Skipped to the end of this thread past a couple of pages, so forgive me if this point has been made.
The manner in which you express an opinion can reveal the level of evidence you have for your position. If you have strong evidence, you present that evidence, and reason based on that evidence, knowing it is strong enough to prove your point. If you don't, you resort to emotionally charged attacks or exaggerations thinking the stronger the tone of your words, the stronger your argument will be seen. Ironically the opposite is true. The more emotionally charged attack words you use, the less credible you appear to be.
So let her do her thing. Respond if you want, expose her if you want, but do so in a way that provides evidence, do not respond in kind or your position will be seen as just as weak.
And by the way, the same holds true for the extremists CFS patients who want to slash and burn the psycho folks. Expressing a desire that they be ruined does not lead to credibility of your position on the issue. Let's use reason, folks. It is the most powerful weapon there is. It will show our position is strong and the name-callers are weak.
And Martlet, I have to say I disagree with you. Harassment is not gathering information about people and documenting it. Heck, some people do that for a living. For example, private investigators, journalists, detectives, etc.
Giving that information to a prospective employer is not harassment as long as the information provided is true. If it isn't, then you are looking at a defamation lawsuit. Trust me, I have experience with these things.
She is not hiding her identity. Someone earlier had shown she has a Facebook page, she has spoken at debates, she puts her information on a blog. Easily, someone found a video which clearly shows her identity. She has made herself a limited purpose public figure (legal term) and the issue of her posts is a matter of public concern (another legal term). So information distributed about her own comments to anyone is not harassment. She already put those comments out for public consumption.
Now if it is continuous by one person to the prospective employer or current employer, etc, that person or company might call it harassment. Continuous phone calls from one person after being told not to call any more could be harassment. But sending information in the mail that doesn't have any threats is not harassment, just maybe an aggravation, like junk mail. The key is whether it is true.
To be stalking, there must be an implicit or implied threat, depending on the state where it occurred. The person must feel a high level of fear. To be afraid that a future employer might come to know of things you posted on the Internet won't stand up to stalking.
But, Martlet being careful is good advice as far as people making sure the information they plan to pass on is accurate. In fact, if someone wanted to set up a Web site right now exposing some information about ERV, that would be covered under the First Amendment of free speech. In fact, even personal information, if someone chose. We see information about public figure's personal lives all the time, without their permission. And as I said before, she has made herself a public figure on this issue (CFS, WPI and retroviruses). Just be sure it is accurate.
Tina
