September 23, 2004

• Does she know you have a blog about this? No. I hope she will never find out. I am quite sure that this whole thing is strange enough for her. Gee, YOU THINK SO? Seriously tho, doesn't it only become stalking after the object of one's affections has issued a rebuff?
• He may be getting over it. One hopes. *shudder* (And if this is a joke site, the guy seriously needs to work on his funny.)
• Side note: I have a mystery girl whose name/number showed up in my phone one day. I can't for the life of me remember meeting her, much less what she looks like, her personality, etc. I called her over the weekend, and we're supposed to meet "for coffee" some time this week. But you don't see me writing a blog about it. Until now. crap.
• And that's not Mayan; it's the Aztec Calendar.
• Very likely, the girl this person's talking about is Amanda Naughton. She was the replacement "Jane Schmo" brought in for the second series of Joe Schmo about halfway through the series when the original Jane they'd picked was figuring out that it was a fake reality TV show. And she was a real sweetheart, though I don't know that I'd choose to pursue her in this way (even jokingly)
• Ah, juan, I was about to ask which reality-TV contestant lived in DC and worked for an "energy company". They have a similar show in NZ at the moment called Living the Dream, and it's utter crap. And from the blog: People are mistaking my persistence and creativity for something else entirely. *snorts*
• This guy is a wackadoo. Why anybody would make themselves a target for this by appearing on "reality" shows is beyond me. The thing about stalkers is they are blissfully unaware that their behavior and ideations are over the top. Spooky.
• Or, it could be that he hasn't achieved stalker status yet. If this girl ever ceases contact or sets him off in another way, watch out.
• I dig the song. I'm going to send it to my reality TV girlfriend Bob Vila. [CHORUS] What have you done to me? You have set my soul free. Can you see what I see? This could be serendipity. All together now...
• Is this really all that creepy though? I mean, compared with what guys do to get girls' attention in real life? Disregarding the fact that she was on TV briefly, what's the difference between this and trying to get a date with the girl you see at Starbucks every Thursday? I mean, he wrote a song for her, yeah it's totally dorky, but some would consider that sweet, right?
• Sometimes it's a thin line, Daniel, but it's a line.
• "(she) referred my email to her friends asking them what she should do." Ummm here's a tip- take out a restraining order. In all honesty though, I don't know whether this is sad or scary. Either way it's kinda ballsy- I'll give him that.
• I'd agree with Daniel about this. Just becuase you'd like to go out on a date with someone you've seen on TV does not make you a stalker. From dictionary.com: to stalk: To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement. I noticed niether following or observing in the posts except for what he saw of the girl on TV. His only mistake (a big one too) was making a blog about it. Geez.
• Yeah, I think it's the whole "blogging about your infatuation" element that's the really disturbing bit. Calling it "Pursuing Jane" and all that. That's what hints at a certain monomania, and a fairly wazzocked grasp of reality. But certainly, if there's one thing that the era of mass communication's really damn good at, it's showing how thin the line between normal behaviour and utter freakitude really is. All it takes is the externalising of your internal thoughts, or the infatuation to hit through a TV screen instead of in across a grocery store, or setting up a public vote on whether you should continue pursuing someone... and- BOOM! You're a nutcase. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go and Google the guy who gave me a flyer at a club the other night. He might have a LJ... maybe there'll be pictures...
• Yeah really, an order restraining him from what exactly? Sending her flowers? The only really inadvisable part was publishing a blog about it... and even then, I don't think that's a huge deal. Ok, so here's my story--I started reading this girl's website. She was a very popular blogger; not quite A-list, but mentioned in several newspapers, etc. Kind of almost the same level of "celebrity" as this Jane. I became inexplicably fond of her. I linked to her on my own website, and wrote something unusually candid about that fondness. The next morning I bought a card I was going to mail to her, expressing... something. That her writing affected me in unexpected ways. To say hello, and wish her well. Before I had a chance to send it, I found an e-mail from her in my inbox. She had read what I wrote on my website and... liked it. We corresponded daily for 8 months, and when she finally returned to the States (she was living abroad) we met. And liked each other. And... then we decided to drive to California together. We dated for about two years, and we're still friends now. So. I don't know. This guy seems to be skirting the line between intense and creepy, and I am certainly not advocating... whatever you guys want to call "stalking." But he just seems like a guy who saw a girl he really digs and isn't letting the distance or circumstances of celebrity get in his way of trying. I mean, at least he tried. I'm pretty sure this guy would give up if she told him to go away. I think THAT'S the difference between what he's doing and "stalking." Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic who needs to be sprayed with mace.
• blog.pursuingjane.com not found www.pursuingjane.com not found
• Daniel, I did done something similar and beyond what this man is trying. I cannot go into detail. I don't think "Pursuing Jane" is clever or skilled enough to pull it off. To me, he appears to be acting without reason: he doesn't know why he's doing it.
• Lemme guess. He's a big fan of "My Sister Sam"?
• It's over, moving on as I said I would. Thanks for calling me a stalker assholes. Hope that's not cos of us....
• Daniel, I did done something similar and beyond what this man is trying. I cannot go into detail. Niccolo: So... did it work? I mean, the other way of it is, I've never been in a good relationship where I had to work hard to get the girl to notice/date me. Things have always just happened. And... then there's the example/cautionary tale of Cory Feldman and his obsessed fan wife.
• "Hope that's not cos of us...." It is, and some other people. But mostly you. Don't lose any sleep now. Oh. Well if you say so. Off to bed.
• Interesting. I'd be relieved on behalf of Jane, if I could care a little more about a total stranger.
• way to go, guys... i didn't even get to read the frickin thing.
• The site is tits-up. Oh well.
• Who called him "a stalker assholes"?
• I don't think what he did could be considered stalking. It was a bit obsessive, and I get the idea that this guy has almost no experience with real women. I say this because the primary rule of dating is this: If you make first contact (phone call, email, flowers, etc), and you don't get a response, give it up. The 'non-call' is a powerful signal that she's not interested. This guy has made several attempts, got no positive response, and yet he keeps trying. That's only romantic in bad teen flicks. In real life, it's pathetic.
• rocket88 actually hit what I was vaguely saying with the "thin line" comment. I didn't get to see the blog, but if you pursue someone that you know isn't interested (silence = not interested), then you're in the wrong. Maybe naively, or due to some problem with understanding how to treat other people, but still in the wrong.
• google cache? How does one do that?
• But guys the chap *DID* get a response. She emailed him a couple of times, got him to send some pictures to some friends of hers etc. etc. There was definitely some reciprocation but ultimately (from what I read) she ended up saying she wasn't interested and that's when he ended his pursuit of her.
• It really sucks that I had to wait 24 hours to respond. But anyhow, this not directed at all of you. Some of you I don't think really read anything I said. Maybe you did, but your still assuming a lot. First of all the site was coming down anyway as I lead to in some of my posts. I saw she wasn't interested, so I basically told her good-bye, sent her the CD as a last ditch effort because I wrote the damn thing and figured I might as well. Oooh, that makes me a stalker? Secondly, it's not like I didn't get a response from her. I heard from her twice and a few times through her friends. The entire time I was thinking she was probably just being nice as I said in some posts. Yeah, I'm real delusional if I am aware of the reality of the situation. Finally, somehow my last post on the front page escaped everyone. "This has nothing to do with Jane but another woman entirely" as I recall that post starting out. If I have been in the process of dating other women as this has been unfolding, "monomania" and "obsessive" really don't apply then. Oh well, it's much ado about nothing at this point. I'm really just more surprised about how quickly people are to judge/jump to conclusions when they don't know someone or the full story. Oh and how little people care about people they don't know. I guess I've been naive in that respect. For the rest of you, thanks for thinking a little bit more objectively. Just because some guy pursues a woman from TV (for a month) and writes a blog which was actually intended for friends, doesn't mean he's a stalker or nutcase. Our close-minded society is too quick to put labels on people. It's sad really. Well that was fun (sarcasim). Take care, bye.
• PJG -- sorry if I came off like a judgmental, well, judge. I work in the criminal justice system and have seen my fair share of obsessive people who don't believe for a moment that they are out of line and simply can't understand why the focus of their being doesn't properly respond. I keep screwing up the link, but the entry on throwsomechairs.com was written the day after a restraining order against this person was made permanent. This woman was so obsessed with some guy that she tried to have him declared incompetent so that she could be named his guardian. Again, my apologies if you were truly being sincere.
• I don't know, because I couldn't even read the site. Google doesn't seem to have any cache, either - www.pursuingjane.com comes up, but no cache. Anyone with more google-fu? Other than that, two thoughts spring to mind - wow, for someone who blogs his obsession for someone else, he has a very thin-skin. But second - wow, monkeyfilter is well-known enough that he noticed this discussion? Cool.
• Is this the link you meant, jb? throwsomechairs Kinda looks like a suicide but the only other link I could find was a page about autism.
• Thanks for helping me out, PatB. That's the one. Yes, the reference to autism is there because she claimed that he was autistic and unable to manage his affairs. I heard him testify and he was anything but. But she is extremely convincing, as well. And this is not a suicide; she's very much out there. The restraining order means nothing. My observation is that it's fine to crush on someone from afar. Maybe even lay it on the line -- send flowers, express your interest. But to establish a web site chronicling your "pursuit" of someone -- that raises flags. The balance of power is skewed. The blogger can be anonymous, and yet know many personal details about the subject. Very unnerving.
• cynnbad It's fine. I know real stalkers are out there and therefore I do understand why someone would think that. That's why I felt it was a bad idea to contact her in the first place. But I did anyway, and amazingly I heard from her. So I tried to keep the lines of communication open but eventually they stopped and hence the conclusion. jb Thin-skinned or not, I was just really surprised at so many negative reactions. One small thing which made me speak up here, was everyone said all sorts of comments here but not one of you directly to me. Kind of left me with a feeling of "if you have something to say, say it to my face." You know? And I knew this post was on monkeyfilter because in one day I got like 1000 hits. So I looked in the referrer log of my website to find where the traffic was coming from. Oh well. I've said my piece which is all I wanted to do. Whatever conclusion you arrive to I had a chance to defend myself. Oh yeah, Bob Vila? Are you kidding, my song rocked! Just kidding, but seriously it wasn't Bob Vila sucky. Maybe Martha Stewart....
• cynnbad I'm not agreeing to be agreeable, but after all this I concur that the blog was a bad idea. But once again I really didn't intend for public viewing. My friends don't think I am a stalker and somehow I thought if the public were to view it, most wouldn't either. Just was not thinking I guess. And as far as personal details of the subject, I don't have any personal details (maybe only a few) about her. I see your point though, that is why I never ever posted any emails she sent me or I sent her. Except the squirrel power-plant one. But that was fairly benign.
• PJG -- fair enough. Thanks for responding. But everything on the internet is public, and admissable as evidence. Please, I don't mean to sound alarmist, but somehow your site alarmed me. While she may be intrigued by your public interest in her, and she responded to you, I would still caution anyone about publishing their crushes/fantasies/whatever for all to see. It can haunt you. That said, I encourange you to stick around here. You seem to have a sweet, maybe even romantic view of the world and I might have misjudged you. The rapid condemnation as a creep might have been more about the medium than the message. Sorry to say it on a Friday night, but everyone needs to be careful.
• cynnbadd Understood. Considering your occupation I believe you to have authoritative opinion on the subject. I appreciate your consideration of what I have said. Regarding sticking around, I do like the site now I have read other threads. I think I may just get a different account name though. Don't want to be PursuingJaneGuy forever.
• Let me know, PJG, and I'm happy to change your username. Email in profile.
• Niccolo: So... did it work? Yes.
• THIS is why MoFi is! the! best! People who get linked to can respond, and the community gets a new member. Welcome to Artist Formerly Known As PursuingJaneGuy!
• Understand about the new name, PJG... and hope you'll stick around.
• PJG - I am sorry for how harsh my comment came off. It was only a reaction to your place holder. But one of the reasons people would speak here, rather than to you directly, is that this page is a conversation about things, including the internet. It would have been rude to go and fill up your page with comments, negative or not. Perhaps there might be a way to make it easier for people to respond here - maybe the 24 hour wait could be just for posting, rather than comments (I don't know if this is possible). Though as you did, and as the Bobst Boy did for metafilter, the original site is also a good place to respond.
• Honestly, I'm quite happy with the 24-hour wait time simply because it does give spur-of-the-moment angry readers time to calm down and rationalise their annoyance before being able to express it. And it keeps the deliberate trolls away, mostly. I know it's a pain when people have something genuinely important to say and a lot of people email me asking to be allowed to comment earlier, so I authorise them as soon as I get the email. I've had many, many new accounts that are set up as flamebait, but the creators never seem to return after setting up the accounts even though I, being nice and all ;) authorise them all the same. I think if people could comment right away we'd see a lot more crap on here.
• tracicle is wise beyond her ears.
• I think if people could comment right away we'd see a lot more crap on here. All true. Best left it as it is.
• One of those "it"s is extraneous to my intended meaning. (Although if Best *had* left it as it was from time to time, he may have been on better terms with his liver.)
• And maybe Ringo would be unemployed.
• patB: google toolbar (don't know about the official one for IE, as i use the unofficial one for mozilla/firefox - available at googlebar.mozdev.org) has a "cached copy" button: if you get a dead link, hit the "cache" button for quick and easy access to older versions. works for most sites unless google caching has been disabled by the site admin (probably through some robots.txt file).
• Lesson from all this: It is a common refrain on weblogs and discussion forums like this that people should start realising that if they put something on the internet, it is public property, accessible by all and open for discussion (cf Maya Keyes). As such, it's a bit fucking dumb to think that we're talking behind someone's back, when we're actually holding a party in their referrer logs. What's that you say? Am I about to link to Danny O'Brien's fantastic article about public, private and secret registers on the internet (again)? Why, yes I am. It seems apt. Hi, PursuingJaneGuy, nice to talk to you. Please, do stick around. MonkeyFilter: We're nicer over here.
• That's bit about the end of the private register is cool, fb. Though I think that in mailing lists among friends, there still is a bit of that privateness. It's not absolutely secret, but neither can it be read by the world. (Which is also one solution to the "I want to share things with friends and family but no one else" problem.)
• (The bit about not wanting to share sites isn't just about this thread - there was a recent metatalk discusion about privacy on the internet, too - in that case about the blog/live journal of someone in Iraq.)