Slashdot Mirror


Woman Gets Revenge Courtesy of Google Images

another similar writes "This article teaches us that if you happen to have a bad break up with someone who's reasonably tech-savvy, your descriptively captioned photos might end up all over the internet. From the article: 'Upset boyfriends and girlfriends are nothing new. There are plenty of stories of girlfriends getting back at their ex-boyfriends for mistreatment and visa versa. But in the age where Google ranks supreme, you do not want to mess with a girl who knows how to manipulate Google.'"

487 comments

  1. Jack Weppler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Poor Jack Weppler, oops just upped the rank.

    1. Re:Jack Weppler by postbigbang · · Score: 1, Troll

      Oops. I did, too. Poor Jack.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:Jack Weppler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At least I know what he looks like, so if I see him I can tell Jack I'm sor--

    3. Re:Jack Weppler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand, you never said Candlejack so your post shouldnt have ended so abrup---

    4. Re:Jack Weppler by severoon · · Score: 2

      So, she writes Google Webmaster Help and demands they remove the image search results because it's a violation of copyright, and her son is a minor.

      Um, no. Showing images in image search does not violate the copyright holder's rights. Perhaps the site hosting the images is violating copyright...but even there I wonder. Is this infringement? I don't think so, just like I don't think Shepard Fairey's work constitutions plagiarism, but either way you go on this the question is there.

      Her son is a minor. So what? What's that got to do with Google?

      In a free society, does someone have the right to express their opinion about someone else?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    5. Re:Jack Weppler by Cryacin · · Score: 0

      I am Jack's Colon. I get cancer and I kill Jack.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    6. Re:Jack Weppler by frizzantik · · Score: 2

      Are you really trying to claim this girl is expressing her opinion? It's harassment, plain and simple.

    7. Re:Jack Weppler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Jack's bruised ego. I get a few million page hits and then Jack kills himself.

    8. Re:Jack Weppler by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      I'm Jack's publicist. We go on tour to push his new book deal next week. And we're looking at not one, but TWO sit-coms, after he does that new reality TV show (booked last night).

    9. Re:Jack Weppler by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Showing images in image search does not violate the copyright holder's rights.

      According to the law, or according to your personal sense of justice?

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    10. Re:Jack Weppler by severoon · · Score: 1

      According to the law, or according to your personal sense of justice?

      You believe that Google Images violates copyright law whenever it displays a copyrighted image as the result of an image search?

      Please, do go on and develop your point further...this should be good.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    11. Re:Jack Weppler by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Google falls under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. Simply having an image appear on google search doesn't violate the copyright holder's rights. Keeping it up there after a copyright holder complained would indeed violate the holders rights.

      At least, this is my understanding of the legal issues, I'm not a lawyer.

    12. Re:Jack Weppler by severoon · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot.

      Oops. Did I just open myself up to a lawsuit? Are you legally damaged? If I'd included your picture with "idiot" written across the bottom, would that change things? What if I posted it on the web and it was popular?

      I'm not saying she's doing a great and ethical thing here. I'm saying it's not illegal to publicly hate on someone unless it actually does rise to the level of violating that person's rights. No one has the right to force others to not talk about them, though. That's cuz growed-ups made the laws.

      Although, this whole incident does bring to mind another such situation that happened just a few months ago. Here's the relevant quote from the guy that thinks the same way as you: "Ya dun goofed! ...And the consekences will nevar be teh same!!!!"

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    13. Re:Jack Weppler by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You don't know Jack.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Jack Weppler by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      I think the only real bruised ego is that of the girl.
      As hilarious as this is, it's also quite pathetic. If you're upset that your boyfriend dumped you then don't start some kind of online smear campaign. She's been dumped and couldn't handle it. Sad figure.

    15. Re:Jack Weppler by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      It's not clear they don't violate copyright law--we just assume they don't because google image search is normal to us. But they're making copies of someone else's copyrighted works, after all. Maybe they are violating copyright. I don't remember reading a case on it, though, so maybe nobody has decided yet.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    16. Re:Jack Weppler by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Is that true even when it is google, rather than a third-party poster, who posts the copyrighted content to google?

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    17. Re:Jack Weppler by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Keeping it up there after a copyright holder complained would indeed violate the holders rights.

      Exactly. GP was saying they could keep it up indefinitely and it would never violate the holder's rights or give the holder cause to complain.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    18. Re:Jack Weppler by fishexe · · Score: 1

      According to the law, or according to your personal sense of justice?

      You believe that Google Images violates copyright law whenever it displays a copyrighted image as the result of an image search?

      No. Did I say that I did?? No, I asked a question.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    19. Re:Jack Weppler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pff, candlejack doesn't give you a chance to type any silly hyphens at the end. Don't you know anyt

    20. Re:Jack Weppler by severoon · · Score: 1

      No. Did I say that I did?? No, I asked a question.

      -sigh- What do you think the answer to your question is?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    21. Re:Jack Weppler by severoon · · Score: 1

      So you missed the whole fair use legal flap about Google search? Then the one about Google Images? Then the one about Google Books?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    22. Re:Jack Weppler by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      I remember there was a flap (on the images) and a lawsuit (on the books). I don't recall a lawsuit on the images, or the results of a court holding. But I also haven't bothered to Google it. =)

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    23. Re:Jack Weppler by severoon · · Score: 1

      You don't need to Google it. Just review the facts you already know:

      1. Google is a highly lucrative target for prosecution
      2. Their publicly stated "don't be evil" philosophy would cause them to want to bury any brand-damaging associations, possibly with a settlement
      3. You have prior knowledge of copyright violation charges levied against them

      Seems to be a big no-brainer that someone would bring the pain if they thought they had a slam-dunk case. And they have, lots...simple as that. And no, Google doesn't violate copyrights. And yes, they may respond to requests to pull down embarrassing images, but not because they have to, and not because everyone in their position should have to.

      So, for this case, scorned woman, says some nasty things about the guy. Some of it was kinda funny. She persists much longer, though, unless she's reeeeeeally really clever about it and turns out some grade-A comedy, who's gonna come out looking worse for wear? Him, or her? Who's accumulating the damage here after a point?

      Hint: not him.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    24. Re:Jack Weppler by fishexe · · Score: 1

      No. Did I say that I did?? No, I asked a question.

      -sigh- What do you think the answer to your question is?

      I'm pretty sure the answer to my question is "According to severoon's personal sense of justice," because according to copyright law, once it's been removed from the original site and the copyright holder has requested it be removed from the search results, failure to remove it does violate the copyright holder's rights.

      Does this mean I "believe that Google Images violates copyright law whenever it displays a copyrighted image as the result of an image search" as you allege? No, because these conditions don't apply "whenever it displays a copyrighted image". They apply in this case.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    25. Re:Jack Weppler by fishexe · · Score: 1

      So, for this case, scorned woman, says some nasty things about the guy. Some of it was kinda funny. She persists much longer, though, unless she's reeeeeeally really clever about it and turns out some grade-A comedy, who's gonna come out looking worse for wear? Him, or her? Who's accumulating the damage here after a point?

      Hint: not him.

      Are you sure? He's the only one whose picture is on all of this stuff and whose name is in the search. Yeah, we all know she was a total asshole, but we don't know who she is, so how is it damaging her?

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    26. Re:Jack Weppler by severoon · · Score: 1

      Oh, so once it's removed from the site, at that point Google is in violation of copyright. Until they've updated their index, they're in flagrant, prosecutable violation of the law, huh?

      Tell me, how do you explain the Internet Archive?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    27. Re:Jack Weppler by severoon · · Score: 1

      Good point. If only there were some publicly accessible resource through which this fellow could identify her if he wanted to...

      Alas, there is no such thing. If only, though, right?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    28. Re:Jack Weppler by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Oh, so once it's removed from the site, at that point Google is in violation of copyright. Until they've updated their index, they're in flagrant, prosecutable violation of the law, huh?

      NO. I specifically said, "and the copyright holder has requested it be removed from the search results". Once the copyright holder makes that request of the search provider, they must take prompt, reasonable action to remove the material. This is all in US Code Title 17 Section 512, if you'd care to actually educate yourself instead of just stating your idealization of the world as fact.

      Tell me, how do you explain the Internet Archive?

      The Internet Archive has settled multiple lawsuits, in what is basically an admission that they were in violation of copyright. Most copyright holders don't go after them because it would be bad PR for little to no gain. It's the same reason Nintendo, Konami, Capcom, Tecmo, and Sunsoft haven't sued the pants off the guy who made this game.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    29. Re:Jack Weppler by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if I were him, I wouldn't have bothered trying to get the images taken down and would have just made even wittier ones of her, accompanied by an article making it completely clear that the only reason I would ever do such a thing was that she struck first.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    30. Re:Jack Weppler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statute law is meaningless until it's interpreted and becomes case law. Situations involving fair use with attribution and no claim of original work, on the other hand, are in case law. See Perfect 10 v. Google and the claims that got kicked down to a lower court for the ruling on links to other sites that actually were infringing. Shall I spoil the suspense and tell you what happened?

      Ok, well, this has been fun, but this thread has now officially bored me. I thought you might have at least one arrow in your quiver, apparently I was wrong about that. That, and the new slashdot design requires me to click down thru all these levels just to get to the most recent post...I can't be bothered. (I hope they fix that sometime soon, it's annoying.)

  2. Let that be a lesson to you! by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you discover you're dating a vengeful psycho bitch, don't ever break up with her.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by JazzXP · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You never know, maybe he had it coming. I'm curious to see what he did to deserve this kind of response.

    2. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm just curious what exactly could he have done which would warrant that sort of treatment? I've personally treated pretty badly by people, to the extent that there's typically prison time handed out for that sort of behavior, but I don't personally think this sort of reaction would've been warranted in any of those cases.

    3. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      If you discover you're dating a vengeful psycho bitch, don't ever break up with her.

      Well, that, or at least make sure there's a hidden camera in the bedroom at strategic times, so that you have something to make her think long and hard before doing something dumb online after the breakup.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, I had to employ this tactic once. As crazy as they come, but this did stop her dead in her tracks. The camera wasn't hidden, but I did tell her that I was holding on to the images as insurance. The crazy stopped shortly after that.

    5. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by grcumb · · Score: 5, Funny

      You never know, maybe he had it coming. I'm curious to see what he did to deserve this kind of response.

      My guess? He gave her up. He let her down. He never came around. HE HURT HER.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    6. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah! There is no such thing as bad publicity.

    7. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if this story was about a guy, it would be about a frightning stalker who might murder her rather than fodder for lighthearted joking.

    8. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Long and hard.

    9. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      there is one way out, but that's illegal.

    10. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by log0n · · Score: 2

      So someone could have gone to prison for how they treated you, but you're ok with it? ...

    11. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 5, Informative

      +10,000 Insightful. But I don't have mod points, and I never had that many anyways even when I did. And, yes, I'm a girl. A real one.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    12. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by pugugly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Going by my experience with women that overreact like this? He turned out to be exactly the guy her parents and two dozen friends said he was when they tried to warn her off.

      But she was *sure* he would change . . . for her . . . for their love was something . . . special . . .

      or not.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    13. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by pipatron · · Score: 3, Informative

      And even if you did have that many mod points, you could only use one of them on the same post.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    14. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've all got it coming, kid.

    15. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, not everyone acts like a pathetic vengeful asshole when bad things happen to them.

    16. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      It would make getting a job (or keeping your current one) a bitch, though.

      "Sex tapes" may boost a celeb (or wannabe celeb's) career, but for someone who works for a public service organization, a government agency, the military, or most large corporations? It's a quick trip to a pink slip.

      ('course, it's a good way for the guy who filmed it to get sued or worse, which is why I posted it mostly in jest. Call it a MAD "Mutually Assured Destruction" scenario...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    17. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And, yes, I'm a girl.

      -1 troll.

    18. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      reiser, is that you?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    19. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Tjebbe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Somehow that made me lose the game.

    20. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. The safest course of action is to kill her dead.

    21. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that those pictures speak more poorly of what kind of person the ex-girlfriend is. She dated this guy, so obviously she liked who he was at one point and now she turns around and backstabs him with a bunch of childish "gay" photo captions. I'm not saying the guy isn't a jerk, I don't know, just that her actions portray her as a pathetic individual who was unable to cope with losing him.

    22. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Plus a double standard.

      A woman does this to a man? Slashdot assumes "tee hee, that dumbass guy must have done somethin real bad to her, guess he got what he deserved huh! yuk yuk yuk".

      A man does this to a woman? "What an asshole, how dare he, blah blah moral outrage yada yada, a knight in shining armor like me wouldn't do that".

      Both cases? None of us were there, none of us know what happened, and she probably is just a psychobitch. If he really is such an asshole she should put that energy towards asking herself why she thinks assholes are so attractive.

    23. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

      risky, i'd think. i'd imagine someone clever could play you right into a blackmail conviction if you use that tactic. but glad it worked.

    24. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by peragrin · · Score: 1, Troll

      that and women tend to over exaggerate mental attacks. I could have realized it wasn't working but she was so pissed he left her that she held onto the grudge.

      I ran across the mother of my first real love. We broke up because we fought to much, it was mutual. 10 years later her mother was holding a massive grudge against me still. When i asked about it to other people who new her they told me of how she had already began planning the wedding.

      Sometimes all you have to do is tell a woman the truth(that your not right for each other) and they get very pissed off.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    25. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, this is supposed to be worse than prison?

    26. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you discover you're dating a vengeful psycho bitch, don't ever break up with her.

      Well, that, or at least make sure there's a hidden camera in the bedroom at strategic times, so that you have something to make her think long and hard before doing something dumb online after the breakup.

      Epic. Just Epic.

    27. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obviously she is just a stupid bitch, and he left her for that reason. Don't you think if she had a valid reason for being mad at him, that she would have used it in her childish "revenge" scheme? She had nothing - and it shows in this image search.

      The only thing I have learned about him from the image search is that he appears to be an attractive guy who was unfortunate enough to date a complete psycho.

      What happened is pretty obvious. She thought she was all that, he disagreed, and she couldn't handle it and went all psycho.

      I wonder what her name is, and what kind of lasting legacy she might have on the web should a few dedicated people decide to give her a life sentence on Google. It could happen. Easily.

      It looks like she deserves it too. Let's see her apply for a job when she can't get away from this little revenge scheme. Wait until she is 30 years old, and potential employers are still seeing this childishness when they Google her name. Will they want to hire someone who is so likely to bring them bad PR if they fire her? Will she think it was worth it? I doubt it.

    28. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Funny

      He dated an American woman. That's pretty much sufficient to expect any sort of drama.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    29. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      Although, as comments go, mine was almost worthless, gender was not the only reason for posting. I had noticed that the extremely insightful comment I replied to had not been modded at all, and played the gender card to encourage mods to re-read it, and possibly take flak for the greater good (the parent being modded up) in the form of Troll mods.

      It is sadly true that had a man done this to his ex, the press would've screamed blue murder. The reason I drew attention to my gender was to say look, I'm a woman, I know all about harassment from men, I get plenty of it, but I agree with the point. We're going crazy with political correctness, it's becoming illegal to tell the truth about some things without being "racist" or "sexist".

      As for my somewhat silly username, I chose it when I was 17 when webmistress was my "trendy" way of saying "female webmaster" - which was rare and somewhat mystic at the time! So for the millionth time, I'd like to point out that my username does not have (or wasn't intended to) have the connotations you are likely thinking of (and which I, myself, have since noticed) but that I want to keep my (relatively) low UID.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    30. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, but hopefully my troll will draw attention to the parent, which is insightful, and will be modded up far more that I could alone. That's worth -2 to my Karma.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    31. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      While this may be true, my troll will draw attention to the parent, which is insightful, and will be modded up far more that I could on my own. That's worth a -2 hit to my Karma.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    32. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by morari · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true coward!

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    33. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by PPH · · Score: 1

      Its best not even to let her have your real name.

      Hey babe. They call me CowboyNeal.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    34. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by dvbuser · · Score: 1

      If you discover you're dating a vengeful psycho bitch, don't ever break up with her.

      just keep her on the back-burner as long as possible huh?

    35. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If I could, I would mod you up.
      During a 1 year marriage, I started a divorce because she was just plain mean. During that time, I met another women, fell for her and we started up. After 2 years of divorce and giving my ex everything, my ex then started threatening my unborn son, my ultimate wife, and even the dogs that my ex said that she had wanted. And her demands in court was that she wanted my to pay double the child support that I was paying (1400), alimony of 2000 and her lawyer bill. Upon telling my lawyer and police about the numerous threats, they laughed it off. Yet, my ex had dropped doing her lithium, had attempted suicide multiple times in her life, and had threatened other ppl.

      And yet, I could not get the cops or my lawyer to tune in.

      You are so correct in your statement.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    36. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      How would those connotations (which I hardly noticed, not being native EN speaker; luckily you pointed them out) even work in such field? Hm, maybe you should think about contributing to some honeypot efforts?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    37. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by poity · · Score: 1

      Oh goodness, let's make some for Slashdot. Here, I'll get the ball rolling.
      http://memegenerator.net/come-hither-nerd-malda/ImageMacro/5585341/new-slashdot-format-break-everything

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    38. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 0

      Update: When I first started this troll, the TFA had 98 replies and moderation was in full swing. The troll was intended to help the parent, which was at 1. I am pleased to announce that the post is now at +5 Insightful, and that the troll has served it's purpose very well. I hope that all my flame-baity repliers learned something from all this.. thanks, come again! Rachel

      ps I continue to notice that despite my trolling over the years, everyone still likes you or is too afraid to say otherwise... cue flames and Freaks...

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    39. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by sesshomaru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ask Phil Hartman about crazy stalker ex-wives.

      Oh, wait... you can't.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    40. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      Honeypot efforts?? Isn't that something to do with trapping wasps? (gosh I hate those things!) I am intrigued and would like to.... no, only kidding, what did you mean, seriously?

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    41. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      My number is 999. Or in the US, 911. Good luck. Am I biting now? I think I'm biting a counter-troll here. All that about not feeding the trolls, and here I am biting at a counter-troll, who is trolling my original troll. What's next? Bridges?

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    42. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that since Jack Whatisname is a minor, the person who did is probably also is.

      These are kids. Kids do dumb things :-) So do adults - the difference being that when an adult does it, it's criminal.

      Everyone's calling her a "crazy psycho b*tch" - if she were 30 and doing this, I might agree (depending on the circumstances ... for example, if he beat her, he deserves worse than a few smart-ass pics).

      But not a kid - ask any parent - ALL kids are crazy. It's the quiet ones that don't get it out of their system and learn some self-control who end up being the quiet ax-murderer on page 1.

      I find the assumption at the bottom of the article to be not only stupid, but unfounded:

      Lesson? Before you upset your girlfriend or boyfriend, make sure they do not know how Google works. Oh, and never mess with an SEO.

      There's NO indication that this is some woman who "knows how Google works" or is into search engine optimization. And from the text on the images, do you really think an adult woman couldn't come up with worse? A LOT worse?

      On the whole gender card issue, gender naturally comes into things when you're talking about relationships. Just like it does for sex discrimination. But as long as companies like McDonalds not only think it's okay, but find it profitable to air commercials that show men saying whatever the woman wants to hear just to shut her up so she won't dump him, we've got a problem that goes way beyond "political correctness."

      On a side note - will this post do until your troll comes along? :-)

    43. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you discover you're dating, don't ever break up with her.

      There. Fixed that for all you nerds :-)

    44. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this will probably haunt him for the rest of his life. Imagine when he starts going for job interviews. Something like 90% of employers check up applicants on google, facebook, twitter, etc. Seeing how much press this has already gotten, his best bet is probably to change his name or go by a pseudonym. Too bad there aren't any male alternatives to Jack...

    45. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I'm a bit lost for words other than, thanks, my troll already came and left! One replier got modded flamebait, and several of my replies and the OP got modded up... and if you read my other replies, especially the Update post, you'll see that my troll had already fulfilled it's intended purpose - to draw attention to the parent, who was VERY underrated... mods were already taking place much farther down the page. Who says trolling doesn't work? I GAINED Karma for it, too, shocking!

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    46. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by oobayly · · Score: 4, Funny
    47. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by jsse · · Score: 1

      It seems that vengeful psycho bitch is also a slashdoter, and now your big head photo scored the highest rank in google image.

    48. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by plover · · Score: 1

      You made my brain cry.

      --
      John
    49. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      || What's next, bridges?

      | Obligitory xkcd

      Didn't see that coming. I liked it, though. Thank you.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    50. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... really? Because there are no crazy ex-girlfriend stalker murderers? That's awfully sexist.

    51. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowledgebase updated. Thank you for your contribution.

    52. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm modding you down for being a girl.

      Or, for being a slashdotter pretending to be a girl.

    53. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by OttoErotic · · Score: 1

      Dammit, I hate you. 6+ month streak wasted.

      --
      "Once in Hawaii I had sex with a 102 year old male turtle. It is difficult to argue that it was consensual." - Steve Ma
    54. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      I would reply to this comment, but I only bite one troll per discussion, and I already did so (and pointed out this fact in the post). Sorry, try again soon.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    55. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad there aren't any male alternatives to Jack.

      John? Jacob?

    56. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Yet, my ex had dropped doing her lithium, had attempted suicide multiple times in her life, and had threatened other ppl.

      See that's a difference between men and women, and why cops etc don't take it as seriously.

      Most women don't do a good job of killing, even when it comes to themselves ;).

      Whereas if a guy has started the process of killing, the target will be dead if nothing else stops him.

      --
    57. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

      Jingleheimer Schmidt? That's my name!

    58. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Informative

      It could have been worse. I know someone who married a half-Spanish, half-German woman. As was put to him by on of his buddies.
      "I am happy for you because she's totally hot. But do you realize what you've gotten yourself into?
      I hope for your sake you never do anything to get her extremely angry. The Spanish side of her will be passionately pissed enough to cut off your balls. . . and the German side has the wherewithal to see it to the end."

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    59. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boring!

    60. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Informative

      And let this be a lesson to you, young Slashdotters: if you find you must divorce a woman, do so. But until said divorce is final, with the judge's signature upon it and its decree formally entered into the legal record, DO NOT TALK TO OTHER WOMEN. DO NOT TOUCH OTHER WOMEN. DO NOT TOUCH YOURSELF AND THINK OF OTHER WOMEN. Be a monk, and stay the ever-loving hell away from other women, because all you can cause yourself is pain.

    61. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Nyder · · Score: 1

      If you discover you're dating a vengeful psycho bitch, don't ever break up with her.

      I wasn't aware there was any other types.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    62. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    63. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had to do basically the same thing. Forwarding back the picture-filled email she'd sent me was enough.

    64. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Kokuyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm confused... you were married to this women for only one year, in which her psycho-bitch tendencies became obvious enough to warrant a divorce.

      How fucking long did you know her before marrying her?! I mean if you dated her for two years beforehand, are you freaking telling me there wasn't enough evidence to have you run far and run fast? And if you didn't have enough time to realize she was psycho, what the fuck were you doing marrying her?!

      Seriously, someone help me come up with a scenario where this dude isn't just plain fucking stupid...

      Yeah, go ahead, mod me down, but I keep hearing this sort of thing time and again. They always tell me "but she suddenly changed!". And I go: "So she didn't expect you to read her mind and moods before, ever? So she never gave you a hard time for forgetting something but expected you to treat her as if she was perfect?"

      The reply: "Oh, come on! Every woman is like that!"

      And I just go headdesk.

      As long as men take whatever woman will have them and don't EXPECT to be treated fairly and as a partner instead of someone who has to be grateful to even be allowed around a female, this shit will keep repeating.

    65. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Quite clearly you have never ever dealt with Russian ladies.

      If you did you would have known the difference between drama and WW3.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    66. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because there are no crazy ex-girlfriend stalker murderers?

      Nope, women are always only "misunderstood" or "victims themselves and the guy had it coming".

    67. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Columbine is a better option then?

    68. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Quite clearly you have never ever dealt with Russian ladies.

      If you did you would have known the difference between drama and WW3.

      Let's not be dramatic.

    69. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      I parsed "Bad things that would involve prison time" as "physical and emotional abuse." If that's the case, calling the cops and getting them prison time would be an appropriate and reasonable reaction. I'm not sure how you jumped from that to "shooting up a school."

    70. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Law requires blackmail involve a demand for money or other valuable thing.

      A simple "Go the hell away and never talk to me again or I'll post these naked pictures of you all over the internet" doesn't qualify.

      I've never had to make the threat, but came close to it with one ex.

    71. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas if a guy has started the process of killing, the target will be dead if nothing else stops him.

      I once knew a guy who tried to kill himself with a fork. So yeah.

    72. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by jcr · · Score: 1

      We can ask, he just can't answer.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    73. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by flonker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know a guy who had his ex try to run him down with her car, with the kids in the car. She even told the kids, "I hope you said goodbye to daddy, because this is the last time you will ever see him." The police showed up, and were treating him like a criminal, acting as if he had started the whole incident. That is, until the female cop asked to speak to his daughter, and he gave his permission, and the female cop asked the daughter what happened.

      "Mommy tried to kill daddy"

      After which, the crazy ex was taken to the police station, locked up, her own parents refused to bail her out because they thought she was crazy, and then all charges were dropped for no readily apparent reason.

      This happened in Chicago btw.

    74. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I humbly stand correctly.

    75. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You should know that most police and social workers will take report and file it into rubbish bin, or laugh you out of the door when reporting "spousal abuse by a female".

      The laws, and attitudes were made to protect women from men. Not vice versa. This is a fairly well documented problem in criminology, but there's no real drive to fix it.

    76. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where does one get an ultimate wife?

    77. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to clarify, I hope this is being modded insightful because men do stalk and murder far (FAR) more often than women and not because some perceived unfairness or double standard in reports of it. There are such cases, but this isn't one of them.

    78. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Sad but true. There is a reason for this double-standard: physical abuse is usually treated more seriously than mental abuse (the latter is often hard to entangle as it frequently goes both ways, whilst physical abuse almost always goes in one direction) and males are more likely to physically abuse their female partner than the other way around. But the difference isn't that large statistically and there shouldn't be a double-standard. In the UK, the Home Office started an anti-domestic abuse program. Fine and good, but it was focused on women only. There was a very nice satire picture of it here which is probably similar for America too.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    79. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 1

      Learn from the guy, you update to a newer version of course.

    80. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by ckret · · Score: 1

      I'm a girl. A real one.

      Oh no, you're not fooling me! You don't win the Turing test...

    81. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

    82. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by makomk · · Score: 2

      There is a reason for this double-standard: physical abuse is usually treated more seriously than mental abuse (the latter is often hard to entangle as it frequently goes both ways, whilst physical abuse almost always goes in one direction) and males are more likely to physically abuse their female partner than the other way around.

      Nope, the exact same double standard applies to physical abuse too. To the point, IIRC, that the better domestic violence advice services for men in many countries advise against calling the police if you've been violently abused by your female partner - they're trained to assume men under this circumstance must've done something bad to deserve it and arrest them. (This can mean leaving kids alone with someone violent, but since she's female this is obviously the safer option. I'm not kidding, people really think like this, particularly feminists.)

    83. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      took me some time to understand this one. Thanks!

    84. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      A good point. What she did was a fairly mild reaction by the standards of teenagers, especially teenage boys. Spreading revealing shots of your ex-girlfriend as a form of revenge is not uncommon in UK schools, if the statistics are be to believed.

      It isn't even a new phenomenon. Printed photos would get shown around since the birth of the affordable camera, the only difference now being that the internet distributes the images much more efficiently and makes it hard to get them removed. Take TFA for example, it has ensured that this guy's name will forever be associated with news stories and cropped images of the whole affair.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    85. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Maestro4k · · Score: 5, Informative

      How fucking long did you know her before marrying her?! I mean if you dated her for two years beforehand, are you freaking telling me there wasn't enough evidence to have you run far and run fast? And if you didn't have enough time to realize she was psycho, what the fuck were you doing marrying her?! Seriously, someone help me come up with a scenario where this dude isn't just plain fucking stupid...

      It's quite simple: people change once they're married. Haven't you known of people who lived together happily for years, sometimes 10+, then they get married and end up divorced and hating each other within a year? There's something about that legal piece of paper saying you're married that changes how people behave. Not everybody of course, but it happens often enough to almost be a given. Then you have the manipulative jerks who manage to keep their partner completely disillusioned as to their real personality, that then drop the act as soon as they manage to get married. Sometimes they even keep the act up until there's children.

      This applies to both sexes, not just females. Life's not black and white, when dealing with other people especially so. No matter how well you think you know a person, you can never know everything about them simply because you're not them.

      Besides, he mentioned she stopped taking her lithium. If she stopped taking care of her bi-polar soon after marriage it'd explain her personality change easily. Left untreated bi-polar people can easily become crazy people, threatening, violent, hateful, etc.

    86. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or just avoid getting married to someone you have not lived with long enough to find out about all their flaws.

      If your marriage lasts longer than your courtship you're doing it wrong.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    87. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let me give you my little narrative. I knew my ex-wife for 11 years before marriage. Of those years, we dated for six. We were married for three (and a bit).

      When I decided to divorce her (not saying why - I still refuse to divulge details of that final argument we had), her response was immediate and total:
      1. I was arrested 15 minutes later for assault.
      2. I was served a protection order the next morning (while still in jail) forbidding me from contact with her or my son (wrt son, contact was stipulated "after family advocates investigation).
      3. FA Investigation took 3 months, during which I had no access to my son.
      4. I was arrested a further 3 times on a variety of different charges (more assault, violation of protection order, etc).
      5. She twice got men to (attempt) to beat me up.
      6. She repeatedly threatened to have me killed.
      7. She phoned my employer (a large-ish research institution) twice to inform them that I'm a criminal. (I'm not, btw - two years of fighting in court got me 4 acquittals).
      8. She taught my son to call me "Uncle", and strikes him (in my presence) when he calls me daddy.

      The point is, I never knew that she was like this, even though I knew her for so long. Sometimes the crazy is inside, just waiting for a chance to come out - you never can tell. It's now 3 years later, and I'm back in court again! And with this constant harrasment from her side, I'm done even trying to find a g/friend now - they all get scared off (the first women I dated was about 8 months after my separation: and that did not last).

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    88. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by puterg33k · · Score: 0

      Bravo! +1 I myself couldn't agree more, here's one for the misogynists!

    89. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what it's worth, I read your username as meaning a female web admin called Rachel. Not sure why it should have any connotations, particularly on a tech site.

    90. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Builder · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea and good advice, but it takes 5 years to get a divorce in the UK. That's putting your life on hold for half a decade.

    91. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I don't think "Don't destroy my life or I will release this video" is considered blackmail.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    92. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Invisible+Snake · · Score: 0

      That's the downside of the modern world. You like each other on first sight, you have sex, the sex is good and because of that you tend to oversee the flaws. And those flaws come and hit you later....

    93. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by SniperJoe · · Score: 1

      Phil was murdered by his wife, not a crazy stalker ex-wife. Granted, she was crazy and on drugs, but she was his wife. I will always hate Andy Dick for he did (not that there weren't enough reasons already) and I will always respect Jon Lovitz for beating the crap out of him for it. http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/07/17/jon-lovitz-beats-up-andy-dick/

    94. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      males are more likely to physically abuse their female partner than the other way around

      No, physical abuse is just as common, if not more common by women. It's just that there's a social stigmata attached to men being abused by women, so it's vastly underreported. And when it is reported, it's likely to be counted as abuse against women, because guess what happens when a man reports violence?
      That's right -- the abusive woman will say "he hit me first", and the police will believe her, because they have the same bias as you do.

    95. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

      I always thought that (one of) the causes of 10 year relationship, 1 year marriage syndrome was that they start off happy in the relationship, then after a number of years the relationship starts to fall apart, but they don't want to let it go, so they get married thinking that'll save it. But of course, after they get back from the honeymoon, they're still the same people in the same situation, and so the marriage doesn't last.

      It's a slightly less tragic version of having kids to save a marriage...

    96. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by sheehaje · · Score: 1

      If you discover you're dating a vengeful psycho bitch, don't ever break up with her.

      That's why I'm still married.

    97. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by xenobyte · · Score: 0

      Instead of playing nice, play hardball.

      There are so many women that tries to rob their ex-husbands in divorces you wouldn't believe it. They stop at nothing and will accuse you of incest and other child abuse, including you being a major child pornographer. There's only one thing to do - fight fire with fire. If you really hate her it's really fun.

      There are people that can help you (for a price of course). They will help find her weaknesses and help you use them to break her as much as is needed. Mentally unstable women are the most fun as you can bring them to the brink of suicide - and over if ultimately needed. They can only win if you let them, and if you let them you deserve what's coming to you.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    98. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Ephemeriis · · Score: 2

      And if this story was about a guy, it would be about a frightning stalker who might murder her rather than fodder for lighthearted joking.

      Hooray for double-standards!

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    99. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm confused... you were married to this women for only one year, in which her psycho-bitch tendencies became obvious enough to warrant a divorce.

      How fucking long did you know her before marrying her?! I mean if you dated her for two years beforehand, are you freaking telling me there wasn't enough evidence to have you run far and run fast?

      I don't have exhaustive information about this situation... I'm going off the same post you are. But you might be surprised to learn that people don't always act like themselves when they're dating.

      You don't occupy the same house. You don't wake up next to each-other every day. You don't go to sleep next to each-other every night. You don't have to balance a budget, or deal with bills. You just see each-other periodically for fun stuff.

      Trust me, things change after you're married (or co-habitating for a while). A kind of sameness or boredom sets in. Responsibilities pile up.

      Things that were cute or quirky when you were dating become downright annoying. You see new things that you never saw before, because you just weren't around all the time. And she's experiencing the same thing from you.

      It's not terribly uncommon for a relationship to suddenly fall apart as soon as you move in together. It's a huge stress for everyone.

      And if you didn't have enough time to realize she was psycho, what the fuck were you doing marrying her?!

      I honestly believe that, at least here in the US, folks are getting married far too quickly. They don't get to know each-other well enough. They mistake infatuation for love. And then they get a divorce when things cool off.

      However, you really do need to live together for a good chunk of time to really get to know someone. And, here in the US, that's still frowned-upon.

      So, he may have thought he knew her very well. And he wouldn't have known just how wrong he was until they actually moved in together (usually after the wedding).

      Yeah, go ahead, mod me down, but I keep hearing this sort of thing time and again. They always tell me "but she suddenly changed!". And I go: "So she didn't expect you to read her mind and moods before, ever? So she never gave you a hard time for forgetting something but expected you to treat her as if she was perfect?"

      The reply: "Oh, come on! Every woman is like that!"

      Everyone is like that. Even men.

      We all have moments when we don't actually voice our needs, and then get upset when they aren't met. We all get annoyed when others screw up, and when they point out our flaws. Lots of people actually see this in themselves and try to moderate it. Lots of people don't.

      But it's very normal to see this in other people.

      And when you're dating, you might see in once in a while and not think much of it. Not even know whether it's going to be frequent enough to be a problem.

      And then you move in together... And it's happening every single day... And they're resistant to change...

      As long as men take whatever woman will have them and don't EXPECT to be treated fairly and as a partner instead of someone who has to be grateful to even be allowed around a female, this shit will keep repeating.

      The fact of the matter is that, in the US at least, relationships are not equal. Hell, your wording up there (it's the man's fault for acting this way) simply reinforces that.

      We've all got baggage we carry around. A lot of it is handed out by our society - parenting, mass media, stereotypes, literature, etc.

      The trick is to find somebody you like, and then actually get to know them well enough to learn what kind of baggage they've got. And, at the same time, be honest enough that they can see what kind of baggage you've got.

      I honestly believe that a very big part of this includes living together and sharing responsibilities for a good couple of years.

      But s

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    100. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who has recently ceased to live with the mother of his child. Recently her neighbors told him (in tears) that they were going to call CPS because while she always tends to yell at the kid, when he leaves the volume goes up and the quality of language goes down... sharply. To the point where it is basically continual abuse.

      The USA is a bad place to be a man, especially one with working testicles. And if you assert that "working" means "not putting up with this shit" you're labeled as insensitive and thus potentially dangerous.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    101. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      2 years.

      (Friend going through one currently)

    102. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would mod points have to do with you getting him a sandwich?

    103. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      Or will be able to see the logic of it and be too laid back to do anything about it.

    104. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the cops and your lawyer see the same thing twelve times a day and knew it wasn't going anywhere.

      Or maybe you're a dick and they weren't inclined to help you.

      She obviously didn't do anything. Get over it and get on with your life.

    105. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      According to the article, the guy's mother said he was a minor which would lead me to believe he was still in high school. If this is the case, it's just a kid being a kid.

      I know I wasn't emotionally mature enough in high school to treat my girlfriend as well as she deserved.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    106. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Fake your own death, worked for me, ...as I am now about 3 times departed, and working on my fourth demise.

    107. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My opinion is that women gave up their right to be taken lightly when they threaten violence when they got the right to be taken seriously as professionals. If it's wrong to expect a woman to fail at a "real job" than it's just as wrong to assume she'd fail at committing a crime.

    108. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      I'd have to be hard-pressed to marry someone bi-polar. Nothing against these people, it's just that I don't need to complicate my life. Then on top of that, I married a woman and before that I lived together with three other women (no, not at the same time) for a total of 12 years, and I can honestly say that people don't change overnight when you move in. They just don't. There was one psycho amongst them, and she was damaged goods way before she and I shacked up, which was visible to all but me because.... I was being a dumb-ass.

      So there you have it. I agree with the original poster. Unfortunately, somethings in life we can't be told. Some things in life we need to experience in order to learn them. And I guess, in all honesty, this is what the dude with the psycho ex can chalk this up to.

      Having said that, there is the question "why?". We have no clue why this woman turned psycho. There may be good reasons for it. Usually things happen for a reason.

    109. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      No, physical abuse is just as common, if not more common by women. It's just that there's a social stigmata attached to men being abused by women, so it's vastly underreported. And when it is reported, it's likely to be counted as abuse against women, because guess what happens when a man reports violence? That's right -- the abusive woman will say "he hit me first", and the police will believe her, because they have the same bias as you do.

      Do you want to prove that because the statistics I refer to come from Home Office studies in the UK which are not primarily from self-reported victims to the police. One of the Home Office reports is here (the 1999 report, I don't have a later report to hand). You'll note that incidents of domestic abuse between adults are slightly higher for males abusing women, but not greatly so, and the degree of violence used from males to females is also slightly more extreme than the other way around.

      I don't know why you would accuse me of having "a bias". A victim of abuse is a victim of abuse whether they are male or female and both are common enough that no assumptions should be made in either case and a male shouldn't be derided for being a victim any more than a female should be. Did you even click the image link in my original post?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    110. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Slime-dogg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your marriage lasts longer than your courtship you're doing it wrong.

      There is something deeply flawed about this statement.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    111. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I wonder about those people who willingly marry others that are taking Lithium as a treatment. Yes, you are marrying someone who is certifiably crazy.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    112. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She obviously didn't do anything

      Except attempt to rob him of over $3000 per month.

    113. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he lived in Soviet Russia none of that would have ever happened.

    114. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time she's 30, hopefully society will be on the way to being over the whole "we're going to judge your employment potential based on some dumb shit you did on the Internet when you were a teenager" thing.

    115. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, that is.

    116. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      There are people that can help you (for a price of course). They will help find her weaknesses and help you use them to break her as much as is needed. Mentally unstable women are the most fun as you can bring them to the brink of suicide - and over if ultimately needed. They can only win if you let them, and if you let them you deserve what's coming to you.

      Wow, the A-Team have certainly changed their game.

    117. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by tehcyder · · Score: 0
      Yes, because people always act exactly according to their national stereotypes.

      Moron.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    118. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Document, document, document.

      Pay for a good lawyer.

      Sue her for harrassment.

      Get a counter protection order.

      Report her to child protection authorities.

      Stop being stupid. Play smart. Don't take prisoners.

    119. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      None of us were there, none of us know what happened, and she probably is just a psychobitch

      Read that sentence back to yourself a couple of times, and then go look up the words "internal contradiction".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    120. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Builder · · Score: 1

      2 years if uncontested. 5 years if the other party contests anything.

      Psycho Vengeful Bitches(tm) tend to contest these things.

      "If I have 5 years, I'm sure I'll get him to forgive me and come back..."

    121. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      It took me a minute or two to realize you meant the dominatrix interpretation. At first I thought you were embarrassed because no one says "webmaster", anymore.

    122. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      You're just making shit up, it doesn't take 5 years, and people I''ve known haven't "put their life on hold" at all. Both sides are normally out having fun pretty quickly once they know it's over.

      I know it can get messy and unpleasant if kids/psychos are involved, but in itself divorce just isn't that big a deal nowadays.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    123. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It's quite simple: people change once they're married.

      Dude, people's characters don't change much past about eight years old.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    124. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your marriage lasts longer than your courtship you're doing it wrong.

      Huh? Did you get that backwards, or are you suggesting that people effectively never get married if they want to stay together "forever"?

    125. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      Due to social factors, including perceived bias and trying to avoid the stigma of being abused by a woman (often seen as emasculating) I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of non-violent men being abused by violent women is much higher than reported. I don't have statistics in front of me, or I would be quoting them, but it would come to no surprise to me if men in those circumstances would be even more reluctant to admit to abuse than women.
      Consequently, I believe it is very probable that women who are prone to violence will be more likely to use it, as they won't face nearly the same penalties that men would in the same circumstances.

      This is anecdotal, I know, but a woman I know was in a mutually violent relationship (they would start by arguing, and end up by hitting each other and/or throwing things). While they were both, in my mind, equally guilty of being violent, the police would ALWAYS take her side. He was the one threatened with jail time, or was forced to find somewhere else to sleep for a few days. It's an attitude that seems to be changing, though.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    126. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      What's sad, is that as liberal minded as I think I am, I never considered that perspective, and you're absolutely right. Maybe we should be glad this is as far as she got.

    127. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

      Best advice ever! lol And when the divorce is finished; change your name, social security number and disappear off the grid for a couple years.

    128. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      After 2 years of divorce and giving my ex everything, my ex then started threatening my unborn son,

      After two years of divorce, and while you were dating your soon-to-be new wife, you were fucking your ex and got her pregnant? Or was it your soon-to-be new wife who got pregnant while you were still married?

      I'm not entirely sure who I'm supposed to be rooting for here.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    129. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by gmiller123456 · · Score: 1

      That's not surprising, the police have no duty to protect you:
      http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

      "In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff's 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: "What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?" Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another. "

      If your lawyer didn't listen, you need a new lawyer. Or maybe you just need to listen to your lawyer, the fact that you're still alive shows they were just empty threats.

    130. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      It makes sense for relationships lasting a total of up to five years or so.

    131. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you discover you're dating a vengeful psycho bitch, don't ever break up with her.

      Learn to bury the body deeper.

    132. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Nemi · · Score: 2

      I don't believe to two seconds that there were no indications that she could do this kind of thing. My guess is that you never knew she could do this kind of thing *to you*. You mean to tell me that she never showed that she was self-centered, and didn't take responsibility for her actions in all the time you were together? Seriously? Never turned on one of her friends? Never did something bad and then blamed others when she got caught for it? Never acted like she was entitled to things she didn't earn? Never?

      The problem is that people need to understand that you really don't know someone until you see them in a crisis situation, and that can take years. However, watching their general behavior can tell you much. Most people will rationalize their SO's bad behavior by saying "she would never do that to me though".

    133. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by the_saint1138 · · Score: 1

      And I thought my crazy-ex-girlfriend story was horrifying... As the (former?) target of a psychopath, I had multiple encounters with police (who tended to assume guilt) and all my online accounts hacked and defaced. I would.still be dealing with it today if she hadn't gotten caught in a bald faced lie to the cops, which was just dumb luck. You have my sympathy good sir.

    134. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Since when has love been rational?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    135. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      We have a winner!!!

      Countlessly, I've seen friends mask horrible insights into their other's behavior because they like sex. The expression, "love is blind", is completely true; albeit, with "sex is blind", to be far more accurate. All too often, so long as sex is involved, people absolutely refuse to critically review the compatibility of their mate. All too often, their search for compatibility starts and ends at body parts.

      The result really isn't surprising because they are taking all of their cues from society. Society very clearly tells men to hunt sex. Sex is a prize and women are a necessity of that prize. Society very clearly tells women to use sex as a weapon and to clue men as harshly as possible when you can't otherwise manipulate your way. Which basically means, from day one they are not only using each other, but manipulating each other. Their relationship has absolutely no basis of compatibility. Hardly surprising that selfish, manipulative people, who refuse to examine their relationship beyond body part compatibility, have such horribly failures in their relationship.

      And as a side note, the often portrayed, "strong, black women, relationship godess", is the perfect recipe to completely destroy any and all relationships. And its not just me saying so. Statistically, black women have the worst relationships, typically without a man, with kids, and extremely unhappy. Moreso, black men are being pushed away from black women by black women. Far too many black women have been brainwashed by "black culture" and especially shitty movies, which teach black women to be whores and alone; incompatible with any self respecting man. The movie, "Guess Who", has a great example of dysfunctional, "black" relationships. I point this out because many aspects of non-black society embrace many of the same dysfunctional concepts, but to a lessor, less passionate degree.

    136. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that's what it was meant to mean when I made it up. However, the post I replied to implied the dominatrix interpretation, so I answered him with a proper explanation of the origin of my username.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    137. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by kv9 · · Score: 1

      gb2kitchenz~ yuk yuk yuk!

    138. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by wikdwarlock · · Score: 1

      What? If your marriage lasts longer than your courtship, you're doing it right, provided your courtship was sufficiently long. If people are married for 45 years, and they courted for 2, they've "do[ne] it wrong"?

      --

      "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    139. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Nope. Never. She did charity work (I made enough for both of us when we got married).

      She volunteered at the SPCA and various soup kitchens for the homeless in those 11 odd years.
      She never once turned bitchy to her friends or family. She frequently helped out (pro bono - she's a lawyer) in cases involving street children. She frequently baked goodies for me to take to work to share with colleagues.

      In *all* of the years I've known her, she never *once* had anything bad to say about anyone. Fair enough, she had a quick temper, but I honestly cannot say she ever tried or threatened harm to any human (or other creature).
      p> Of course, you can go ahead and say "you were just blind", but the fact is, I'm not the only one who thought she was genuinely nice - hell, when the separation first happened, my parents thought it was something *I* did, as they could not believe that she was capable of all those things (she also tried to put my dogs down while I was in jail - I managed to save two of them - the third had an unknown fate).

      For the first few weeks, my parents watched me like a hawk, certain that I was cheating on my wife, or something similar ... they asked me if I was on drugs, if I beat her, etc ... sometimes I get the impression that they still can't believe that she is capable of actually putting my dog down while I was in jail.

      All in all, she was a good person, and (until the last few weeks) a good wife as well. I think she may have quietly had a breakdown in the last few weeks (she miscarried 2 months before the separation), and all I did was argue about the symptoms I could see. I should have got her help.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    140. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      More like the lesson should be...

      Always have a sex video handy for collateral.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    141. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by gknoy · · Score: 1

      The trouble is, how do you know that someone's outgrown the "doing stupid shit out of revenge" thing? Employers looking at a stack of applications are likely to pass over someone even remotely risky like that.

    142. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... So even though I've been happily married for 10 years, I'm wrong because I didn't court her for more than 10 years?
       
      Just kidding - I understand what you meant, that's just some poor wording there, Lou.

    143. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by gknoy · · Score: 1

      You don't occupy the same house. You don't wake up next to each-other every day. You don't go to sleep next to each-other every night. You don't have to balance a budget, or deal with bills. You just see each-other periodically for fun stuff.

      So true. I firmly believe that people who are courting should live together for a year (preferably) before a proposal, and then while engaged. There's a lot of stress to deal with at that time, and sharing responsibilities like that will basically show you what being married will be like. You'll know that he's a grumpy waker, she gets at WTF-thirty in the morning, etc.

      The trick is to find somebody you like, and then actually get to know them well enough to learn what kind of baggage they've got. And, at the same time, be honest enough that they can see what kind of baggage you've got.

      That's a very good way to explain it. :)

    144. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a Japanese game show.

    145. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I occasionally think about what the Simpsons would be like today if Phil Hartman was still alive.

      R.I.P.
      Lionel Hutz
      Troy McClure
      Mr. Muntz

    146. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Due to social factors, including perceived bias and trying to avoid the stigma of being abused by a woman (often seen as emasculating) I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of non-violent men being abused by violent women is much higher than reported. I don't have statistics in front of me, or I would be quoting them, but it would come to no surprise to me if men in those circumstances would be even more reluctant to admit to abuse than women. Consequently, I believe it is very probable that women who are prone to violence will be more likely to use it, as they won't face nearly the same penalties that men would in the same circumstances.

      Well with the greatest respect, I do have statistics and, as I also pointed out, they don't come from police statistics but from the UK's Home Office British Crime Survey which is traditionally recognized as being one of the best sources for crime in the UK to the extent that the last Labour government got quite pissy with them because it undermined the more flattering figures coming from less examined methods such as police reported crimes. I don't know why you wish to show that women is "just as, or even more common" than that of men. Actually, I think I do. You feel there is an imbalance in society with how such things are treated and wish to redress that. But it really doesn't matter to a victim of domestic abuse whether they are in the majority or the minority - it's still a serious matter and you're currently arguing against someone who, in this thread, is the one that is posting statistics highlighting how common abuse of men by their female partners is. Men and women are two separate sides in some battle where injustice on one side can be made up for by injustice on the other. If there is to be a dividing line, then it is one between those who commit violent abuse and those that do not. Trying to create a second dividing line by fudging or denying likely facts only weakens the first dividing line by nudging people toward some sort of allegiance based on gender, not morality. I can see your anecdote and raise you one as I have several friends who I am aware have been physically abused by male partners, but only one male friend who I am aware has been abused by a former girlfriend. It's an anecdote. If we were to give weight to them, then our experiences would prove my case rather than yours, but they're just anecdotes. Male on female domestic violence is more common than the other way around, but that doesn't invalidate the suffering of any male victim. I get that you want to correct the impression that male victims aren't important - but that's what I was doing when I highlighted that for every four women who have been abused, three men have been. Arguing against me on that by trying to pump it up even higher, I think is counter-productive to what you want to achieve: you defeat misconceptions with truth, not different misconceptions.

      Sorry - all this is probably too harsh. I understand your good intentions and I agree that it must be hard for a man to own up to being the victim of domestic abuse and he may not taken as seriously sometimes. I'm very careful with what I write and challenges to my statements tend to get thorough replies. Men and women are not different sides and highlighting the concerns of one group shouldn't involve (mildly) demonising the other.
      H.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    147. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      Since you haven't even attempted to perform the Turing test on me, I fail to see how you can assert that I don't pass the test. Hand in your geek card for lack of knowledge about your own trendy references.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    148. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, yes, I'm a girl. A real one.

      Found a Unicorn in my yard today too...

    149. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Did he say "F*CK YOUR BOAT!"

      obscure joke?

    150. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by rgviza · · Score: 1

      no it wouldn't, unless he actually stalked her. reposting someone's picture on the internet with funny captions is a simple copyright violation. By doing it without his permission she can be sued by him and the photographer, since there's no model release and the photographer owns the copyright.

      There's nothing to indicate that the woman stalked him.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    151. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      I'm curious to see what he did to deserve this kind of response.

      He broke up with her a few weeks before Valentine's day, obviously.

    152. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Heretic2 · · Score: 1

      There are quite a few "adult on-set" mental disorders that are triggered later in life or by hormonal changes (such as having a child). You can turn your back to a friend, you can't turn your back to a mental disorder--or a drug(s) whatever the case may be; which is to say, a friend suffering from a mental disorder onset or drug problem is no longer the same friend (or wife) nor should they be given equal trust. Sad, but it happens.

    153. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by j-beda · · Score: 1

      It's quite simple: people change once they're married.

      Dude, people's characters don't change much past about eight years old.

      That's probably largely true, however the act of "official marriage" often produces a change in behaviour and interpretation that can come as a surprise to both parties. Strangely enough, it is not uncommon to treat your roomate/lover different than your spouse. Relationships that are based on a couple deciding to live together can be very different from a couple promising each other to be together. The dynamics of the two foundations being different can lead to both different behaviour, and different feelings associated with identical behaviours. In one case person A might take out the garbage more regularly. In another case person B might feel stronger when the other fails to take out the garbage.

      For a couple that does not live together before marriage - it is obvious that things are going to be vastly different after marriage (and with that co-habitation). For couples that do live together before marriage, while there are likely a lot of areas where they have useful knowledge about each others' lifestyles, there is a potential complication of thinking that there will be no or few changes in their relationship after marriage. This can be compounded by lack of communication in either case, and lack of clarity of self knowledge.

    154. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by rgviza · · Score: 1

      dude I dated someone for 7 years, lived with her for 5, had a great relationship, got married, and 2 years into the marriage she was a completely different miserable psycho bitch.

      Some people don't show their true colors til you say "I do". The rest of it is an act so they can bind you to a contract and fuck you financially. Some people are just fucking evil. I can't think of any other way to describe it.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    155. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      Since you haven't even attempted to perform the Turing test on me, I fail to see how you can assert that I don't pass the test. Hand in your geek card for lack of knowledge about your own trendy references.

      Ok I accept your challege! Turing test at a time of your choosing.


      ...over a nice bottle of wine?

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    156. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Living with someone doesn't guarantee shit. Doesn't improve odds of shit, unless you stay in that arraignment forever. And then all it guarantees is that you can get out without a financial mess. The sad thing is, you got modded "insightful" for nothing more than childish feel good, fake insight.

      It is better to choose wisely and based on in depth companionship and mutual dedication, rather than on some flighty "we're in love" feeling, that can go away in about 2 seconds. Real love is manifested in daily attributes that cannot be "faked", and don't go away when you're in a pissy mood.

      However, in today's world, such a relationship is not valued as much as hot bodies writhing is ecstasy. Which is why women end up with the worst of it, as there is always someone younger and hotter than she'll ever be. And guys who chase after the young hot babes end up old lonely broke men. After all, once the money is all gone, what is there that a young hottie would want with an old shriveled up man who needs little blue pills.

      The REAL moral of the story is to choose wisely at the start. Because if all you have in the beginning is great sex, and that goes away after awhile, you'll end up being bitter and psycho.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    157. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* ... and a simple "no" would have sufficed.

      I've come to the conclusion that the internets are a lousy place to meet girls. they're all crazy, or taken, or ugly, or fat, or they live 600 miles away, or they stop replying to your messages if you suggest meeting irl. or quite possibly some combination of all or several those things.

      p.s.
      I realise that you've claimed that your chosen username has nothing to do with any sort of dominatrix habits, but my overall reaction to your posts is something along the lines of, "oww! ugh... yeah, again! spank me harder!"

      p.p.s.
      I've lost track of the troll status. I think there are probably a few counter- statuses in there somewhere by now. even numbers negate, right? I'm not sure whether this evaluates out to a "troll" or a "counter-troll".

      p.p.p.s.
      you've got feist. I like it.

      p.p.p.p.s.
      I am not the same anonymous coward.

      p.p.p.p.p.s.
      I doubt you cared.

    158. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Or just avoid getting married to someone you have not lived with long enough to find out about all their flaws.

      More like avoid getting married at all. That's a sure ticket to the friend zone.

      Dating strangers is like shooting fish in a barrel. There might be plenty of fish, but you're guaranteed to end up with... a cold dead fish. Whereas what you described is more like winning the jackpot in the lottery... unless you blow it royally, you ought to be set for life... but as a general rule it's just not going to happen.

    159. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      They always tell me "but she suddenly changed!". And I go: "So she didn't expect you to read her mind and moods before, ever?..."

      My wife's personality changed when her birth control prescription changed. And that's not even "I'm Crazy" medication. You should try to evaluate mates as well as possible, but sometimes you gotta cut someone some slack.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    160. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      There's justice, and there's abuse. Someone going to jail because of how they treat someone is (presumably) justice. Libellous captioning of photographs is harassment and thus abuse.

      Hedwards clearly doesn't feel poor treatment warrants revenge abuse. That doesn't mean he's ok with it, just that he's balanced enough not to overreact.

    161. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I court for 4 years, then marry for 60, I'm doing it wrong?

    162. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Builder · · Score: 1

      I'm really not making shit up, but feel free to cite statutes to show otherwise.

      In the UK (as I originally made clear!), you have to be separated for 2 years if neither party contests the divorce or 5 years if either of the two parties wishes to contest it. That means if you want a divorce and your other half doesn't, they can force your marriage to continue for another 5 years. Oh, and that's just the separation requirement before you can file. Once you've actually filed, things can then start to get messy and drag out.

      As for putting your life on hold for that time, that's subjective. But I was responding to a quote that advised people going through a divorce not to touch / look at another woman while the process is ongoing. That would mean not starting another relationship for half a decade if either party is contesting the divorce. I know lots of perfectly happy couples where one of the other (or in one case, both) are happily living together and starting their new life while still married to someone else - that's because they've still got three years on the clock before they can file for divorce. If they followed the advice of not looking at another MOTOS while going through the divorce, they never would have met and their lives would have been substantially less full.

    163. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't give the Turing test much credit anymore after a microwaved fleshlight somehow managed to pass it...

    164. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I stay married to my wife for the rest of my life, I will have failed? Parent post is not insightful.

    165. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If your marriage lasts longer than your courtship you're doing it wrong."

      that makes no sense.

      it would also lead to almost all children having parents who ar divorced before the children leave home.

    166. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Yes, lots of people ignore obvious warning signs. That doesn't change the fact that the act of marriage frequently flips the "psycho" switch into the "on" position for many people, no matter how long you've known the sane alterego beforehand.

    167. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Alright, granted that's a problem.

      I still don't see how you pulled "Columbine is a better option" out of this thread.

    168. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I knew her for 15 years. I also knew that she was bi-polar. HOWEVER, she was on lithium and doing just fine. Then lo and behold, she was pregnant with our daughter. So, I did the right thing (for somebody in their 40's, that was the right thing; I would not recommend it now).

      Sadly, she went off the lithium and became NASTY to ppl. I could not stand it. So I started the divorce.

      Hopefully, that will solve your desire to judge so quickly without having a single clue of what you talk about. But I doubt it. It will probably take you another 30-50 years to mature.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    169. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think things can dramatically change with a divorce too. For many people, marriage is an ideal, something they looked forward too all their lives, and when they're married essentially they've fulfilled their dreams and satisfied their family's expectations, and so forth. Even if the marriage has some problems they will still see it as something to be fixed or a temporary setback or mentally separate the problems with the marriage from the idea of marriage itself. "Being married" is a part of their self image. Then when divorce comes everything snaps, sometimes this happens even with break ups before marriage. Lovers turn into mortal enemies overnight, egos rise up, self-esteem crumbles, etc. There's a feeling that a massive injustice and betrayal has been done, sort of like investing in a stock fund for decades only to discover that it was a ponzi scheme. It's a psychological break down. These are emotions, and they're bound to do illogical things.

      This is more common than many think I suspect, and I think the amicable divorce is not the most common. Some people can keep these angry feelings to themselves though.

    170. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I am sorry to hear that. Your ex sounds similar. Most states of America ARE back-ass wards on this issue. I would have to say that prior to my experience I would have wondered if you were exaggerating. Now, I know better. There really are a lot of twisted women out there who want to do as much damage as they can in this world, rather than simple enjoying life and learning to get along.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    171. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      He says right in that post that she was using Lithium and stopped, though he doesn't say if she stopped before or after he filed for divorce

    172. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Sparton · · Score: 1

      If your marriage lasts longer than your courtship you're doing it wrong.

      There is something deeply flawed about this statement.

      Perhaps he meant...

      If your marriage after the divorce [lasted] longer than your courtship you're doing it wrong.

    173. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you just didn't stop to think about the possible meanings of what AmiMoJO said. Essentially, the implication is that if your courtship ends simply because you are married, then you got married for the wrong reasons; if you married someone because he/she was someone that you loved enough to continue courting them for the rest of your lives , then the courtship never ends, and thus lasts longer than the marriage.

    174. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Bravo! +1

      I myself couldn't agree more, here's one for the misogynists!

      Spoken by someone most likely never subjected to the tender mercies of the divorce industry.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    175. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Yes, because people always act exactly according to their national stereotypes.

      Moron.

      It's called playing the odds.
      Moron.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    176. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Mod this AC up (never thought I'd say that).

    177. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying people who have been married for 20 years and are 50 years old must have been courting eachother since they 10?

      Man, sucks to be people who have been married for 40 years and are 60-70. Must have been difficult to court their significant other likely even before their dad had met their mom.

    178. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Obligatory "Obligatory xkcd link" http://xkcd.com/391

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    179. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by BraksDad · · Score: 1

      Is there another kind?

      --
      Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
    180. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternative: move to a country that is less fixated on solving all problems in the courtroom (e.g. most EU countries). It probably also helps to avoid the more religious parts of the world as they tend not to appreciate that love is not always eternal.

    181. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      D'oh.

      Granted, it would have been much clearer if he had said "if your courtship ends when you get married" rather than saying "if your marriage lasts longer than your courtship".

    182. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      I apologize, I actually meant to reply to the person above you (arth1). I don't disagree with anything you've said, and in fact I find it very insightful, which is how I would have moderated you if I had mod points right now, rather than replying.

      Again, sorry for the confusion. It's entirely my fault for being careless where I click.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    183. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      And the idea that males may be the victims of abuse is actively repressed by social science "researchers" and statistics gathering agencies. It's awful hard to know how many men are being abused when, for example, a domestic violence "research" project based in hospital emergency rooms only asks the female patients if their injuries are from partners. Why only females? Well "we" "know" they are the vast majority of victims so it would be a waste of resources to even bother asking how many male victims exist... um, right?

      The press helps this along by generally only giving attention to female victims - in both "news" articles and in opinion pieces.

      A particularly egregious example was in Calgary Alberta where the police were directly ordered, as official policy, to make an arrest on any domestic violence call. Didn't matter if there were no evident signs of violence - if the neighbours heard shouting and screaming and reported domestic violence then it was a DV call and they had to make an arrest. Guess which spouse got the criminal record... sure helps bolster those stats on spousal violence against women.

      It's pretty much the same process that promotes the "womeno nly make $0.65 on the dollar compared to men" bit of propaganda that is still repeated by people who know better.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    184. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Some people are very good a hiding who they really are - until they get what they want. Girls are practically trained for this in our society. And stop blaming the victim.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    185. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clearing that up. I did wonder why we were arguing. ;)
      H.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    186. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes me wonder if there's one pervasive bias behind this and many other differences in the treatment of men and women: a (presumably false) belief that women are less responsible for and in control of events than men. It'd be interesting to know if any psychologists have found such a thing. If it exists it could conceivably cause differences in everything from hiring for high ranking jobs or voting patterns to the treatment of abuse victims, drunken sex partners or suspected criminals.

    187. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Number 2 or 3 on this wikipedia disambiguation. Both mean pretty much the same thing, just in different realms.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    188. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Amen, worked for me.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    189. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by pugugly · · Score: 1

      I can say your stats conflicts with the stats I've seen; with the caveat that I recall my source as being (U.S. Federal) governmental, but not where I found it --
      Although physical abuse is (Slightly) more common male > female, female on male abuse is (considerably) more likely to cause traumatic injury, hospitalization, or death, primarily due to the greater likelihood of using a weapon.

      This was about a decade ago, so this may have been inaccurate, been proved inaccurate since then, or even that I simple do not remember it correctly. They also did use a correction factor for under-reporting by men, which I instinctively distrust because badly computed correction factors can prove anything, but at the time the way they derived it seemed reasonable.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    190. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Jello+B. · · Score: 1

      As for my somewhat silly username, I chose it when I was 17 when webmistress was my "trendy" way of saying "female webmaster" - which was rare and somewhat mystic at the time! So for the millionth time, I'd like to point out that my username does not have (or wasn't intended to) have the connotations you are likely thinking of (and which I, myself, have since noticed) but that I want to keep my (relatively) low UID.

      god dammit no. i was pointing it out because your username includes reference to your gender.

    191. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Are the courts really sympathetic over there or something? Because in the US, starting a relationship with someone else - even if you're legally separated - is just asking for trouble in the form of a divorce decree that, although it's a no-fault divorce, feels a lot like an at-fault divorce in terms of alimony and child support. ESPECIALLY if you're male.

    192. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Builder · · Score: 1

      Demon rabbits scare me ! But on to the reply :D

      I think the key difference in the US is that you can get a divorce in a reasonable amount of time, so you're expected to keep it in your pants for that time. Because you can end up having to wait half a decade just to start proceedings here, I think it's viewed differently. The separation is the point at which you decided the relationship was over.

      Having said that, even though you're separated and moving on with your life, it's not hard for the other party to claim that this was your plan all along and that you were with that person before.

    193. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made a similar mistake. Met a girl and we started seeing each other, obviously. Things were awesome. We saw each other almost every day, she slept over a lot of the time. Eventually she had to leave her apartment and came to live with me for a while. Things were still great. I eventually bought a house and made the mistake of putting her name on the deed & mortgage. The very day we moved in to our new place together, the problems started.

      Nothing I had seen prepared me for the sudden change in personality. She became bitchy and controlling and wanted everything *just so*. My family really liked her up until that point but she managed to squander all that good will in the course of a couple days through her rudeness. Looking back, I definitely rushed in to it but I really thought she was the one. Now I'm stuck in the house (with her) because we can't sell it. Well, I could always walk away but that's not an option I want to entertain.

      It is possible for people to change dramatically so suddenly. I saw it, my family saw it, all of my friends saw it.

      As another anecdote -- I have an experience with the police that differs from what people seem to expect. When it happened, I was honestly surprised. One night we had been drinking and got in to an argument. She began to slap me in the face, so I pushed her away. She came at me again, so I pushed her away again. She yelled at me to get out of "her room", and when I refused to leave *our* room she called the 911 and said I had been hitting her. She started sobbing, putting on a whole act. I was just like, "I can't fucking believe you." The dispatcher told her to get in to a room she could lock, and she did, so I got dressed and went downstairs and waited for the cops to arrive. They got there and asked me what happened and I told them. They asked her, separately, what had happened and she told them. She had zero marks on her and my cheek was red from being slapped repeatedly... so they cuffed her and arrested her.

      Just re-telling this story makes my blood run cold... fucking bitch.

    194. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      All Hail the Disney Princessess!

    195. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      You aren't even the same poster who claimed that I'd failed the test... however I'd like to see a computer troll like this. Start reading from the parent of the poster. Or is it the GP? Never mind. I even got modded up (but then the bragging got modded down, negating the overall effect!)

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    196. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, speaking as a woman who has been on the pill as a hormone correction method for quite a long time, you should consider birth control meds "I'm Crazy" medication. They can really, really change your behavior and I wish doctors told people that BEFORE they prescribed them.

      In my case they thankfully improved anxiety/depression issues, but they can also throw you completely in the opposite direction. Hormones are powerful things; screwing with them will give you unexpected results.

      Heck, my sister had her parathyroid flip out -- no warning. Her personality changed a TON due to just that. If it'd happened after she was married I could certainly see a husband saying "she suddenly changed!"

      So I guess I'm saying yeah, what AdamThor said.

    197. Re:Let that be a lesson to you! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      What Coren22 says; but why kidding @"intrigued and would like to...."? ;/ (well, ignoring for a moment that's something I must yet get around to)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  3. visa versa by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Informative

    vice versa.
    vice is pronounced either as one syllable or two (two is traditional).

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:visa versa by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      You see, "visa versa" is when an American goes to India to take an IT job away from Indians.

    2. Re:visa versa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they meant visa versa, as the boyfriend often used her credit card. It's sort of like the term "credit card baby", but doesn't require you to wear pastels to use it.

    3. Re:visa versa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vice versa.
      vice is pronounced either as one syllable or two (two is traditional).

      the visa versa is the visa card-specific verse of the song sung by venetian gondoliers when customers pay using credit cards,

    4. Re:visa versa by JustOK · · Score: 0

      thought visa versa was a car you bought with a credit card.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:visa versa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could go all classical-like and pronounce it weekay-wairrrsah.

    6. Re:visa versa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in correct Latin: wee-keh wehr-sah

    7. Re:visa versa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha. thank you for a good start today morning :)

    8. Re:visa versa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no such thing as "correct Latin". Perhaps you mean Classical Latin with a Roman accent. But we're so proud of you for using wikipedia.

    9. Re:visa versa by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Well, two is traditional, but your title completely fucked up the rest of the traditional pronunciation.

      "WEE-key WER-sa."

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    10. Re:visa versa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to pronounce in like an English word, it's like "vise versa". If you're going to pronounce it like Latin, it's "wee-keh wehr-sah" because Latin doesn't have soft C or V sounds. I don't see how somebody can get "vise-uh versa" except by some conflation of the two possible pronunciations.

      dom

    11. Re:visa versa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vice versa.
      vice is pronounced either as one syllable or two (two is traditional).

      In Latin (real Latin, not Catholic Church Latin) the letter "C" is always pronounced as a "K" and "V" is always pronounced as a "W". You don't have silent vowels in words (although you do have dipthongs such as the combo 'ae' pronounced as "Aye").
      So the correct Latin pronunciation is something similar to "Wick-eh Wer-zuh", always two syllables. And that salad or the Ruler of Rome is actually a "Kai-zar" not a "See-zere".

      But when we're using it mixed with English, you can anglicize it however you really want to and it's not technically "wrong" since you're not speaking Latin. In common English usage the first word is almost always pronounced just like you hear it in the title "Miami Vice", and the second is almost always pronounced as "Verse- Uh". Although you do hear some people stretch the first word with a little bit of an "Uh" on the end, usually in an attempt to sound smart.

    12. Re:visa versa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vice is pronounced either as one syllable or two (two is traditional).

      Like in vice squad?

    13. Re:visa versa by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I thought it was when you used your Visa card in Soviet Russia and it charged YOU.

  4. Captions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    She could easily have done much worse than captions. Think 4chan.

    1. Re:Captions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not your personal army, newfag

    2. Re:Captions? by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 2

      You're right. He doesn't even have a penis on his face yet

    3. Re:Captions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nypa

    4. Re:Captions? by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

      I dunno, they were pretty bad. I didn't laugh at any of them. Some of them made me think "wow, to date a guy like that she must have low standards, or is an idiot."

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    5. Re:Captions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. He doesn't even have a penis on his face yet

      That would be ironic, because a penis on the face was what caused the breakup in the first place.

  5. Love the `cute' tone of the article by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the genders had been reversed, he would have been judged guilty of criminal sexual assault and categorized as a violent sexual offender. Gotta love those double standards.

    1. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by lcampagn · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct; however, thanks to the double standard, I am free to find the situation hilarious.

    2. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing that says she hasn't also filed fraudulent rape charges.

    3. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If the genders had been reversed, he would have been judged guilty of criminal sexual assault and categorized as a violent sexual offender. Gotta love those double standards.

      Welcome to the human race.

      It's women who decide who to mate with - because they're the ones with the most invested in the results.

      Simple biology.

      (OT, but somewhat related: the next time some feminist tries to use the fact that female chimps are very promiscuous, you get to use the fact that the male chimp beats the living shit out or even kills of any female chimp that he finds cheating on him....)

    4. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I totally 100% second that. Women are as vile as men, if not a bit more mentally devious to compensate for lack of body strength.

    5. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      And Interpol would be all over his ass.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    6. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's women who decide who to mate with - because they're the ones with the most invested in the results.

      It's females who decide who to mate with - because they actually _are_ selective. Most males, in any species, mostly try to "mate" with anything that walks ans at least slightly looks like a compatible species. If males were, for whatever reason, pickier than females, then it would seem that they were the ones to decide.

    7. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the past men chose, not women or girls.

      Read the old testament. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 for example. It is a law that has raped virgin girls married to their rapist (man).

    8. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is simple game theory (as in a subclass of statistics not lay guides). If you are unattractive or believe yourself to be unattractive then the other party will be the one setting the price or making the rules. You can change that by being more attractive or simple behave as if you are more attractive.

    9. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 1

      How exactly would he have been charged of a physical, violent crime by posting images?

      --
      In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
    10. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (OT, but somewhat related: the next time some feminist tries to use the fact that female chimps are very promiscuous, you get to use the fact that the male chimp beats the living shit out or even kills of any female chimp that he finds cheating on him....)

      Don't forget their tendency to kill the children of any former mate, too. Or, if they get a chance, the offspring of other chimps.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think child support taken in to account the opposite is true. For women, children are a meal ticket. Men are committing to 18+ years of monthly payments.

    12. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes and the entire reason is because "It's women who decide who to mate with - because they're the ones with the most invested in the results."

      a woman can only have 1 baby in 9 months (barring fertility drugs or twins) with one male...thus she needs to be choosy because there is a large time commitment in it for her to have a child, and during portions of this time she is more vulnerable/weaker than at other times. they have to invest a lot of time before they will have a chance to have another child, so she needs to make sure the father has good genes. this is the reason they are selective.

      during that same time a male can father as many baby's as there are females he finds willing to have sex with him. he doesn't need to be choosy. he can possibly even move on to the next female an hour or two later. his time investment is very minimal, it doesn't even really matter if one woman has poor genes, it still means an extra child that his genes were passed to. he doesn't need to be selective.

    13. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck has this got to do with anything?

    14. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct that men chose... but your interpretation of which man is faulty.

      In fact, the father got to decide. If he didn't want her marrying the guy, the guy didn't get to marry her - but still had to pay the dowry price. And as she was damaged goods she probably wouldn't find another husband, certainly not one who could pay a dowry at least.

    15. Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article by pete_norm · · Score: 1

      Most males, in any species, mostly try to "mate" with anything that walks ans at least slightly looks like a compatible species.

      My dog tries to "mate" with my leg all the times and it doesn't even look like a dog... You're severely underestimating the males' "urges"!

  6. somebody by gladbach · · Score: 1, Interesting

    HIRE THIS GIRL! I wonder if she is the one who submitted this to /. ?

    --
    "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
    1. Re:somebody by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hire her?

      And hope you don't have to fire her?

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    2. Re:somebody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why yes, that's just what the work place needs! More sociopaths!

    3. Re:somebody by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Funny

      SEOs are kinda slimy anyway, even when they're normal human beings... a *good* SEO who happens to be vindictive and psycho?

      What are you, high!?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:somebody by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Why yes, that's just what the work place needs! More sociopaths!

      Apparently you haven't been keeping up with recent events concerning Wall Street brokers and bankers...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:somebody by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Good God, why? I didn't see anything funny at all in that montage.

    6. Re:somebody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah hire someone who thinks libel is cute and is obviously a psycho.

    7. Re:somebody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If she's the one submitting, and if I'm an employer, I totally don't want to hire her. It's like bringing a nice polar bear into your house... you never know when it'll attack you if you're not 100% careful all snapshot of time.

    8. Re:somebody by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      Everybody is a sociopath! The psycho's just don't bother lying about it! Honesty goes a long way!

  7. Umm... Revenge Fail. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While her Google-fu may be good, I'd say that Mr. Weppler's ex could use some work in the wit and viciousness departments.

    Without exception, the captions were humorless and(at least without some knowledge of Weppler's background and/or personal life/activities) not at all cutting. A few generic insults, some just nonsensical.

    She also seems to have chosen a photo(looks almost like a studio shot rather than a candid) that, while it probably doesn't show him as a genius master of fashion(I'm no judge of this stuff, I can't tell), appears to be reasonably flattering. Neutral background, no embarrassing props/situations/penises sharpied onto his face. Hair and clothes, whether or not well chosen, are in good order, and the lighting is suppressing any facial acne/irregularities.

    Plus, of course, you have to be Really Good to pull off insults without sounding pathetic and petty when you are exiting a relationship(even harder when you are the dumped party). Presumably, every one of your oh-so-trenchant insults is either fictitious, or pertains to a quality possessed by somebody you were happy to date until just recently. That takes comedic talent to dodge, and she appears to lack it.

    1. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      Did you scroll down to the second page of results?

      Now, since a previous article complained about the lack of women participating in Wikipedia, maybe we can see some articles on Doing a Weppler, Wepplerizing, and Jack Weppler Demotivational Posters.

    2. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That was my thought. The photo wasn't really that bad, it's hardly the best portrait ever, but it's not really particularly embarrassing. The captions I saw were vulgar, but hardly anything that I'd expect to hurt somebody's feelings. I think the big deal of it is that he's apparently got a psychotic ex.

    3. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      to tell you the truth, I think she did just fine. an upper commenter notes that a boy doing this would have been charged with harassment and so on. I think it's smart to just do something annoying rather than offensive in this context.
      also, the point is that having a professional photo like that kind of makes you look superficial (at least to me).
      and taking into account that the boy is upset by this (and his mother too), I think the girl did what she set out to do (assuming her idea was to simply upset/hurt him). additionally, the boy's online presence will now be forever tainted by this.

      --
      new sig
    4. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah... none of them are funny. I don't get it. It's like those spoof movies, Scary Movie 12 or whatever, where they think doing something like putting in a random reference to a dancing vampire in the middle of a pirate movie is just high-larious.

    5. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What do you expect from a couple of teenagers? This is a kid who did this, not an adult woman. If you've ever had teenagers, you know they're ALL crazy.

    6. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The young man should sue. Defamation of character. Any other response, any praise for the girl is just plain wrong. The young man should walk away with her entire friggin college fund as far as I'm concerned. When shes working as a waitress to put herself through school, she might look back and realize that she fucked up.

    7. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

      Bush Sr. tries to insult Bart and Homer Simpson by hanging a banner.... "TWO BAD NEIGHBORS"

      Yep.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    8. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by NewsWatcher · · Score: 1

      Without exception, the captions were humorless and(at least without some knowledge of Weppler's background and/or personal life/activities) not at all cutting. A few generic insults, some just nonsensical.
       

      I read the captions, and while some were humourous, I reckon quite a few were vague, and a few were downright nasty.

      I doubt "I take cybersex to a whole new level" and "I can show you my dick" are particularly humouous, particularly to a kid in teens.

      In any case, it is probably up to Mr Weppler to decide what constitutes harmless fun and what is just harassment.

      --
      If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
    9. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also, the point is that having a professional photo like that kind of makes you look superficial (at least to me).

      You didn't have senior pictures taken?

    10. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      With the proliferation of student IDs at many schools, it's an annual occasion...

      Also, many of the captions suggest that he has some theater background(Oh, horror, she just called him an actor!). Not exactly wildly out of the ordinary for cast shots to be taken(especially now that some parent/teacher with an interest in the program can reliably be assumed, in many school districts, to have a reasonably fancy digital camera, and one of those 'neutral vaguely cloudy backdrop' screens doesn't cost that much and lasts for ages).

    11. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Oh, I totally support his right to be pissed, he would know better than I what hurts within his social context.

      I was just noting that, from the perspective of the jaded internet at large, the entire collection didn't even cause a facial muscle twitch. Probably not even breaking out of the bottom 25% in terms of vicious insult, and definitely below average in humor generally. Not even as funny as the average lolcat, and far less tasteless than the classic "You win the prize" or similar...

    12. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by anonymousNR · · Score: 1

      she probably wanted the images to show up in "safe mode" of google image search, going really bad ass would have simply hidden the images from regular search.

      --
      -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
    13. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I scrolled through far too many of those droll things looking for golden nugget in there somewhere. I left disappointed.

    14. Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's some truth to this, almost like she wanted to get even but kept staring at his mug thinking "I just want his attention, not humiliation, there may still be a chance"..

      What's funny is that the net has taken this and run with it to the point where Google isn't to blame at all. I was reading Beanstalk's SEO Services Blog and see they dug up the source and found the meme is already rolling along like Rick Astley..

      Y U NO vs. Jack Weppler

  8. Or rather by Snaller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you must date make sure not to date psychopaths.
    Better to just stay in the basement.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Or rather by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      If you must date make sure not to date psychopaths.
      Better to just stay in the basement.

      Already on it!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Or rather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn, online chat FTW and Palm and her 5 sisters FTW.

    3. Re:Or rather by mark-t · · Score: 1

      As you can sometimes never know what sort of person someone really is until you are in a relationship with them, the only way to be 100% sure never to date psychopaths is to never date at all.

      Oh right... this is slashdot.

      No worries, then.

    4. Re:Or rather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      crazy people seem normal usually.

      there are those (like my wife) who insist that all girls are crazy.

    5. Re:Or rather by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I think I'm in love with your wife.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    6. Re:Or rather by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you may not find out they are psychopaths until you wake up handcuffed to the bed.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    7. Re:Or rather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you're dating yourself, and if you still live in a basement, you may BE the psychopath. so no matter what, you lose.

    8. Re:Or rather by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

      But... but that's the best part!

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    9. Re:Or rather by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      While it is true that for most people you have to be around them before you can spot the pattern, especially if they are trying to hide it until they entrap you. If you are dealing with a actual psychopath, typically their charm blinds people at first to their actions. After a while, cracks appear. But, since they do not match the prior impression they are usually dismissed or ignored until it is too late.

      Regardless, pretty much anyone that shows significant interest and enjoyment from conning and hurting other people and the lack of conscience to actually follow through is typically dangerous to be around, one way or another, no psych degree required. It is also worth noting that human-form monsters of legend are based on characterizations of psychopaths and occasionally other dangerous personalities, from as ancient as the daemons to as modern as the lizard men conspiracy theorists harp about. The actual predators will give you the impression more through their actions than their appearance. The wanna-be's and willing victims will often imitate the appearance more than the actions.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  9. Now it is tech savvy to use the meme generator? by gblackwo · · Score: 1

    Journalism is dead.

    1. Re:Now it is tech savvy to use the meme generator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the article is saying she's tech savvy because she picked a site that returns HTTP 200 even when it removes an image, which is making it hard for Google to remove them.

  10. Dating is for grown-ups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you are minor and cannot stand for yourself, even to the extent of having your mom stand up for you, you shouldn't have started dating in the first place.

    Having a girlfriend is a fukken responsibility. The girl might actually be a little bitch, but her ex-boyfriend is a pussy beyond the hope of repair and totally deserves his fame.

    1. Re:Dating is for grown-ups by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      Mod this guy up! I mean, really. If he had just ignored it, the total number of people who knew about this would have been -far- less than 100. Now? Probably several million. And all because his mother got the press involved. *sigh* Some people don't seem to get the streisand effect.

    2. Re:Dating is for grown-ups by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2

      Really? Just how much say do you think the kid REALLY had in his mother getting involved? That's right, let's just make the kid suffer because his mother is a complete freaking idiot.

      Jackasses, both of you.

    3. Re:Dating is for grown-ups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viraling much?

    4. Re:Dating is for grown-ups by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      At the very least, he told her about it. I wouldnmt be surprised, though, if he -did- have a hand in it.

    5. Re:Dating is for grown-ups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously this is what the comments on slashdot have devolved into? "little bitch" , "pussy beyond hope of repair". Thanks for the population donation digg.com. **NOT**

      If you ask me, it's this fucking anon coward i'm responding too that needs to grow the fuck up. Doesn't know jack shit about responsibility and can't deliver a fucking f bomb properly too boot.

    6. Re:Dating is for grown-ups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, anon, do a favor and shut the fuck up.

      I do know about responsibilities, whilst all you know is talking shit in comments. Either show where the statement of growing responsible before starting to fuck people is false or just stop fucking around, git.

  11. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by Tablizer · · Score: 0

    Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord

    But when you're supernatural, you can get away with a lot of shit.

  12. That's so cute by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    In these days of a corporatized internet, it's endearing to know that one person with a bone to pick can still influence vast swaths of the public consumption of the internet.

    Now if only she had managed to get the images on Google Images and had the links going to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg

  13. DMCA to the rescue? by bigtallmofo · · Score: 2

    My minor son's ex-girlfriend took a copyrighted picture of him (we own copyright) and uploaded it more than 60 times to a website

    This might be the first good time I can think of to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The mother should've sent a DMCA takedown notice to every company hosting the image including Google. Instead of going through barely monitored channels, it would have gone through the highest priority channels because if they don't respond to a DMCA takedown notice in a timely manner, they're liable for damages.

    Based on the things the sick girl wrote on the images, it would seem the parents have a good case for libel against her. Many of her joking accusation are provably false and disparaging.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:DMCA to the rescue? by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right, that could have been done. But really, once it's on the internet, no matter what you do, it's there for good; there's always a cached copy somewhere out there, or someone with a copy who would just be amused to put it back out there.

      See Also: Sony v George Hotz

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    2. Re:DMCA to the rescue? by madowcopyrightowner · · Score: 1

      If I may pose a question: what slowness can I offer you?

      That was a question in regards to your statements about the DMCA. Could you please answer it?

      --
      Now, now, now's the time right now!
    3. Re:DMCA to the rescue? by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      in soviet Australia, truth is not a valid defense in libel cases.

      feels good man. feels like free speech.

    4. Re:DMCA to the rescue? by Ritchie70 · · Score: 0

      I don't really see how much of this is libelous. The full list of captions I found is listed out below.

      The only things that might be libelous are that he's gay and likes Kenny Loggins. Personally I'd be more concerned about the Kenny Loggins thing, that just shows bad judgement. Is being called gay considered libel any more? I have no idea.

      Don't you have to prove that these statements are false in a libel suit? So the kid would have to prove that he doesn't like Kenny Loggins, isn't gay, and hasn't engaged in anal sex. Better to just let it go.

      • Like a virgin, assfucked for the very first time.
      • Kenny Loggins is my savior
      • Mulan
      • My dream and my cardigan
      • Take me or leave me
      • To be or not to be? LOLJK I can't read
      • My sneaker collection makes me jizz in my pants
      • No homo, bro. LOLJK all homo
      • Every man's prison dream
      • I whip my dick back and forth
      • You got into Harvard? I got into AMDA.
      • Why so serious?
      • I be up in the gym workin' on my two pack.
      • I'll never talk again. Oh boy you left me speechless from deep throating you
      • Eat, sleep, theater. Repeat.
      • The stars are blind.
      • Bitches love my mom jeans
      • V-Necks mom jeans.
      • Today for you, tomorrow for me
      • Come here big boy.
      • I take cybersex to a whole new level.
      • Eat nuggets. Sleep. Sing. Repeat.
      • Two words: Bobby Kingston.
      • Her eyes prevail
      • I can show you my dick.
      • Can you like say something dirty?
      • ONly thing to do? Jump over the moon.
      • I can't be tamed.
      • Johhny Rockets all day every day
      • I'm the next Jim Carey.
      • This diva needs his stage.
      • Louis Vuitton dons
      • KFC
      • Chicken Nuggets Breakfast Lunch and Dinner.
      • Breakfast of champions: 8-piece McNugget Meal.
      • Here... now you will always have the key to my heart.
      • My dad makes movies in our basement. What does yours do?
      • You make my ass feel shiny and new.
      • No day but I'm gay
      • Floppy
      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    5. Re:DMCA to the rescue? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      After it hit slashdot and got a article written about, yeah, it might end up in some cache, but in general the ability of the Internet to store everything forever is vastly overrated. When it comes to small scale private stuff just deleting it makes it in general go away forever, as there is nobody there bothering to reupload it or even store it in the first place. Sony vs Hotz is a bad example, as that had tons of publicity and is of public interest.

    6. Re:DMCA to the rescue? by muridae · · Score: 1

      Libel/slander you have to both prove to be false, and prove that the person making the statement knew it to be false. Something along the lines of defamation per se, infringement on right of publicity, those you just have to prove that it actually occurred (and live in a country/state where there are laws concerning them).

    7. Re:DMCA to the rescue? by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      Even without the public interest, it will always exist in some dark corner of the internet; just because no one searches for it (or digs through pages and pages of results in character sets their browser doesn't know how to display to get to it), it will be somewhere. True, the publicity it's getting here will likely fuel this on a fair bit longer than it would ever go, but a few years down, there is always the possibility (with or without /. bringing it to the fore) that someone finds one of these images, thinks it amusing, and puts it out there again. Will it be of consequence to the party in the photo? Perhaps not, but it's there.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
  14. It's the same in IT contracting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Careful with your clients..

    Doesn't matter if you do a good job or not. If the guy who hired you isn't happy that you refused to do extra work outside of your contract - or for any reason really, maybe he didn't like your tone in a phone call at 3AM - he'll google your name and blast out accusations on mailing lists you frequent, comment on you in social media and submit you to ripoff report.

    Yes, I have experience with this, and while I did win my court case it remains a net loss for me. I still find myself explaining the whole mess to potential employers as a precursor to getting work, despite the incident having happened 6 years ago.

    The only way to win is to make sure that happy clients post as much or more. Fight fire with napalm.

    I can't imagine potential dates querying me on what happened years ago in a past relationship. Time to adopt pseudonyms on Facebook. Oh wait, then I'm creepy and paranoid. FML

    1. Re:It's the same in IT contracting. by jaroslaw.fedewicz · · Score: 1

      If my date ever wanted to know a thing about my past relationship, she would just *ask*. No need to say that if I ever found her grepping my phone for things, she wouldn't be my date anymore. That's awful to date anyone distrustful to that extent.

      But again, maybe that's precisely the reason why I don't have any dates. The 21st century is sick.

    2. Re:It's the same in IT contracting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But again, maybe that's precisely the reason why I don't have any dates.

      Well, that and the fact that not many girls think dinner in a basement is romantic.

    3. Re:It's the same in IT contracting. by jaroslaw.fedewicz · · Score: 1

      > Well, that and the fact that not many girls think dinner in a basement is romantic.

      Nice guess, but I have a fifth floor apartment and no basement at all. As well as possessing some skills in “romantic talk” girls tend to like, but which I'm constantly aware to be total and absolute bullshit.

      I think it takes quite a time to find a girl these days who would have honesty, trustworthiness, self-sacrifice, you name it, at a higher priority than making nonsensical poems about her (which are lousy quality ripoffs anyway), flowers (never found a delight in giving dead plants which last for several days tops), and dancing abilities (something which I was never interested in having).

      And if you ever find a girl not full of the sickeningly romantic bullshit, she will inevitably accuse you of not yet having a luxurious car or a similarly luxurious house (or better yet, both).

      Life sucks, and then you die.

  15. Made up? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but judging from the photos and the clueless text on them I guess the storry is completely made up.

    Regards

    angel'o'sphere

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:Made up? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      I suspect viral marketing.

    2. Re:Made up? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      you clearly have too much faith in your fellow humans.

    3. Re:Made up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but judging from the photos and the clueless text on them I guess the storry is completely made up.

      Regards

      angel'o'sphere

      Those clueless comments are the result of memegenerator. It's a site that you can upload images to, it generates a bunch of crappy "memes" and tags them on the pictures, and then puts them where engines like Google can find them. The idea is to try and start your own Meme.

      But judging by the fact this post showed up as "news" right about the time this pubescent vendetta was running out of steam, I'm going to guess that the submitter, "another similar", just happens to have a young daughter who was recently dumped by her boyfriend.

  16. Why is this news? by Rinnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't figure out why this is news in any way. First off, TFA suggests that they are minors. So just to set the stage, we're essentially talking about a teenage breakup here. Not a great start. Next, we have a girl who decided it would be fun to post images of her boyfriend all over the Internet. Wow, that's a new one! I've never heard of anything like this before! And to top it all off, the double standard here is absurd. As another poster already mentioned, if the shoe was on the other foot, no one would think it's funny or cute in any way. So Slashdot has devolved into a gossip tabloid now? Wonderful.

    Now I see why the "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." tag was removed from the top of the site.

    1. Re:Why is this news? by shadowkil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't figure out why this is news in any way. First off, TFA suggests that they are minors. So just to set the stage, we're essentially talking about a teenage breakup here. Not a great start. Next, we have a girl who decided it would be fun to post images of her boyfriend all over the Internet. Wow, that's a new one! I've never heard of anything like this before! And to top it all off, the double standard here is absurd. As another poster already mentioned, if the shoe was on the other foot, no one would think it's funny or cute in any way. So Slashdot has devolved into a gossip tabloid now? Wonderful.

      Now I see why the "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." tag was removed from the top of the site.

      I seem to get closer each day to removing /. from my rss feed. Everything that is actual tech news, I tend to have already heard from the source, also in my rss feed (usually from Engadget, Anandtech, or rarely, Daily Tech).

      Eventually we should discover whether there is a limit as /. approaches lame that prevents actual unsubscription, or if it will disappear. Near enough that limit, I suppose we are just glossing over the posts without even skimming the summaries?

    2. Re:Why is this news? by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." may not be on the page, but it is still part of the title at the top of the window...maybe a mistake, idk.

      Regardless, this is pertinent news for the nerdy folks, who may not have experience with breaking up with a loon--or breaking up whatsoever (you have to date before you can break up with someone, after all). It stands as a cautionary tale, that may well dissuade people from entering the dating pool, and subsequently the gene pool, which may in some way benefit society!

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    3. Re:Why is this news? by zanian · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, there is no mention of what he did to deserve this. It's just a an article about some dumb google image prank. It's like celebrity gossip without the celebrity. Definitely not news.

    4. Re:Why is this news? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I can't figure out why this is news..."

      You clicked on the story anyways and then took the time to post. In internet publishing terms, the story is a success and your attention (the product) has been delivered to the customer (advertisers). Thank you, come again.

    5. Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This brings the question:
      Does not answering means:
      - Someone read it and didn't had anything to say?
      - Someone just went over it and didn't think it as news?

      I think voicing your point of view as a critic is good in itself:
      - I read it, it's shit because of 'x', 'y', 'z'.
      - I liked it because of 'm', 'n', 'o'.
      At least, it makes the matter clear in this case.

      Moreover
      > ads
      With noscript/flashblock and cie, I don't compute this variable.

    6. Re:Why is this news? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Doesn't porn limit those people to a sufficient extent? (really, consider: specimens most eager for reproductive activities - record them ... recordings are then disseminated ... and, also, provide a way of release to many, decreasing their chances of contributing to the gene pool)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:Why is this news? by Xugumad · · Score: 2

      This is the news equivalent of staring into the sky until other people start collecting around you, wondering what you're looking at. I clicked because I figured I had to be missing something other people saw in this story. I was disappointed.

    8. Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well said.
      I have noticed the same thing with slashdot. Whats happening? Don't know!
      Shit happens in Egypt. People are getting killed. They are beeing censored, cut of internet, cut of cell phones, cut from decency, cut of technology and geek stuff... HEY ELEPHANT BEHIND YOU! OMG!

      Average Joes are watching Superbowl and what could be interesting for geeks? Girlfriends, relationships... they lack of those things usually in same amount as Average Joes lack of physical condition.

    9. Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +insightful!

      I haven't even been here long and I am thinking about quitting this site also... I get so angry! (The real question is why am I still here fuming? - because I hold faith that one day things will "magically" get better)

    10. Re:Why is this news? by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you did. I read slashdot by quickly skimming the comments for "the answer". There is always just one, and in this case you posted it.
      I can then bail, like in this case, or RTFA and more comments.

      Stories about patents are the worst, since the inflammatory headline almost never match what the patent application is really about. The comments quickly fill with 70% "don't understand the patent system", and 29% "Took the headline at face value".

    11. Re:Why is this news? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I can't figure out why this is news in any way. First off, TFA suggests that they are minors. So just to set the stage, we're essentially talking about a teenage breakup here. Not a great start. Next, we have a girl who decided it would be fun to post images of her boyfriend all over the Internet. Wow, that's a new one! I've never heard of anything like this before! And to top it all off, the double standard here is absurd. As another poster already mentioned, if the shoe was on the other foot, no one would think it's funny or cute in any way. So Slashdot has devolved into a gossip tabloid now? Wonderful.

      Now I see why the "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." tag was removed from the top of the site.

      Sorry, we'll get back to the tech of the superbowl articles for ya...

      --
      Be seeing you...
    12. Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't figure out why this is news in any way. First off, TFA suggests that they are minors. So just to set the stage, we're essentially talking about a teenage breakup here. Not a great start. Next, we have a girl who decided it would be fun to post images of her boyfriend all over the Internet. Wow, that's a new one! I've never heard of anything like this before! And to top it all off, the double standard here is absurd. As another poster already mentioned, if the shoe was on the other foot, no one would think it's funny or cute in any way. So Slashdot has devolved into a gossip tabloid now? Wonderful.

      Now I see why the "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." tag was removed from the top of the site.

      This double standard thing is nonsense. I make porn applications for Android. You want to know what my #1 downloaded application is? One that is for a web site that posts pornographic pictures that are supposedly of people's ex-girlfriends. That particular application has 58,034 downloads. So, I suspect like 50,000 people are not so mortified by ex-boyfriends posting pictures of their ex-girlfriends. They probably don't think it is cute. They think it is sexy. But still...

    13. Re:Why is this news? by twebb72 · · Score: 1

      Double standard is right.. If it were pornographic pictures of the girlfriend it would generally go unnoticed.

      (Err -- except by the /. crowd)

    14. Re:Why is this news? by Rinnon · · Score: 1

      While I can't say that you're wrong, it is (supposedly) the job of Slashdot to select news from around the Internet that would be most interesting to its user base. It does this because targeted advertising is always more effective than blanket advertising. The more useless articles like this that makes it to the front page, the less of this user base will stick around, and the harder it will be to attract new membership for this demographic. Yes, I clicked on the article and read it, and yes, that means someone got my attention and gets paid their advertising dollars. But they're killing the cow here. Staying relevant will keep my readership. Continually put up articles of this caliber will not. I may click through a few times on silly things like this to make sure I'm not missing something, but that's not going to last very long. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, and if things keep progressing in this direction, I'll look somewhere else to provide me with regular "serious" news, without crap like this mixed in.

      Maybe that's an empty threat, and maybe it's not. But it's a silly risk to take to score a few extra click through advertising bucks.

    15. Re:Why is this news? by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      Batting practice never compares to the real thing; it only makes you want the game to start even more. The same applies to masturbation. Ergo, porn makes the nerds want to engage in intercourse more, thus increasing their likelihood to enter the gene pool.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    16. Re:Why is this news? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I was reading a posting about evaporative cooling of group beliefs. Basically, more moderate people leave a group due to it degrading, which accelerates its degradation because they served to keep it in check. What's left is a more-distilled version of the degradation. Repeat.

    17. Re:Why is this news? by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      ... Damn good question. In fact, I'm aborting this thread ASAP. Thanks for the reality check!

    18. Re:Why is this news? by ildon · · Score: 1

      If you rely on slashdot for news updates, you're doing it wrong. Its primary usefulness is a comments section that isn't full of retarded shit you find in youtube comments (or if it is, they get modded down and you don't have to see them). As a news aggregator, it's pretty poor. As a site to find semi-intelligent conversation about the news stories featured, I haven't seen much better in the past 12 years or so (at least with free registration and anonymous posting).

    19. Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dove deeper into this story hopeing to read about how she somehom gamed Google so a photo of him is the first result when someone searches for "jerk" or something. I though there might be a really clever SEO tactic unconvered or at least put to creative use, this is just kinda stupid.

    20. Re:Why is this news? by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Slashdot stays in my feed for a couple of reasons. I don't manage to catch all the good tech listings at the source. Also, while there's plenty to bitch about, the comments are usually miles above the quality of comments elsewhere. Perhaps it's a combination of sheer volume and a moderation system that (for all its flaws) seems to work better than unlimited thumbs-up/thumbs-down across all users. Digg style moderating sucks, to be honest, and I'm glad /. hasn't gone that route like everywhere else.

      Well, and nostalgia, to a lesser extent. :)

    21. Re:Why is this news? by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      What advertisers?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    22. Re:Why is this news? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      "Practice" or "release / relief"?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  17. Copyrights are not with the family by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually the copyright is with the professional photographer who captured the image - unless the photographer has signed over the copyrights.

    1. Re:Copyrights are not with the family by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And, couldn't the captioned works be considered derivative works, for purpose of commentary and satire?

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    2. Re:Copyrights are not with the family by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you are. In some places in the world it would be considered harassment and defamation of character.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Copyrights are not with the family by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      Those are separate issues altogether; as pertains to copyright, there's a pretty good leg to stand on, should that be the only item of complaint.

      Harassment, which would more properly line up as a criminal action, could be pursued, but if the party publishing the images wasn't given notice to stop doing so (or ceased doing so once such notice was received), it'd be hard to make a case--and in this case, being that the captions were mostly juvenile garbage, it's hard to imagine a prosecutor pushing the complaint to begin with. As for defamation--libel, in this case--you would have to prove harm to the victimized party for it to have much chance; again, given the juvenile nature of the taunts, and the age of the victimized party, it wouldn't lead to much anyhow. Perhaps, as he reaches adulthood, should something like this cost him a lucrative job offer, it might be cleanly actionable, but that's a bit away.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    4. Re:Copyrights are not with the family by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was wondering when someone would point that out. Too many clueless people thinking they understand copyright law when they obviously have no clue.

      Copyright is held by the photographer unless there is paperwork stating otherwise. While the family probably got a license to have the photo duplicated and rights to distribute it, I doubt the photographer signed away his copyright.

  18. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by Suki+I · · Score: 1

    What in the world does this have to do with Jack Weppler?

    Could be something his ex thought about him? ;)

    More on topic, I am glad they gave the error 200 info in TFA. I was about to mention that a friend had a girl problem. One thing about the ordeal was how responsive the Google URL removal tool was. Just about the only thing he had nice to say about anything related to the issue.

  19. If he were smart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    he'd embrace it, and put up some pages of his own - pointing out specifically why someone shouldn't get involved with {nameof} bitch. He might also point out that psychos are great sex, while it lasts.

    1. Re:If he were smart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should post naked pictures of her and tag them "jack weppler". If he's able to boost the rank enough (shouldn't be difficult since more people will find a naked chick more interesting than LOLCats level captioned portrait shots of some dude), they should show up before any of his pictures do.

    2. Re:If he were smart... by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping you didn't read the article where it mentioned they were MINORS!

    3. Re:If he were smart... by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      Counter-strike. I like it.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    4. Re:If he were smart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case he should post naked pictures of himself, tag them as "jack weppler", maybe throw on a few LOLCats captions in a similar style and report her for distributing child pornography.

  20. This isn't SEO manipulation by lul_wat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She just uploaded his picture to MemeGenerator.

    This should be in Idle at best.

    --
    Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    1. Re:This isn't SEO manipulation by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Oh, look. It is.

      Can't blame you for not being able to tell; the new design sucks that way.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:This isn't SEO manipulation by socsoc · · Score: 1
      Also to quote TFA "Oh, and never mess with an SEO."

      I have no idea what they're getting at with that statement.

    3. Re:This isn't SEO manipulation by lul_wat · · Score: 1

      Image exists on memegenerator. Google image indexes memegenerator content. Memegenerator images wind up in google image search. Memegenerator image still exists on Memegenerator and hasn't been removed. OMFG SHE SEO'D THE GOOGLES.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    4. Re:This isn't SEO manipulation by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Funny, my URL said it was on idle.slashdot.org.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:This isn't SEO manipulation by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      Yes, she's just a 4channer who uploaded the image to memegenerator.

      No, it isn't on Idle. It's on Tech. I'm pretty sure Nimey thought the story was posted in the Idle section.

      However his confusion is understandable, as apparently now stories that get tagged "Idle" show up in the Idle front page regardless of which section they were initially posted in.

    6. Re:This isn't SEO manipulation by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      I think it means she works for Sony Entertainment Online.

  21. Now a /. article is the standard for journalism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world must be coming to an end soon.

  22. Smells Fishy.. by AftanGustur · · Score: 4, Informative

    The story doesn't make sense.. The images are still on www.memegenerator.net and have not been removed at all..

    I suspect this is just a hoax, viral marketing or social experiment of some sort.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:Smells Fishy.. by AftanGustur · · Score: 1
      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    2. Re:Smells Fishy.. by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

      Also consider that he doesn't look particularly underage in that photo, which would be much more complicated to use (in advertising or an academic project) if he were truly a minor.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
  23. Um what? by sweatyboatman · · Score: 0

    Yes, because posting pictures of your fully-clothed ex with captions on them is sexual assault. And 3 other people thought this was insightful? Um... what?

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:Um what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It isn't because it was a female on male incident. If it was a male on female incident, it would be.

    2. Re:Um what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be construed as sexual harassment depending on what kind of captions were attached.

      One of the first ones I saw clicking the links said he was assfucked or whatever. Of course, stoic males are supposed to just shrug off attacks on their sexuality. The GP is merely stating that "sexual" crimes have a double standard because women are more "sensitive" or something.

    3. Re:Um what? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      ... it would be.

      Thanks for proving GPs point. Hilariously two more dullards have modded this insightful. This oh-poor-victim-me-male attitude is reaching epidemic proportions apparently.

      Can you cite any statutory provision which makes posting a "fully-clothed ex with caption" sexual assault when a male is the poster, but not when the female is the poster, from any jurisdiction anywhere on Earth?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    4. Re:Um what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's been found that way before in the past...just look at all the jurisprudence... This would've been deemed "stalking" amongst other things. Seriously.

    5. Re:Um what? by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      There isn't such a provision, but when has that ever stopped people from freaking out?

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    6. Re:Um what? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      There isn't such a provision.

      Case dismissed.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  24. Warning: NSFW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Warning: decidedly not worksafe images appear in the link provided.

  25. Links NSFW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a NSFW tag would have gone down a treat there.

  26. Very NSFW by microcuts · · Score: 1

    Some proper moderation of links would be useful. *beware, links contain pictures of a mans junk*

    1. Re:Very NSFW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the Search Engine Roundtable site seems fine, I guess you mean the Google Image Search link?

      If you didn't know that Google Image Search might be NSFW, I suggest you log off of the internets right now. I don't think I'd even admit that in public, if I were you...

      I guess it would have been nice if the submitter gave a link that included the "safe=active" tag, but still - you should have the cookie to force that anyway! (And for all I know, it might have blocked the memegenerator results anyway... but I'm not about to try to find out while I'm at work.)

  27. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by pugugly · · Score: 1

    Christians, Jews (and, to be fair also Muslims) worship a god that had a man's daughters sleep with him, and had a kid steal his brothers birthright via fraud.

    The house here isn't glass, it's that special breakable sugarglass they use in movies.

    Pug

    --
    An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  28. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Leave your mother out of this.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  29. Reasonably tech savvy? by flimflammer · · Score: 3, Informative

    So going to http://memegenerator.net/ and creating dozens of captioned pictures is considered tech savvy these days?

    She didn't manipulate google or anything for that matter. The moment you create an image there, it's placed in a spot that Google can immediately recognize. She named the "character" and then created a dozen different phrases for him. She even abused the service because you have to certify that you have the legal authority to use/distribute the image you upload, and if the picture is what the mother and son claim it is, she had no right.

    An 8 year old child could have done this.

  30. Minor son by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 0

    My minor son's ex-girlfriend

    Sounds like his ex-girlfriend thought he was...

    /puts on sunglasses

    ... a little off-key.

    YEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!

  31. My ex by rossz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My ex-wife made the mistake of being a bitch and posting false statements about me. They bordered on libel, but not enough to be worth suing over. Instead, I posted a few things about her that were not at all good for her image but were 100% true. Shortly thereafter googling her name resulted in that post being in the #`1 spot. She threw a hissy fit and threatened to sue me for libel, defamation, etc. I told her to point out any false statements and I would be happy to remove them. I also told her to feel free to sue. She didn't bother to take it any further.

    If she hadn't started the hate-fest I would not have made public postings about her.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:My ex by matrixskp · · Score: 1

      I think you missed an opportunity to increase her page ranking.

    2. Re:My ex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you say about her?

    3. Re:My ex by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      That's why his post is a 4, and yours is a zero.
      Keep plugging away at those math skills!

    4. Re:My ex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link please? :)

    5. Re:My ex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She could have sued you in the UK, where 'truth' is not a defence if she can show that you posted them intending to damage her reputation. And your post has just made that a whole lot easier...

      Namgge

    6. Re:My ex by rossz · · Score: 1

      Sucks for those living in the UK. I'm don't, so no worries.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    7. Re:My ex by rossz · · Score: 2

      I took it down a year ago. The basic summary of what I posted (and all true) was my ex-wife let her 15 year old daughter (my former step-daughter) drink, do drugs, not go to school, and hang out with a 23 year old guy who was farking her and giving her drugs. This was in response to her posting that I had been convicted of a violent crime. I hadn't even been charged with any crime. The worse thing on my record is a well deserved speeding ticket from a few years ago.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    8. Re:My ex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How manly!

    9. Re:My ex by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Some statements are easily verifiable. For example, if you have, been convicted of a violent crime or not is a cold hard fact. That makes it a lot easier to defend against.

      Many or most claims made by angry ex-partners are about behaviour from the personal sphere though, where it's essentially word-against-word.

      These can be a lot trickier dealing with.

    10. Re:My ex by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Informative

      She could have sued you in the UK, where 'truth' is not a defence

      Sorry to burst your myth, but in the UK truth is a defence. However the defendant must prove the truth of the statement.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:My ex by m50d · · Score: 1

      Truth is no longer an absolute defence, if the truth was told maliciously - there was a recent case about this (AIUI, boss sent an email around stating that person X had been terminated for lying on his expenses).

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:My ex by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      GP said he should sue in the UK where he says truth isn't a defense - a popular but wrong belief among armchair lawyers on the other side of the pond.

      Now if you're referring to this, I somehow don't think that's referring to Boston, Lincolnshire.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  32. "visa versa"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that mastery of basic written English isn't required to be a Slashdot editor, but "visa versa"? Really?

  33. google iceman murders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol

  34. if you recall pre cell phone days.. by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 2

    (probably an urban legend...) Guy is going on a 2 week biz trip; as he leaves the apt, he says to his live in girl friend, I want to break up, when I get back I want you and your stuff outta my apt.
    (silence)
    Guy comes back, place is spotless, all her stuff is gone.
    He notices phone is off the hook
    What does he hear ??
    At the tone, the time in Tokyo is..
    (for you young'uns, it used to be really $$ to make a call overseas, like dollars a minute .....)

    1. Re:if you recall pre cell phone days.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And then he sues her for theft of services and recovers twice the cost of the phone call and his lawyer's costs and court costs.

      I wouldn't be surprised if this had happened at least once, people like to instantiate urban legends.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:if you recall pre cell phone days.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rip-off of Ford Prefect's practical joke in *So Long and Thanks for All the Fish* ...

    3. Re:if you recall pre cell phone days.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably won't cost as much as Ford Prefect's call to the London Speaking Clock from Pleadies Zeta...

    4. Re:if you recall pre cell phone days.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (for you young'uns, it used to be really $$ to make a call overseas, like dollars a minute .....)

      ... and phones had cords!

  35. Re:Now a /. article is the standard for journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world must be coming to an end soon.

    Um it is, haven't you heard?

    http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=world+coming+to+end+2012

  36. Doesn't return 404s, oh noes! by BillX · · Score: 1

    Seconding....37th-ing the notion that if a man did this to a woman, the article would have a completely different tone ("Creepy Stalker Ex Abuses Internets, Police Taking Note"). That aside...

    FTFA: "You see, she knew to have the source site remove the images but Google still has them in their index. The issue is that although the images appear to be gone, the URLs they are sourced via are actually returning a 200 status code, which to Google means they are still there. They need to return a page not found status code, and they do not."

    In 2011, does GIS or any other search facility still take non-error status codes at their word? Has any commercial site since 2001 or so actually ever returned a 404 response to a non-existent page, rather than an arbitrary ad-happy landing page or redirect to the homepage?

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    1. Re:Doesn't return 404s, oh noes! by mibus · · Score: 1

      Has any commercial site since 2001 or so actually ever returned a 404 response to a non-existent page, rather than an arbitrary ad-happy landing page or redirect to the homepage?

      You can serve a 404 response that includes content, which would be The Right Thing To Do to ensure happy users and happy crawler-bots.

    2. Re:Doesn't return 404s, oh noes! by BillX · · Score: 1

      You're right, it would be the Right Thing... just not the Profitable Thing. In case some engine, somewhere, still takes status codes at their word (to say nothing of j.random webmaster's aging dead-link-scanner shareware), 200 is king. Besides, they can only return one code - why 404 when you can 301? (snagging a few engines and all Javascript-disabled browsers in the process)

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  37. Additional tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, maybe the "streisand effect" tag would be right for this story? :)

  38. His own fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is his own fault. This is why I date morons only. Smart people are dangerous.

  39. a helpful tip by McGruber · · Score: 1

    "But in the age where Google ranks supreme, you do not want to mess with a girl who knows how to manipulate Google.'"

    Guys, to be safe, you should only date blondes.

    1. Re:a helpful tip by confused+one · · Score: 1

      But I like my redhead too much...

    2. Re:a helpful tip by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Some brunettes dye their hair blond...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  40. If this girl is legal, and in my ballpark, I would by ZG-Rules · · Score: 0

    She is sheer awesome.

    I'm not too bothered about the technicalities and whether this counts as "tech savvy", but this girl is smart, sassy and interesting.

    She shouldn't have a problem finding a replacement.

    However... that man who had to get him MOM to do all the fighting to get his images taken down, well... I think his man card needs to be revoked...

  41. Would never happen here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would never ever happen to anyone that frequents slashdot.

  42. writing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article itself reads like it was written by a high school freshman. "Visa" versa, "Professional taken picture", "There has to be dozens"?

  43. This isn't "revenge" by couchslug · · Score: 1

    See 4chan for examples of that. This isn't even a good story.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  44. Look - slander by Stargoat · · Score: 1

    Look, just do what everyone in civilized countries have done since the decline of dueling. Sue the bitch for slander. It's amazing how money helps a person recover emotionally from slander.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    1. Re:Look - slander by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

      how would being out lawyer fees and getting laughed out of court make him feel better?

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
  45. Came to say this! by SilverJets · · Score: 1

    Exactly!

    Everyone thinks it is funny when it is a girl but if it was a guy he'd be under arrest by now.

  46. Re:If this girl is legal, and in my ballpark, I wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, here's the truth, from a distance maybe she looks and seems awesome. It's like how it is funny to see somebody get hit in the crotch by a football or exciting to see somebody flip their car at a race track.

    When you're in the crap though, you're nowhere near as happy.

    Stay out of it. You'll be a lot happier.

    And you want to know something? If that guy had defended himself, he'd be looking bad, because men aren't allowed to have grievances with women. They're supposed to just suck it up. True story, a man stands up to an abusive women, then HE gets in trouble.

  47. visa versa! by seyyah · · Score: 1

    From the article: 'Upset boyfriends and girlfriends are nothing new. There are plenty of stories of girlfriends getting back at their ex-boyfriends for mistreatment and visa versa. But in the age where Google ranks supreme, you do not want to mess with a girl who knows how to manipulate Google.'"

    Visa Versa? That's priceless!

    1. Re:visa versa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For anything else, there's Mastercard.

  48. so dumb by sweatyboatman · · Score: 1

    .37th-ing the notion that if a man did this to a woman, the article would have a completely different tone ("Creepy Stalker Ex Abuses Internets, Police Taking Note"). That aside

    the story in the post is stupid, boring, and as others have pointed out, does not involve "Google-Fu". if a girl does it to a guy, it's boring. if a guy does it to a girl, it's boring.

    but I honestly don't understand this "Men are the victims of PC-ness" meme. It's not true. It was never true. It refuses to die.

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:so dumb by BillX · · Score: 1

      Are you disagreeing with what I wrote, or just trolling? Do you honestly believe that this story with a male aggressor would have been written as a human-interest fluff piece? Don't blame the messenger.

      >>if a girl does it to a guy, it's boring. if a guy does it to a girl, it's boring.

      No disagreement there, but I'm sure you did notice that not only was a news article written about it, it made the frontpage of Slashdot as well. Obviously, someones out there find interest in the story.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  49. Revenge?!? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    You really want revenge, post his picture and phone number to craigslist in the MFM section, asking asking those interested "call any time!"

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  50. Back in my day ... by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We'd just call her a psycho bitch and no one would be even a little impressed. She'd also never get a date again since no intelligent person wants to be on the wrong end of her. The same would happen to a guy if he did it.

    Today, women get praised because she did it on the Internet ... and a guy would end up being taken to jail, labeled a sex offender and have his life ruined.

    Seriously people, what the fuck is wrong with you? This behavior is unacceptable. Do not give her attention. The entire event and everything she does should be ignored, herself included. We seriously need to stop giving people who behave unacceptably any attention.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Back in my day ... by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      sure, but posting here adds to the buzz ...

  51. Anonymous Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a revenge mission for anonymous.

    1. Re:Anonymous Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous is not your personal army. You have to understand, there are a lot of whiny people wanting to "get back" at other whiny people. If we took up every request, we'd never have any time for creating stupid memes and posting funny cat captions.

      Our time is limited; we have to concentrate on what's important. I mean, who have YOU Rick-rolled today?

      -Anonymous

  52. Re:visa vespa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and visa vespa is the same American going to Italy to find romance

  53. I think it's good they are beginning to look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The c0ngress, s3n473, the more the merryhaier. Let the pailincomparisonz'es(c) do PALinTAKzAL0Trz, maybe they can compmungicate with the fed, or god forbid fix the ben burnank, toll U long (pay up my lost karma bitchez!) they are a walking security accident waiting to happen. Maybe they can finally crash the bubble and make money worthless?

    *** ARMAGEDDON ***
    TeH PaLiNz TRoLL Tax0r's

  54. How about this one: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is more factual

    http://www.memegenerator.net/Jack-Weppler/ImageMacro/5588332/I-KILLED-SLASHDOT

  55. Re:Now a /. article is the standard for journalism by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

    I've heard that the bird is the word.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184

  56. Re:grammar by Cwix · · Score: 1

    That's ok, apparently no one would ever want you because you don't know how to capitalize.

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  57. anybody see the last House episode ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It had some hilarity about a similar subject where the sexy Aussy doc had his nude pic on facebook adjusted in an unflattering way - then had to try and figure out which girl, of many, he used and tossed did the deed.

  58. Is this Jerry Springer or Slashdot? by AbominousSalad · · Score: 2

    1 - I agree strongly with everybody saying this woman had better suffer the same backlash a male would over such behavior.

    2 - Unless the gender inequality is the motivation of this "news" item, I'm pretty sure we are the wrong target market for this story.

    --
    Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
  59. Fake? by crossmr · · Score: 1

    Any evidence to the contrary? Anyone remember that whole story about the "lawyers assistant" who quit through a series of photos? Turned out to be fake.
    I barely buy anything on the internet unless it comes with time stamps, sworn and filed affidavits and the pixels don't look shopped.

  60. I call bullshit by voss · · Score: 1

    No girls name, no links to actual moms post. No proof other than a stock photo that Jack Weppler even exists.

  61. Try saving your nerd rage for when you are right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did the parent title fuck it up? It is literally written as "v". How you pronounce it is not specified by the parent. I suggest that you only assumed the wrong pronunciation because you're a tremendous prick that thinks everyone else is an idiot. Given that it can only be left to assume that your literal comprehension is flawed to the point where you project additional meaning where none exists.

  62. Meanwhile, if you're a *girl* ... by aunt+edna · · Score: 1

    what does this mean?
    "...you do not want to mess with a girl who knows how to manipulate Google.'"

    Nerds forever! Same old, same old.

  63. A monk? okay... so no sex, except with young boys? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    But hey dude, lighten up. This is slashdot:

    "stay the ever-loving hell away from women" is our motto!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  64. Re:grammar by vlm · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing it might, just might, be the posting to slashdot thing rather than minor writing problems.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  65. Re:A monk? okay... so no sex, except with young bo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those are priests, not monks.

  66. talentless hack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems like a publicity deal.

  67. Why... by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

    Because she's a psycho, or because it takes a lot of technical skillz to put an image on Memegenerator?

  68. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned

  69. nah... by eyeareque · · Score: 1

    The secret is to out-crazy the crazy girl.

  70. Double standard always exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While at a friend house his brother and his friend busted in shortly after midnight - totally naked. When asked what happen they claim they where jumped by a small group of drunk girls out on the town for a bachelorette party and 'forced' into sex acts with the women. It turned out to be true as I 'knew' of one of these ladies and saw her the next day where she was bragging about the rape of the young men the night before.
    What happen to the ladies.... nothing. What would happen if a group of drunk guys jumped two younger women and did this? Think about about and go beyond the thought of how lucky those guys where.

  71. Re:semi-intelligent conversation by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    I'll agree with this poster. It's very nice to read semi-intelligent posts from people with diverse backgrounds (albeit mostly nerdy) that frequent slashdot. Several times, I've fallen for a story only to read the postings and realize that it's mostly bunk. Without other well thought out opinions, people tend to believe what they are told, much like people watching fox news or npr are further brainwashed by what they hear day after day.

  72. Re:Try saving your nerd rage for when you are righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did the parent title fuck it up?

    Because the "traditional" pronunciation would be how the Romans said it, not the Anglicized version. Don't get so excited, it's just a history lesson.

  73. Stigma/stigmata by sbjornda · · Score: 1

    It's just that there's a social stigmata attached to

    I'm off topic, but fyi stigmata is the plural of stigma.

    --
    .nosig

  74. Bliss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was watching divorce court proceedings run by a Judge that was retiring the next year. The Judge held up a piece of paper with his left hand looked at the ex wife and said let me get this clear you have a restraining order against you ex husband is that correct?
    'Yes your honer'.
    The Judge picked up a piece of paper with his right hand looked at the man and said; 'This is a restraining order you have against your wife is that correct?'
    'Yes your honer'.
    The Judge laid them both down on the desk before him and said 'This is a request to have both restraining orders voided and it signed by both of you?
    they both replied 'Yes we love each other and want to get back together again'.
    The judge looked around and raising his eyebrows stated; 'Well far be it for me to stand in the way of marital bliss and with a flourish stamped the request and said 'Next case!

    1. Re:Bliss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't he have thrown them both in jail for violating their restraining orders by appearing in the same room?

    2. Re:Bliss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be a situation where the correct response would be completely stupid, and a perfect example of a judge performing his job correctly.

      We have enough idiots in jail already. Putting people in jail who probably don't need to be there just costs the taxpayers more money.

  75. Re:A monk? okay... so no sex, except with young bo by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    Not a priest, a monk. Monks aren't exposed to the young ones, they have to bugger each other in the crypts.

  76. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a god that had a man's daughters sleep with him

    That wasn't God's plan - in fact it caused all sorts of problems.

    and had a kid steal his brothers birthright via fraud

    Erm, what? If it wasn't a fair trade, Esau oughtn't have accepted it. Reminds me of the TV show I watched where some hobo had made off with a bunch of charts that were thrown out, and it turned out the charts were needed for an important business meeting - so the hobo wants a million dollars for them. And then the guy in the program apparently thinks he's clever when he agrees to pay the hobo the one million dollars... one dollar every day for the next million days! Esau figured he'd get what he wanted "now" with minimal cost, and failed to recognise the long-term repercussions of his trade, and he paid for it - the rest of his life, one day at a time.

    Not to mention, God had already said that Jacob would get the birthright anyway, it was only a matter of how. Plus, birthright wasn't something that was necessarily set in stone anyway - for instance, Isaac in his old age put Joseph's sons in reverse birth order when he blessed them.

  77. Sorry dude, but this is hilarious! by SeakingFUKyea · · Score: 1

    Haha, literally broke the silence of my office with hysterical laughter. I'm sorry for the guy, but this is just too damn funny.

  78. Re:grammar by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    He doesn't know the difference between "knew" and "new" either.

  79. I hear, the only winning move is not to play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I jumped in cab with dice in the mirror, sped over to Duke Burger for a WOPR, but the voice at the window said "hehe, we're like...closed," and I told to the cabby "yo home's, smell you later." I walked to McDould's down the street and ordered a Big Mic and sat on my throne as the Prince of B'lurrr.

  80. courtship ~= dating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think courtship might approximately be equal to dating, but then there are the corporate-Statists that demand courtship to mean the two lovely consenters to approach an elevated banker's desktop where a government employee in a whig and Hairy Pottery blouse declares the articles of association to the pen of a corporate sole derived from half her former instrumentality legal name to be supplanted by the husbandman's surname.

    The problem with marriage and relationships today is the State agencies are benefitting by their franchises to uphold your loss of rights when entering a contract with them to bring about the force of THEIR LAWS regulating your copulation and future interests rather than adapt individuality inherint in the original relationship of charity to dispense with your character whatever affections that maintaned the relationship before being incorporated into the new Charter foisted upon you by that religion of the State.

  81. Forced meme by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

    is forced.

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
  82. SEO is a sham by sdguero · · Score: 1

    That "article" is just an attempt to drive traffic to that site, which is un-interestingly enough, a SEO news site. Of course the site doesn't generate any content, beyond poorly written articles about things that don't matter. I'm curious as to how it made it up onto /.at all. Sigh.

    I worked for a company that grew into SEO. It's a joke. Everyone with half a brain knows it. Unfortunately a lot of marketing people don't have half a brain so SEO continues to generate revenue. Instead of getting a decent web developer, marketing types pay enormous sums of money for people to look at their meta tags and give advice about what to put into h1 headers. Its retarded.

  83. Re:Try saving your nerd rage for when you are righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "(two is traditional)" .. it is indeed true for the the reconstructed Roman pronunciation.
    I don't see the OP mentioning anglicized pronunciation. It's easy to get excited when idiots are trying to project their idiocy on the world.

  84. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by pugugly · · Score: 1

    I'm going to skip A) - I recall that passage differently, but don't care enough to look it up.

    Regarding B) however? You're saying the part where he disguised himself in order to receive the blessing is moot then? The same way if you win the lottery and jokingly trade the ticket for a kiss from a pretty girl, then she forges the signature on the check to receive the prize money, it's not fraud?

    You know, if the one true word of your God calls that ethical, you need to go shopping for a divinity that's read better books on ethics.

    Pug

    --
    An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  85. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to skip A) - I recall that passage differently, but don't care enough to look it up.

    I'll save you the trouble. They were supposed to leave the cities and flee to the mountains, which they eventually did, although with a bit of warbling along the way. First Lot complained that the mountains were too remote, and asked God to spare the hill cities so that he could take refuge there; but then, apparently feeling like "the only guy who escaped from Sodom & Gomorrah because he's such a goody-goody" and fearing for his safety, he finally did flee to the mountains with his family.

    Presumably God wanted them to just sit tight for a while. The whole getting-a-kid-from-dad idea was purely concocted by Lot's daughters, who didn't like the idea of living out in the middle of nowhere with no men. God put them into those circumstances, but their reaction to those circumstances was based on their own poor decision-making. Furthermore, the descendants of Lot's daughters' incestuous relationships with their father were generally at odds with the descendants of Abraham - very similar in fact to the results of Abraham's taking matters into his own hands with his maid and the descendants by his son through her, Ishmaal.

    Regarding B) however? You're saying the part where he disguised himself in order to receive the blessing is moot then?

    Ah, I'd overlooked that. It was underhanded, no doubt about it. Granted, the blessing was supposed to belong to him anyway - it was part of the birthright. His dad favoured Esau and wanted to reverse the deal that they'd made. Anyway - it was a blessing. Blessing comes from God, not man; it really didn't matter all that much what sort of fuzzy good feelings were elicited by some words spoken by a dad on his death-bed.

    However that doesn't justify Jacob's deception - in fact we can also pretty safely say that it wasn't God's plan either - and it caused him plenty of problems, as well: he feared for his life and had to flee the country and live with his uncle for years, which led to a whole series of more bad decisions. And even though Jacob and Esau were eventually reconciled their descendants still didn't ever tend to be on particularly amicable terms.

    So to sum it up, yes, there's plenty of material to draw from if you want illustrations from the Bible of people doing unethical things. And there were always consequences, so it's given in example of what not to do. There were plenty of thou-shalt-nots... but stories illustrating bad choices and their consequences tend to be more memorable than thou-shalt-nots.

  86. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

    Haha, you might have to import a divinity from another universe. Not sure if there is any deity on earth that had any sense of ethics or morality.

  87. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure if there is any deity on earth that agrees with my sense of ethics or morality.

    FTFY.

    Part of the very nature of a deity is that it gets to define what "ethics" and "morality" actually are. That was the serpent's original temptation to Eve - the knowledge of good and evil. In gaining our own sense of ethics and morality, we became like god, exactly as it had promised her.

    And, since part of the nature of fallen man is that our new-found sense of ethics and morality was at odds with God's sense of ethics and morality, it's only natural that you won't find God's sense of ethics and morality to be in agreement with yours.

  88. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
    Bad quote there, i have no ethics or morality. I'm the kind of idiot that needs to know everything before making an attempt at defining something like ethics, morality, justice, etc...

    But i see your point.

  89. Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm the kind of idiot that needs to know everything before making an attempt at defining something like ethics, morality, justice, etc...

    On the contrary... only an idiot ever would make an attempt at defining something like absolute ethics, morality, justice, etc., without first having absolute knowledge of everything. That's why fallen man's sense of ethics and morality disagrees with God's in the first place - God does know everything.

  90. "Double standards" by SilasMortimer · · Score: 1

    It's kind of funny. I made a joke about "men's rights advocates" with someone earlier, then I read this a few days late because I'd forgotten to get around to it. And one of the early comments pretty much sums the problem with these people (and their wannabes). In it (I'm not scrolling to quote), they mention something to the effect that women will always be the ones who choose the mates.

    You know, if you ever wonder why the stereotype of nerds includes the term "pathetic", there's a good one right there.

    Every damn one of you whiners knows for a fact (deny it if you want) that there are countless "revenge on the ex-girlfriend" type of porn websites. People make fucking money off of this. And even if the majority are staged, you're full of shit if you say they all are. No one's raising a stink about it, no one's going to jail for it, no one's life is ruined (with the possible exception of the ex-girlfriend).

    And you know, a lot of people like to think that whining is now an acceptable trait for masculinity. It's not. It is, however, an acceptable trait for being a loser.

    Geez.

    --
    Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!