More shocking than Hugh Foskett's lip ring? Can't wait...
so how long to i have to keep refreshing until these damn pics show up?
This should be interesting, although I detect a hint of tongue-and-cheek in Dan's teasing post...
I'm going to speculate that the photos have something to do with Jamie Pedersen having supported a Republican candidate or cause sometime in his past.
I've heard that Jamie Pederson is gay. Maybe that's what the pictures are of - him in a dress, or in some sort of leather outfit. Those are the only two things gay men wear.
Pedersen got a normal haircut and is now a threat to get 90% of the vote?
Abramhoff?
Pedersen had denied ever entering a gay bar in his life. Maybe the pics are of Pedersen in a gay bar? Or a sex club, with his khakis around his ankles? Or in the bushes at Volunteer Park with his ankles behind his ears?
Closet heterosexual???
Let me guess: Hugh Foskett (that UW sophomore Republican that's running against Jamie) is gay! And they have photos of him, uh, being gay!
Exactly, there appear to be more gay R's than D's right now in the House, so how exactly Wouldn't he fit in?
Uh-oh. The pictures have disappeared! What happened Dan/Eli? Those pictures were a remarkable story about the making of Republicans.
Where the heck did your Hugh Foskett expose go? Did that big bad Republican threaten you? Did Facebook threaten to sue? WTF?
Well, you can still find the "shocking" pictures here:
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/10/scandal_43rd_distric.php
Anyone want to take bets on how long that link stays up?
Jamie Pedersen was actually Stephanie Pure in a skintight wig and men's clothes!
Willis, you're too damn smart! We didn't delete the post entirely because we wanted to preserve the comments, but we hid it while we consult with our lawyers...
Lawyers, schmoyers. He (or someone he knows) published it on the freakin internet - he had no basis to expect privacy.
The voters deserve the truth!!
By the way, that post is proof that in 10-15 years there will be no one who will be able to run for office - as the internet will have ruined everyone's chances by exposing something stupid that they said/did in their younger years.
that of course is if you are dumbass who gloats on the internet about being a dumbass.
not everyone gloats about being dumbass on the internets and posts pictures to prove it ;)
what's there to consult a lawyer about? the facebook membership requirement is surely no assurance of privacy. and it's not like you doctored the photos (if you did, you have a very sophisticated version of photoshop).
"he had no basis to expect privacy"
have you read facebook's privacy policies?
Facebook follows two core principles:
1. You should have control over your personal information.
2. You should have access to the information others want to share. [facebook]
most of the pictures of hugh on his facebook profile were taken and posted by other users. it's probably not illegal, but its not in the spirit of the site and feels like awfully bad form.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).