they agreed to not identify after he agreed to cease and desist. I don't know how direct or indirect the deal is but CNN retains the right to publish who he is if he continues. If he doesn't continue they likely won't (but still can) I'm not sure where you are going but it is amusing


He can continue..... or not
They can publish.... or not


The situation is not secret..... the name has not been released. Maybe they just should release it.... this really was not to their advantage

teedubbya wrote:

And honestly... no one has a right to anonymity when they post something. You have a right to not post your personal information. But if you put enough crap on the internet to make it feasible to track who you are... and you post inflammatory enough crap that someone is curious who you are, you should be strong enough to accept the publicity.

victor809 wrote:

my point is that everything you just said, cnn says is false... no agreement reached, no deal struck... so I apologize for accusing you of watching cnn... apparently you're just making this stuff up as you go...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

I don't know if a formal "deal" was made but apparently there was an agreement (for the benefit of the bigot). Maybe it wasn't a legal deal or completely spelled out on both ends but it doesn't matter much to me. At that point you are arguing minutia which distracts but doesn't add much.

And no I have not looked for CNNs take on it. I suspect it would be biased, and I don't think they've really gone much beyond the original statement. thus I wouldn't completely hang my hat on it. The quit listenening to cnn thing is as old as quit listening to mort... its cheap

CNN chose to not publish for the benefit of the bigot presumably based on what he said and did. They still can if he continues (thus shows he doesn't mean what he said to them or said he would or wouldn't do)

its not complicated or blackmail. Alex Jones for 100 alex.

teedubbya wrote:

an enormous organization devoted an entire team to tracking down a private citizen who posted something critical of them...

they then threatened to expose (or said they wouldn't expose for now because they'd fallen in line) their personal information to a national audience...

you act like this great...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

I wish we had an adult media that didn't generate blatantly false stories.

jjanecka wrote:

we will clearly never see eye to eye on this... we agree on the facts for the most part... but what I view it as a reprehensible attack on a private citizen by an enormous organization that wields the power to destroy peoples lives by airing their personal information to an enormous national audience, you seem to view as justifiable because you think the private citizen was a "bigot"...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

I could care less honestly, other than the fact that a media outlet has more on their plate than bullying a private citizen.

jjanecka wrote:

I doubt he did... I watched the story evolve this morning on 8chan... it was silly... everyone knew he was a 30-something year old (he posted something about being a teenager back in the 90's I think) but one guy mentions it's a 15 year old, everyone else starts rolling with it, then someone started saying he was gay and cnn had threatened to out him, and that didn't stick at all because of how outlandish it was, but the 15 year old thing stuck... weird... in 2 weeks if you ask 10 random people about this, at least 3 will still think he was 15...

opelmanta1900 wrote: