request regarding the comm messages

I appreciate your intent to rise above it all but why shouldn't SE be harangued for their policy at this point. They are enabling abuse. It shouldn't be tolerated when schools or churches allow pedophiles on their premises, it shouldn't be tolerated when a bartender serves an obvious drunk (keep those tips coming!). Why should it be tolerated in cyberspace. Clearly this very disturbed person can feed his/her particular obsession only on this site. The responsible action would be to ban this poster altogether.

It is a pity because I thought SE to be a great site and for months I was extolling its virtues to anyone I encountered who was looking for RE. But no longer. I have stayed off this site for months because I found the nature of this abuse repulsive. I came back a few days ago seeking price information that I have paid for monthly for well over a year. I was alarmed to see the miscreant behavior not only still present but on overdrive. I feel like a catholic who resents the church hierarchy but has no where else to pray.

SE has a great site, great premise, and terrific informed, intelligent posters. Yet they are allowing it to be destroyed by someone who is seriously in need of help. And they are neglecting their responsibility as a fiscally responsible company and as a good corporate citizen. This is not about free speech at this point. I would not just walk by a deranged person assaulting someone in the street and I don't think I should ignore it here. Clearly SE is misreading the pulse of the times when they ignore the fact that a reality show was held accountable for a stalker by the public and the court.

Unfortunately, anyone who seeks good information from this site must bear witness to this disturbing, aberrant behavior. I will continue to report it as what it is -- abuse-- until I hear a good reason not to. SE should be held accountable for their policy at this point. Perhaps if it was an imposition for them to be flooded with reports of abuse, they would re think their stand.

I think you need to realize that you are encouraging comm with this type of comment. Think of it as a kid screaming look at me, look at me. It has no purpose other than to disrupt. I am sure that SE would like to get rid of it as much as you and the rest of us.

I think revealing commie's true identity would go a long way to solving the problem as I understand they know who it is. By not purging the scourge SE itself is complicit in the damage to its own credibility.

hmnn. i assume you are suggesting that SE reveal all of comm's user names? that would be an interesting way to handle this.

I would like to for SE to reveal the connection between comm and his more legitimate SE alias. Like in society where perverts, murderers and thieves walk among us, they only get to do so until they get caught. All I want is a sign on the child molester's front lawn. His alias should not be allowed to live without impunity.

Great idea Spin. Out the comm.

The subject posts serve no legitimate purpose or expression of ideas. They clutter this board making it a chore to sift the forum for constructive posts. The impact on me is that I simply post much less frequently because I don't have the patience for adults-in-the-school-yard crap. The posts aren't even funny or remotely witty. Streeteasy can continue to take a laissez-faire approach to moderating this forum, but the quality of the threads suffers and those with constructive contributions to make will leave. It's a strange way to run a business.

cc: I have never responded to the poster in question precisely for the reason you site here. I am simply pointing out that if everyone - as opposed to a few with a grudges--would report abuse every single time this poster appeared, it would up the ante for SE's legal responsibility. If they have the name, I don't think they should violate privacy but I do hope that at this point, they report the name to the police. The police should determine if this person is a true threat. Perhaps if it was part of SE's policy, the poster would cease. In addition, every broker should be concerned because one of the posters aliases claims to be a broker. That is a bleak mark on the profession in a place where the profession gathers to meet and potential clients comes to be informed. Brokers have a responsibility to pressure SE to deal with this poster.

Kyle: agree 100%

do you really think that hfscomm1 is not sitting and reading this thread as voraciously as every other one?

I cannot imagine what you would expect the police to do about this.

i think the suggestion from above about revealing all of comm's aliases without revealing true identity would solve the problem and not be against SE's stated terms.

No, CC, that would just fuel it: Girl Scout badges.

Time to get legal.

hi apt23 - do you feel SE would violate privacy by revealing comm's online alias? If that alias had already "outed" themselves as a broker then all the sweeter the reveal.

Here's what you do SE: reset all the grey-out ignore this person on 4/13 and only grey out our friend (the kind and gentle alias to Mr. comm). We'll take care of the rest. Run it by legal and get back to us...

you do realize how small the pool of possibilities is?

I honestly don't have a clue as I haven't paid much attention to what's been going on. I would rather it be a great, bewildering surprise. It would make for better theater.

The problem, spinnaker, is Whack A Mole

Well if it's possible to humiliate such an animal, then at least it would add an interesting new dimension to the game.. and just imagine the possibilities if it can be linked to a nice boutiquey brokerage house.

spin: I think that it would be very amusing for us to know the alias. But I don't think it would solve the problem. And, I think that just like a journalist would go to jail to protect a source (even the lying dog, judith miller types), I don't think any internet site would reveal alias --especially for the purpose of a feeding frenzy.

But I do believe something must be done. One or more posters may be at risk by someone who has displayed a compulsive, obsessive disorder. I think SE should consult another lawyer since their present lawyer seems to be okay with status quo. Yet if something did happen ( I just made all appropriate signs to ward off evil) how would it look that SE has had to erase dozens of threads and posts by our deranged one, has had dozens of abuse reports, and entire threads from sane people trying to come up with a solution. All the while, SE does nothing? Would they be forced to shut down. How would we all feel if we did nothing and came to see our posts in The NY Post?

cc: re: police. I once lived across an alley from a man with a terrace who would masterbate on the terrace every day while he stared at our building with binoculars. Imagine raising your blinds to that every day. Everyone in the building complained for months but the police would do nothing because it wasn't illegal (imagine!). Finally I called and said we had called a dozen times and because they would do nothing, my husband went out to buy a gun (not true, he is a pacifist). The police were at my door in minutes. I reasoned with them and asked them to think of their mother in my apt and please go talk to him. They did. Problem solved. Hopefully our deranged one has a semblance of sanity and can grasp implications. But again, problem would be solved if SE blocked poster.

also I find it interesting that poster is immediately all over discussions that concern him/her. but not here. hmmmm. probably will show up now that this is mentioned. how about the current thread on rhino where the only posts are the same poster under various aliases. Just one more indication for the doctors.

apt23, I think it just doesn't relish having its true name, address, and biographical information in court papers; and the ensuing discussions on the internet relating to those court papers; and the way those discussions come up in general web searches on its true name and biographical information (e.g. employment if any). Just one more indication for the lawyers.

cc, I was pointing out how little I care about the comm's postings. as I am often the target I wanted to let SE know that their method was highly ineffectual and yet I don't personally care any longer. I cared about the community but if SE is willing to sacrifice that for convenience and perhaps a bit of titillation so be it. It's their website, but you'd think they'd care a bit more for its integrity.

kw, I just read your post. exactly.

apt23, people are doing the work for SE. and it isn't getting better. so my point is that if we quit doing the work for SE, maybe the overwhelming clutter and nastiness would force them to do something. i wonder if brickunderground, who is also a writer for the NYTimes, might be interested in the story?

AR: Funny, I have the absolute opposite conclusion. I think SE is legally responsible for giving a forum to a poster that the majority of posters think is unbalanced and possibly dangerous. I think we should pound SE with legitimate abuse reports until they do something. How would it look in a court situation if there were thousands of abuse reports and they failed to act, what would their excuse be.

I left the site and came back to get info I couldn't get anywhere else that I have paid for on a continuing basis. Why should I --or you or anyone else-- be deprived of a public site that I pay for just because the company refuses to take proper precautions regarding their site. The site will become inbred and ineffectual because no new blood will tolerate this insanity and old posters will fall away.

NY times is a good idea. I have a friend who produces In Treatment but blogging is too passive for tv and difficult to dramatize. But Jeez if anyone needs treatment it is this loony.

apt23, about 40-50% of comm's comments were being deleted. the board was a mess,but only so so. and i think that's what they want.

let SE fuck up their own boards. maybe we all collude and agree to disappear for a month, two or three if they don't deal with the situation.

If the crazy one is the only poster, that would certainly send a message. And be quite amusing. Can't imagine what SE is thinking. Ignorance is not a defense after Craigslist fiasco. And constant posting by the sanes ones about the problem are being ignored.

Why is this thread not on the Latest discussions list? How can we assure that SE sees this thread? Report abuse on this thread?

Does this anecdote sound credible to anyone? I am all for doing whatever regarding the comm guy but please.

"cc: re: police. I once lived across an alley from a man with a terrace who would masterbate on the terrace every day while he stared at our building with binoculars. Imagine raising your blinds to that every day. Everyone in the building complained for months but the police would do nothing because it wasn't illegal (imagine!). Finally I called and said we had called a dozen times and because they would do nothing, my husband went out to buy a gun (not true, he is a pacifist). The police were at my door in minutes. I reasoned with them and asked them to think of their mother in my apt and please go talk to him. They did. Problem solved. "

Does this anecdote sound credible to anyone? I am all for doing whatever regarding the comm guy but please.

"cc: re: police. I once lived across an alley from a man with a terrace who would masterbate on the terrace every day while he stared at our building with binoculars. Imagine raising your blinds to that every day. Everyone in the building complained for months but the police would do nothing because it wasn't illegal (imagine!). Finally I called and said we had called a dozen times and because they would do nothing, my husband went out to buy a gun (not true, he is a pacifist). The police were at my door in minutes. I reasoned with them and asked them to think of their mother in my apt and please go talk to him. They did. Problem solved. "

anyone?

I fully agree with Kyle's earlier comment. Comm has been a terrible distraction and has decreased my interest in SE. I've complained to SE 3 times over the past 3 months and SE replied that they were doing all they can do. I just sent my last email to SE and told them I'm quitting as a paying subscriber and I encourage others to do the same. We've put up with this shit for way too long.

I've kept quiet about the comm issue for a while because people were saying not to feed the troll by attention to it.
But I feel like that horrid commercial for Huntington Learning Systems (which btw they need to refresh, I think it was shot in 1996) where they say "Fighting doesn't help, Ignoring it doesn't help...Punishment doesn't help"...Well unfortunately the SE community is "struggling with troll" and we've already covered off the first two we should try the third...some punishment whether in its simplest form (SE making a concerted effort to BAN the troll not let it morph into a new screenname every few hours) or some form of legal, be criminal or civic intervention.

There are in fact limits to free speech, beyond the proverbial "fire in a crowded theater". If you stand in the middle of the street and yell curses at people, the cops may not be able to lock you up but they can sure as hell tell you to shut up and go away or else. Or perhaps more compassionately, they will send you to Bellvue for observation. If you write an obnoxious, hate filled letter to the editor of the New York Times (or even the Post) they are not going to print it.

And as Kyle and others have pointed out, this situation is not on a number of levels good business for Streeteasy. Advertisers look at environments as well as traffic. And it no doubt impacts traffic as well. The "kids in the schoolyard" tone is hardly one to promote credibility for the SE discussion boards as a source of RE information for buyers, renters and other "paying customers"...in other words, people turned off by the endless haranguing of the troll are less likely to return, less returns, less page views, less revenue for SE.

Its time.....

lizyrank: well said.

reallynow: "does this anecdote sound credible to anyone? I am all for doing whatever regarding the comm guy but please".

I would swear on my mothers life that this is true (it is a much longer story) but she is no longer in this realm. So I'll have to swear on my 20 yr meditation practice and my mother's spirit that it is true.

I don't know that there is any equivalent of a restraining order for cyberspace but the poster has made threatening remarks. Isn't there an obligation on SE's part to seek the interference of some legal authority? If there is not any specific legal remedy, then a report to the police still might be in order. Police do preventative work like this in family disputes all the time. If the police got the name from SE and had a discussion with poster to determine degree of the threat that would go a long way. The report on the threat could be shared with those who have been poster's targets. But it would not assuage the responsibility of SE to ban the poster.

Which law is being broken that the police would intervene?

Which streeteasy is losing audience because of my presence? Could it be the one who invited everyone to a get together with me as the headline (apt23, you recall, you reposted it, thank you): http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/18649-se-get-together-confirmed

A core problem with this "losing audience" argument is that these message boards are very inhospitable to the real estate industry, not to mention new posters looking for ideas. Maybe more in the industry would participate if people like aboutready and columbiacounty were gone. Anyone notice the hostility of columbiacounty toward front_porch and 30yrs? Anyone still think that every time w67thstreet says "borker" that it is funny? Anyone have a problem with Rhino86 shouting "cocksucker" like he did yesterday? Anyone get tired of aboutready berating her landlord and blaming everyone and taking no responsibility even for something like breaking her toilet seat? Anyone think that the Sean Felker discussions or the Azmino discussions or the Citihabitats discussions were the real ones that were fanatical? Apparently reallynow thinks apt23 is a liar, so at least we have some challenges.

And really, does anyone want to take legal advice from alanhart?

"I don't know that there is any equivalent of a restraining order for cyberspace but the poster has made threatening remarks."

Threatening? Please post a quotation or link.

I think apt23's post about a false report of a crime is notable:

apt23 lied to the police:
"...Everyone in the building complained for months but the police would do nothing because it wasn't illegal (imagine!). Finally I called and said we had called a dozen times and because they would do nothing, my husband went out to buy a gun (not true, he is a pacifist). The police were at my door in minutes. ..."

In New York, you can't just "[go] out to buy a gun." There's a extensive permitting process for a license and restrictive process for purchases after a license.

Notcomm 1.....Who cares about legal not legal. You say "maybe more in the industry would participate if people like aboutready and columbiacounty were gone". Maybe, but no one has every suggested that and yet many have suggested the SE experience is diminished by your presence. I for one like the contributions of AR and CC and W67.
SE has to make a business decision: tolerate you or lose 50 of us. I hope they do the right thing.

Typical of the loud, they think they are the majority because they only hear themselves.

BTW, what about Rhino86, do you like his contributions too?

yes....he has opinions...often strong opinions that he supports with logic and fact.

you are proud of the fact that you don't.

you're proud of the fact that everyone thinks you're useless.

you and your alter egos (most notably riversider) should ride off into the sunset and enjoy each other's company.

Loud??? I've been a paying subscriber for 2 years but seldom post. I've spoken off line to a dozen other subscribers who agree with me, BTW i also find Rhino's contribution to be positive and our contribution "zero"

oh, NYCDreamer, did you switch names?

norcomm1... no, Only one name for two years. How about you?

A few dozen at this point.

NYCDreamer: BTW i also find Rhino's contribution to be positive and our contribution "zero"

You were ok with him shouting "cocksucker" yesterday?

but that's because of the holy war you are waging on behalf of all the posters on SE, right?

This is ok, NYCDreamer?
Rhino86
1 day ago
ignore this person
report abuse
I love when someone makes fun of someone else for 'carrying the flag for the masses'. Maybe some of you cocksuckers should ask yourself ...

sure is....and, if you don't think it is, how come you've reposted it over and over and over?

notcomm1... No I'm an adult and "bad" words don;t bother me. Rhino has been a positive contributor to SE.

columbiacounty, seriously, I have to press 5 buttons to read what you write.

and then it is tiny and gray.

We should go back to apt23. She's said I threatened her, which is untrue, and she can't post a single link or quotation to support that claim.

She has a pattern of lying, including this false report to the NYPD:

apt23 lied to the police:
"...Everyone in the building complained for months but the police would do nothing because it wasn't illegal (imagine!). Finally I called and said we had called a dozen times and because they would do nothing, my husband went out to buy a gun (not true, he is a pacifist). The police were at my door in minutes. ..."

In New York, you can't just "[go] out to buy a gun." There's a extensive permitting process for a license and restrictive process for purchases after a license.

no more questions for you, moron.

News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12comments.html?hpw

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: April 11, 2010

From the start, Internet users have taken for granted that the territory was both a free-for-all and a digital disguise, allowing them to revel in their power to address the world while keeping their identities concealed.

Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, left, is suing The Plain Dealer of Cleveland, led by Susan Goldberg, saying the paper violated her privacy in reporting on comments sent from her e-mail address.
Readers' Comments

A New Yorker cartoon from 1993, during the Web’s infancy, with one mutt saying to another, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” became an emblem of that freedom. For years, it was the magazine’s most reproduced cartoon.

When news sites, after years of hanging back, embraced the idea of allowing readers to post comments, the near-universal assumption was that anyone could weigh in and remain anonymous. But now, that idea is under attack from several directions, and journalists, more than ever, are questioning whether anonymity should be a given on news sites.

The Washington Post plans to revise its comments policy over the next several months, and one of the ideas under consideration is to give greater prominence to commenters using real names.

The New York Times, The Post and many other papers have moved in stages toward requiring that people register before posting comments, providing some information about themselves that is not shown onscreen.

The Huffington Post soon will announce changes, including ranking commenters based in part on how well other readers know and trust their writing.

“Anonymity is just the way things are done. It’s an accepted part of the Internet, but there’s no question that people hide behind anonymity to make vile or controversial comments,” said Arianna Huffington, a founder of The Huffington Post. “I feel that this is almost like an education process. As the rules of the road are changing and the Internet is growing up, the trend is away from anonymity.”

The Plain Dealer of Cleveland recently discovered that anonymous comments on its site, disparaging a local lawyer, were made using the e-mail address of a judge who was presiding over some of that lawyer’s cases.

That kind of proxy has been documented before; what was more unusual was that The Plain Dealer exposed the connection in an article. The judge, Shirley Strickland Saffold, denied sending the messages — her daughter took responsibility for some of them. And last week, the judge sued The Plain Dealer, claiming it had violated her privacy.

The paper acknowledged that it had broken with the tradition of allowing commenters to hide behind screen names, but it served notice that anonymity was a habit, not a guarantee. Susan Goldberg, The Plain Dealer’s editor, declined to comment for this article. But in an interview she gave to her own newspaper, she said that perhaps the paper should not have investigated the identity of the person who posted the comments, “but once we did, I don’t know how you can pretend you don’t know that information.”

Some prominent journalists weighed in on the episode, calling it evidence that news sites should do away with anonymous comments. Leonard Pitts Jr., a Miami Herald columnist, wrote recently that anonymity has made comment streams “havens for a level of crudity, bigotry, meanness and plain nastiness that shocks the tattered remnants of our propriety.”

No one doubts that there is a legitimate value in letting people express opinions that may get them in trouble at work, or may even offend their neighbors, without having to give their names, said William Grueskin, dean of academic affairs at Columbia’s journalism school.

“But a lot of comment boards turn into the equivalent of a barroom brawl, with most of the participants having blood-alcohol levels of 0.10 or higher,” he said. “People who might have something useful to say are less willing to participate in boards where the tomatoes are being thrown.”

He said news organizations were willing to reconsider anonymity in part because comment pages brought in little revenue; advertisers generally do not like to buy space next to opinions, especially incendiary ones.

The debate over anonymity is entwined with the question of giving more weight to comments from some readers than others, based in part on how highly other readers regard them. Some sites already use a version of this approach; Wikipedia users can earn increasing editing rights by gaining the trust of other editors, and when reviews are posted on Amazon.com, those displayed most prominently are those that readers have voted “most helpful” — and they are often written under real names.

Hal Straus, interactivity editor of The Washington Post, said, “We want to be able to establish user tiers, and display variations based on those tiers.” The system is still being planned, but he says it is likely that readers will be asked to rate comments, and that people’s comments will be ranked in part based on the trust those users have earned from other readers — an approach much like the one The Huffington Post is set to adopt. Another criterion could be whether they use their real names.

But experience has shown that when users help rank things online, sites may have to guard against a concerted campaign by a small group of people voting one way and skewing the results.

A popular feature on The Wall Street Journal’s site lets readers decide whether they want to see only those comments posted by subscribers, on the theory that the most dedicated readers might make for a more serious conversation.

Few news organizations, including The Times, have someone review every comment before it goes online, to weed out personal attacks and bigoted comments. Some sites and prominent bloggers, like Andrew Sullivan, simply do not allow comments.

Some news sites review comments after they are posted, but most say they do not have the resources to do routine policing. Many sites allow readers to flag objectionable comments for removal, and make some effort to block comments from people who have repeatedly violated the site’s standards.

If commenters were asked to provide their real names for display online, some would no doubt give false identities, and verifying them would be too labor-intensive to be realistic. But news executives say that merely making the demand for a name and an e-mail address would weed out much of the most offensive commentary.

Several industry executives cited a more fundamental force working in favor of identifying commenters. Through blogging and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, millions of people have grown accustomed to posting their opinions — to say nothing of personal details — with their names attached, for all to see. Adapting the Facebook model, some news sites allow readers to post a picture along with a comment, another step away from anonymity.

“There is a younger generation that doesn’t feel the same need for privacy,” Ms. Huffington said. “Many people, when you give them other choices, they choose not to be anonymous.”

I would suggest Easy Street block any posts containing profanity. The software to do this exists and is reasdily available

Profanity is not at all a part of the problem on SE boards. Zero.

it seems that both riversider and hfscomm1 are bothered by it.

I've noticed that Nobody is bothered by it.

GUYS - I have a revolutionary solution. Ok, sit down, get ready for this. How about starting a NEW blog, and we can all skip town together. We can ban, ban, ban and it would be the greatest forum ever. We can post all over streeteasy that there is an alternative and that all are welcome (but NONE are guaranteed). We could call it BeatEasy....

Who cares. The people protesting seem to be the people who relish the attention at the same time. I'm not sure I've ever posted, mostly because I rarely visit but no one intimidates me about posting or not. Most of the crap on here isn't even about real estate just another repost of the economy or the job market. When I was looking last year none of those posts were helpful and nothing about the job market or the economy is helping me this time around to look either. What I want is comps, information on market velocity and how negotiations are going. Some broker has been saying that rents are up, and no one wants to listen to him so he goes away at some point.
On top of comm's obsessiveness too we have hysteria like calling the cops and plenty of people posting without thinking and definitely without civility. I think more people than not relish their anonymity, could you imagine if we went back and replaced your post name with your real name and put that in the Google search engines? Some of you might be retired and it doesn't matter but some might care more than they let on.

Flard-well stated. Totally agree

And why wouldn't you?

Why wouldn't anyone who wants to use SE as a tool to understand/follow/buy/sell real estate in NY? Don't think SE thought it would turn into a vanity site for anonymous bloggers.

Flardcapital...Some of those being viciously attacked are among the most prolific posters of comps and other important RE information. The comms have never added anything productive to the board.

I don't think the tone of discourse on SE intimidates anyone, I think its starting to BORE people. What was a great intelligent exchange of RE information has become at best a political posturing venue for the far right and at its worst, a fourth grade bathroom of immature and inane attacks on site contributors.

Btw, profanity is not the issue. We are hopefully all adults here and we live in New York City. There is really something pathetic about a discussion board for adults (it might be different if the topic were say The Jonas Brothers) where "certain words" are censored. Do we limit it to the proverbial "seven dirty words"? Or will it, like some sites, bleep words like "ass" that are now used liberally on primetime TV (not HBO)? I think it is much more important to consider HOW words are used than WHAT words posters are using.
And using words for no purpose but personal attacks and degrading comments should not be condoned for the benefit of Streeteasy and its contributors.

Flard and Murray: Thanks for the drive by concern trolling. How many comps have you two contributed to the comps threads?

Flard .. You state that "What I want is comps, information on market velocity and how negotiations are going". The many editions of "If You Can Show Market Movements with Comps" (UWS, UES, MIDTOWN, DOWNTOWN ETC almost all have over 1,000 posts. Kyle's thread on negotiations in real estate is a great primer for negotiating in any situation. This is what most of us value in SE. Commm's obsession with broken toilet seats and constant attacks on valued posters is what we're trying to fix. Comm has admitted numerous times that his objective is to drive CC and AR away from the board. Collateral damage is driving alot of others away.

Last few posters, don't think for a minute that all of comm's usernames end with "comm" ... clearly some don't.

Yes, but Alan do you think it has added anything meaningful to the board from ANY screenname? If it does than there is a an even more severe personality disorder in play. Can we say Jekyll and Hyde? (or Heckle and Jekyll as the case may be?)

AH- so if someone posts a slightly contrarian point of view they automatically must, of course, be a "comm"? How paranoid is that? And how intolerant that is!

lizyank, I just mean we don't want to reason earnestly with ventriloquist's dummies, especially when it's a whole new vaudeville act in which the dummy appears to be the straight man.

it is neither intolerant nor paranoid. it is reasonable and justified.

You really have become totally paranoid. And
yes, this site has become somewhat boring as lizyank pointed out. Partly because anyone posting something not "liked" or "approved of" by more vociferous posters is shouted down, thereby discouraging many from posting here. I don't approve of what the "comms" do, I just ignore them, as I am sure many others do.

Alan.....As usual you're right. Right about everything but that stupid paint color you kept preeching.

so AH is shouting?

AH...of course, I just keep trying to drive the irrational back to ground I can deal on...its like talking to a junkie who will tell you anything to have you leave them alone and leave your purse open.

looks like one more identity blown; not to worry, there are dozens more.

guys, i'm telling you... BeatEasy.... it could be a whole new beautiful world.

Please see our comments.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/19978

The fact that you are pursuing civil legal remedies as well as help from law enforcement is reassuring -- and a very necessary step. The fact that this site is now purged of all traces of that vile troll is a relief. You can almost smell the veil of evil waft away from these pages. SE is a great site. The troll's effort to destroy the unique source of information -- and entertainment-- from the regular posters on this site probably came a little too close for comfort for you. Let's hope that the new changes to control the site that were inspired by this dwarfed troll will help keep others at bay.

"BeatEasy"

Uh, I'll keep my thoughts to myself on that one...

Ino: Thank you. We are truly graced by your restraint.