As the very first person (besides Lauda) who supported Flag #1412 and Flag #1413 (after I tagged #304376 “poochpocket” two days ago), I object to the implication that the alt accusation was made without adequate basis—especially from one who has a history of “neutrally” FUDding the hell out of identity on the basis of then-undisclosed evidence that was admittedly weak, and really amounted to no more than a reasonable suspicion.  For my part, I look to substance and not mere labels.

If Lauda says that she has strong objective evidence (as distinct from her uncanny intuition), I know that she is not just blowing smoke.

To be clear, of course, I am speaking only for myself—and so doing, just because I dislike that no good deed goes unpunished.  Whereas Lauda was only being kind and merciful by acting against hacker1001101001’s alt without a dramatic moment of revelation.



Not that mercy was ever rewarded, or kindness ever met gratitude from classless louts...


How terribly rude.  To improve your manners, please try this instead:  “Thank you, Lauda, for being sincerely reluctant to ruin my privacy, instead of seizing a legitimate opportunity to gloat, shut the critics up, and triumphally march my dox through Investigations.  I am humbled by the grace with which you act to protect the community, without petty self-aggrandization at my expense—even when such an action would be rationally justified.  May I learn wisdom from your example.”

HTH, HAND.