVER been stalked by ANYONE?
|
On May 30 2007 10:35 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2007 09:22 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 09:09 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 30 2007 08:56 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 08:47 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 30 2007 08:29 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 08:20 GrandInquisitor wrote:As for the stalking I agree that it is scary. But so is terrorism. That might the most god-awful, hilarious, fucked-up analogy I've ever read. How is stalking and terrorism that different? In both cases you are being terrorized by a threat that most of the time doesn't actually do anything, it just causes fear. I really don't see how this analogy is that bad. Stalking might be more personal but that doesn't completely destroy the analogy. On May 30 2007 08:20 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Yeah. And the only cases you hear about people dying of natural causes are usually for really famous people, that doesn't mean that only famous people die of natural causes. What you're saying here is that non-famous people can get stalked too. Isn't this kind of contradictory to your point? You are saying her being known is going to cause her to be more likely to be stalked but you are also saying nonfamous people can easily be stalked too. You even mention Cho who stalked girls that weren't famous at all, he just knew them. Mentally disturbed people like Cho are going to stalk people no matter what and a lot of the time they just stalk people they've seen and actually live near. Basically my point about not worrying about stalking stands because you yourself have said that stalking can affect all women. The response to both parts is that she's suddenly and drastically increased her risk of being stalked exponentially. Before she was only at risk within people who knew her personally; now everyone in her area and/or willing to go to her area, potentially. I can agree with you on this point. But I don't see how this is any different than being on the local news or in the local newspaper or on national TV or anything of the sort. People get 15 minutes of fame all the time, attractive females more than most, so why should this situation be anything special? I guess the answer could be she didn't ask for this fame but that's not really true. It sounds like she would love to be a famous pole vaulter and I'm sure she's been in the local newspaper at least. I just think she shouldn't be mad for being famous because she's attractive rather than for being a pole vaulter. It's pretty silly. If she was a famous pole vaulter she'd still have to deal with the same stalking problems and there would actually be much much more photographs of her in skimpy track outfits being posted all over the internet. Let's be perfectly honest. This has absolutely nothing to do with her being a pole vaulter. Explain to me, at all, how she possibly asked for this kind of stalker-ish fame merely by participating in high school pole vaulting? I don't know where you grew up, but no one goes into high school pole vaulting to be famous. Eh, it seems like if she could be famous for pole vaulting she would want to be. That article says: "In her high school track and field career, Stokke had won a 2004 California state pole vaulting title, broken five national records and earned a scholarship to the University of California, yet only track devotees had noticed." It's hard to know if this became such a big story just because it's somewhat of a precedent or because she is really well known for her pole vaulting. She's not just some random girl, she was obviously getting some attention before this happened. She just seems to be mad because she's only being recognized for her looks and not her pole vaulting accomplishments. But she should realize that this is how it is for almost all attractive female athletes. No one really cares what accomplishments Anna Kournikova has for example except that she's extremely pretty. God, how crestfallen and disappointed she must have been that she isn't famous for her pole vaulting. I mean, everyone knows the ticket to being on the American cable news networks 24/7 is to become a superstar pole vaulter. What a fucking famewhore she must be ~_~ That is total bullshit and you know it.
Did you even read the fucking article? It said she was upset that this will overshadow her accomplishments in sports. So, no...it's the exact opposite of bullshit.
|
because she can't leave her house out of fear. unless she's really paranoid she's probably had an encounter.
|
On May 30 2007 10:35 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2007 09:22 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 09:09 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 30 2007 08:56 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 08:47 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 30 2007 08:29 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 08:20 GrandInquisitor wrote:As for the stalking I agree that it is scary. But so is terrorism. That might the most god-awful, hilarious, fucked-up analogy I've ever read. How is stalking and terrorism that different? In both cases you are being terrorized by a threat that most of the time doesn't actually do anything, it just causes fear. I really don't see how this analogy is that bad. Stalking might be more personal but that doesn't completely destroy the analogy. On May 30 2007 08:20 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Yeah. And the only cases you hear about people dying of natural causes are usually for really famous people, that doesn't mean that only famous people die of natural causes. What you're saying here is that non-famous people can get stalked too. Isn't this kind of contradictory to your point? You are saying her being known is going to cause her to be more likely to be stalked but you are also saying nonfamous people can easily be stalked too. You even mention Cho who stalked girls that weren't famous at all, he just knew them. Mentally disturbed people like Cho are going to stalk people no matter what and a lot of the time they just stalk people they've seen and actually live near. Basically my point about not worrying about stalking stands because you yourself have said that stalking can affect all women. The response to both parts is that she's suddenly and drastically increased her risk of being stalked exponentially. Before she was only at risk within people who knew her personally; now everyone in her area and/or willing to go to her area, potentially. I can agree with you on this point. But I don't see how this is any different than being on the local news or in the local newspaper or on national TV or anything of the sort. People get 15 minutes of fame all the time, attractive females more than most, so why should this situation be anything special? I guess the answer could be she didn't ask for this fame but that's not really true. It sounds like she would love to be a famous pole vaulter and I'm sure she's been in the local newspaper at least. I just think she shouldn't be mad for being famous because she's attractive rather than for being a pole vaulter. It's pretty silly. If she was a famous pole vaulter she'd still have to deal with the same stalking problems and there would actually be much much more photographs of her in skimpy track outfits being posted all over the internet. Let's be perfectly honest. This has absolutely nothing to do with her being a pole vaulter. Explain to me, at all, how she possibly asked for this kind of stalker-ish fame merely by participating in high school pole vaulting? I don't know where you grew up, but no one goes into high school pole vaulting to be famous. Eh, it seems like if she could be famous for pole vaulting she would want to be. That article says: "In her high school track and field career, Stokke had won a 2004 California state pole vaulting title, broken five national records and earned a scholarship to the University of California, yet only track devotees had noticed." It's hard to know if this became such a big story just because it's somewhat of a precedent or because she is really well known for her pole vaulting. She's not just some random girl, she was obviously getting some attention before this happened. She just seems to be mad because she's only being recognized for her looks and not her pole vaulting accomplishments. But she should realize that this is how it is for almost all attractive female athletes. No one really cares what accomplishments Anna Kournikova has for example except that she's extremely pretty. God, how crestfallen and disappointed she must have been that she isn't famous for her pole vaulting. I mean, everyone knows the ticket to being on the American cable news networks 24/7 is to become a superstar pole vaulter. What a fucking famewhore she must be ~_~ That is total bullshit and you know it.
I agree with you, and like your argumentation. Basically, everyone here should know what is right and wrong in this situation, and no one should have to explain.
As I mentioned earlier though, if you are so against it why do you give her name and pictures in your blog? That behavior is the source of this problem.
|
On May 30 2007 11:51 BaconatedGrapefruit wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2007 10:35 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 30 2007 09:22 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 09:09 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 30 2007 08:56 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 08:47 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 30 2007 08:29 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 08:20 GrandInquisitor wrote:As for the stalking I agree that it is scary. But so is terrorism. That might the most god-awful, hilarious, fucked-up analogy I've ever read. How is stalking and terrorism that different? In both cases you are being terrorized by a threat that most of the time doesn't actually do anything, it just causes fear. I really don't see how this analogy is that bad. Stalking might be more personal but that doesn't completely destroy the analogy. On May 30 2007 08:20 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Yeah. And the only cases you hear about people dying of natural causes are usually for really famous people, that doesn't mean that only famous people die of natural causes. What you're saying here is that non-famous people can get stalked too. Isn't this kind of contradictory to your point? You are saying her being known is going to cause her to be more likely to be stalked but you are also saying nonfamous people can easily be stalked too. You even mention Cho who stalked girls that weren't famous at all, he just knew them. Mentally disturbed people like Cho are going to stalk people no matter what and a lot of the time they just stalk people they've seen and actually live near. Basically my point about not worrying about stalking stands because you yourself have said that stalking can affect all women. The response to both parts is that she's suddenly and drastically increased her risk of being stalked exponentially. Before she was only at risk within people who knew her personally; now everyone in her area and/or willing to go to her area, potentially. I can agree with you on this point. But I don't see how this is any different than being on the local news or in the local newspaper or on national TV or anything of the sort. People get 15 minutes of fame all the time, attractive females more than most, so why should this situation be anything special? I guess the answer could be she didn't ask for this fame but that's not really true. It sounds like she would love to be a famous pole vaulter and I'm sure she's been in the local newspaper at least. I just think she shouldn't be mad for being famous because she's attractive rather than for being a pole vaulter. It's pretty silly. If she was a famous pole vaulter she'd still have to deal with the same stalking problems and there would actually be much much more photographs of her in skimpy track outfits being posted all over the internet. Let's be perfectly honest. This has absolutely nothing to do with her being a pole vaulter. Explain to me, at all, how she possibly asked for this kind of stalker-ish fame merely by participating in high school pole vaulting? I don't know where you grew up, but no one goes into high school pole vaulting to be famous. Eh, it seems like if she could be famous for pole vaulting she would want to be. That article says: "In her high school track and field career, Stokke had won a 2004 California state pole vaulting title, broken five national records and earned a scholarship to the University of California, yet only track devotees had noticed." It's hard to know if this became such a big story just because it's somewhat of a precedent or because she is really well known for her pole vaulting. She's not just some random girl, she was obviously getting some attention before this happened. She just seems to be mad because she's only being recognized for her looks and not her pole vaulting accomplishments. But she should realize that this is how it is for almost all attractive female athletes. No one really cares what accomplishments Anna Kournikova has for example except that she's extremely pretty. God, how crestfallen and disappointed she must have been that she isn't famous for her pole vaulting. I mean, everyone knows the ticket to being on the American cable news networks 24/7 is to become a superstar pole vaulter. What a fucking famewhore she must be ~_~ That is total bullshit and you know it. Did you even read the fucking article? It said she was upset that this will overshadow her accomplishments in sports. So, no...it's the exact opposite of bullshit.
I was going to reply to GrandInquisitor with something along the lines of "You have sunken to making really stupid replies now." But you did it for me so thank you. 
|
Gentlemen, I think the most important matter of hand is why the image in the spoilers in the OP isn't working!
|
On May 30 2007 11:52 DeadVessel wrote:
because she can't leave her house out of fear. unless she's really paranoid she's probably had an encounter.
She's an 18 year old girl. She's probably incredibly naive and stupid. Nowadays girls seem to think anything they don't want, be it being looked at or talked to one time by a guy they don't like or don't know, constitutes stalking.
Her father is a lawyer and they said nothing illegal had happened, so NO, she has not been stalked by anyone. Stop implying she has. Drama queen.
|
On May 30 2007 12:10 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2007 10:35 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 30 2007 09:22 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 09:09 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 30 2007 08:56 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 08:47 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 30 2007 08:29 boghat wrote:On May 30 2007 08:20 GrandInquisitor wrote:As for the stalking I agree that it is scary. But so is terrorism. That might the most god-awful, hilarious, fucked-up analogy I've ever read. How is stalking and terrorism that different? In both cases you are being terrorized by a threat that most of the time doesn't actually do anything, it just causes fear. I really don't see how this analogy is that bad. Stalking might be more personal but that doesn't completely destroy the analogy. On May 30 2007 08:20 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Yeah. And the only cases you hear about people dying of natural causes are usually for really famous people, that doesn't mean that only famous people die of natural causes. What you're saying here is that non-famous people can get stalked too. Isn't this kind of contradictory to your point? You are saying her being known is going to cause her to be more likely to be stalked but you are also saying nonfamous people can easily be stalked too. You even mention Cho who stalked girls that weren't famous at all, he just knew them. Mentally disturbed people like Cho are going to stalk people no matter what and a lot of the time they just stalk people they've seen and actually live near. Basically my point about not worrying about stalking stands because you yourself have said that stalking can affect all women. The response to both parts is that she's suddenly and drastically increased her risk of being stalked exponentially. Before she was only at risk within people who knew her personally; now everyone in her area and/or willing to go to her area, potentially. I can agree with you on this point. But I don't see how this is any different than being on the local news or in the local newspaper or on national TV or anything of the sort. People get 15 minutes of fame all the time, attractive females more than most, so why should this situation be anything special? I guess the answer could be she didn't ask for this fame but that's not really true. It sounds like she would love to be a famous pole vaulter and I'm sure she's been in the local newspaper at least. I just think she shouldn't be mad for being famous because she's attractive rather than for being a pole vaulter. It's pretty silly. If she was a famous pole vaulter she'd still have to deal with the same stalking problems and there would actually be much much more photographs of her in skimpy track outfits being posted all over the internet. Let's be perfectly honest. This has absolutely nothing to do with her being a pole vaulter. Explain to me, at all, how she possibly asked for this kind of stalker-ish fame merely by participating in high school pole vaulting? I don't know where you grew up, but no one goes into high school pole vaulting to be famous. Eh, it seems like if she could be famous for pole vaulting she would want to be. That article says: "In her high school track and field career, Stokke had won a 2004 California state pole vaulting title, broken five national records and earned a scholarship to the University of California, yet only track devotees had noticed." It's hard to know if this became such a big story just because it's somewhat of a precedent or because she is really well known for her pole vaulting. She's not just some random girl, she was obviously getting some attention before this happened. She just seems to be mad because she's only being recognized for her looks and not her pole vaulting accomplishments. But she should realize that this is how it is for almost all attractive female athletes. No one really cares what accomplishments Anna Kournikova has for example except that she's extremely pretty. God, how crestfallen and disappointed she must have been that she isn't famous for her pole vaulting. I mean, everyone knows the ticket to being on the American cable news networks 24/7 is to become a superstar pole vaulter. What a fucking famewhore she must be ~_~ That is total bullshit and you know it. I agree with you, and like your argumentation. Basically, everyone here should know what is right and wrong in this situation, and no one should have to explain. As I mentioned earlier though, if you are so against it why do you give her name and pictures in your blog? That behavior is the source of this problem.
I don't see a problem with spreading images that were already available on the internet. The only time it becomes questionable is when you post personal information about her so that people can track her down. But posting pictures of an anonymous attractive girl on the internet? Maybe you should move to Iran if you think that's wrong.
|
The wave of attention has steamrolled Stokke and her family in Newport Beach, Calif. She is recognized -- and stared at -- in coffee shops. She locks her doors and tries not to leave the house alone. Her father, Allan Stokke, comes home from his job as a lawyer and searches the Internet. He reads message boards and tries to pick out potential stalkers.
She may not be stalked but how would you like this to be happening to you?
|
OK, I am on my way to Iran, IF your definition of anonymous apparently includes giving the girls name and and an article which tells where she lives. Actually I don't think I'll go either way, because that was the dumbest fucking thing said in weeks.
I didn't say it was legally wrong, and I wouldn't propose such a law. Just wrong on a simple personal level. Must be HARD to understand.
|
On May 30 2007 12:21 DeadVessel wrote:Show nested quote +The wave of attention has steamrolled Stokke and her family in Newport Beach, Calif. She is recognized -- and stared at -- in coffee shops. She locks her doors and tries not to leave the house alone. Her father, Allan Stokke, comes home from his job as a lawyer and searches the Internet. He reads message boards and tries to pick out potential stalkers. She may not be stalked but how would you like this to be happening to you?
I stare at hot chicks in coffee shops whether I know who they are or not.
|
On May 30 2007 12:21 DeadVessel wrote:Show nested quote +The wave of attention has steamrolled Stokke and her family in Newport Beach, Calif. She is recognized -- and stared at -- in coffee shops. She locks her doors and tries not to leave the house alone. Her father, Allan Stokke, comes home from his job as a lawyer and searches the Internet. He reads message boards and tries to pick out potential stalkers. She may not be stalked but how would you like this to be happening to you?
Fortunately, I think this settled down a bit, since they took down her unofficial fan page. I'm sure it'll die out eventually anyway, with a new girl. That's the way it is, this viscious cycle... T_T
|
On May 30 2007 12:10 Servolisk wrote:
I agree with you, and like your argumentation. Basically, everyone here should know what is right and wrong in this situation, and no one should have to explain.
I was hoping you were being sarcastic here but maybe you weren't?
|
On May 30 2007 12:24 Servolisk wrote:
OK, I am on my way to Iran, IF your definition of anonymous apparently includes giving the girls name and and an article which tells where she lives. Actually I don't think I'll go either way, because that was the dumbest fucking thing said in weeks.
I didn't say it was legally wrong, and I wouldn't propose such a law. Just wrong on a simple personal level. Must be HARD to understand.
Wow, you're a retard. Try actually reading my post, then get an education and you might be able to comprehend it. But with your puny mind, I fucking doubt it. Your post makes it obvious you have no idea what I said.
|
On May 30 2007 12:26 boghat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2007 12:10 Servolisk wrote:
I agree with you, and like your argumentation. Basically, everyone here should know what is right and wrong in this situation, and no one should have to explain.
I was hoping you were being sarcastic here but maybe you weren't?
No, read his next post...he's just an idiot. He seems to think subjective things are concrete facts. Anyone who disagrees with his opinion is wrong.
|
On May 30 2007 11:51 BaconatedGrapefruit wrote:
Did you even read the fucking article? It said she was upset that this will overshadow her accomplishments in sports. So, no...it's the exact opposite of bullshit.
You're misunderstanding what she's trying to say. News reports and interviews often don't quite convey what a person means to say, but you're just way off base here.
She was not trying to get famous from pole vaulting, that's just stupid. The issue here is that the pictures of her hardly present the message of who she is as a person, which includes things such as accomplishments (thus the reason why she mentioned pole vaulting). She may have mentioned other things but the news article seems to like to focus on the pole vaulting angle so they extracted that particular part of their interview with her. The image that's shown to all of us only tells us one thing, that she's hot. If people see her, she wants them to know her for what she is, besides her looks.
|
then she's a naive little girl that thinks people will give a shit about her pole vaulting while she looks like that.
|
imageshack isnt that hard to use, peeps:
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On May 30 2007 13:21 AmorVincitOmnia wrote:
then she's a naive little girl that thinks people will give a shit about her pole vaulting while she looks like that.
no, she's a little girl that didn't ask to be publicly posted up everywhere for her looks rather than her -very impressive- pole vaulting record. obviously she didn't think she'd get famous from vaulting, but nor did she think she would be so harassed from a picture of her someone else took and spread on the internet
|
If she's winning these national compeitions and setting records and going all over the country then she must enjoy the attention and fame that she is getting. I don't mean to say she specifically went into pole vaulting to be famous but if you keep working really hard and competing at national competitions and winning you must realize you are getting well known. And if she continues to do it I'm assuming she likes the attention. Obviously she must have noticed people taking pictures of her before this event started. I guess the reasoning is it's okay for 20,000 people to see a picture of her in a newspaper but it's bad for 200,000 people to see a picture of her on the internet?
She is just mad guys care about her looks a lot more than her pole vaulting but that's way it is. She also seems to be pretty stupid to think that just because some random anonymous guys post sexual fantasies of her on the internet that they are going to stalk her too. Doesn't she realize by now that's what anonymous guys do? If she takes it as flattery instead of unfounded paranoia then no one would be hurt by this situation.
And I'm pretty sure that comment about people staring at her in coffee shops is an exaggeration. If a hot girl walks in a room most people look for a little bit. I doubt hardly anyone just stares at her. And even if the staring in public is annoying I'd be willing to bet the only reason most people in her area recognize her is because it was on the local news and in the local newspapers. You think a large portion of any given population actually follows stuff that happens on the internet? I don't think so.
Also the article never says she is actually harassed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/3682/a5240ffbf37346d0c097e99fe4.jpg)
