In an effort to either get past this bravenak nonsense, or to prolong my own sense of awe and wonder at your stupidity, I've been trying to piece your logic together. I'd like to get your take on it.
This seems to be the underpinnings of the prevailing legal thought on DU:
1. DU uses screen names.
2. They don't explicitly share private information.
3. Skinner told them to watch their private information.
4. Someone found bravenak's information and sent her a letter.
5. On the basis of people not explicitly sharing their information, and on the presumption that it is not cool to send a letter, DU believes this activity is illegal. No, not merely illegal, but a FEDERAL CRIME.
I mean, because it is actually and manifestly insane to believe that threatening to click buttons on a website is illegal (I'm sure ColesCountyDem might disagree...that's a different matter), you DUmmies must believe that the illegal part is the acquisition of an address and the sending of the letter itself.
If that's true, then I am about to own the assets of Citibank, American Express, Sunseeker Awnings, and that Christ-forsaken Pennysaver.
Oh, wait. I think I get it. It's only illegal if the Pennysaver only sends its circular to ME, right? Or something like that? But wait: I didn't want the Pennysaver to know my information, but they got it anyway. If the Pennysaver threatened to do something equally inconsequential to me, would they then be in trouble? I'm curious.
Favor us with your legal opinion. Nads tried and failed (as usual) to demonstrate that a crime has been committed. It sure looks like you think that any unwanted communication threatening utterly meaningless bullshit is a federal crime, punishable by ass bangin' in Leavenworth. But you guys get PMs from each other threatening the same shit all the time, right? Why isn't THAT illegal? What special magic does the postal service add to the mix?
Can the Postmaster fly?
