That is the problem. It didn't stop there and hasn't stopped to this day. It didn't stop with the first letter to the employer but a followup letter was sent later as well. Since then more disparaging comments have been posted online and in one case, could prevent the person from attaining a job to support his/her family. One position has already been lost for the original transgression. A heavy price was paid. There is no need to destroy this person by continuing the vengeance. It just goes on and on and on. There are children in this family who need a provider.


>>>>Which the employee could have just as easily done from another location. They didn't though, so the Tattler went after them the only truly damaging way they could think of - through the employer. One big issue here is that there could only be one intent; to see the person fired. You don't contact someone's employer like that to do the employer any favors. It's to hurt the employee. No other reason. In honor of Seinfeld - seems appropriate - "Tattler very, very bad" while waggling a finger back and forth. No, not that one...
>>>
>>>I think that there was proof of her logging into his account from her work machine. IIRC, Foxite tracks the IP address when a user logs in.
>>>
>>>All I know is that if I contributed heavily (for no compensation) in a community providing support and representing a product, I would feel betrayed, frustrated, and extremely angry if somebody posed as me or accessed an account with my name. And no, I don't buy that the password was magically guessed on the first try. I can maybe see how somebody might think it is their duty to report this transgression to the employer if it was done on company time on company machines. A representative of that company did this, which means that this company indirectly did this. Why do you think I haven't listed my company's name on my account for a few years? I started to participate heavily in some chatter forums and I didn't want to represent my company with my opinions.
>>
>>You've presented the one issue that causes me to entertain a slightely faded shade of black (not quite grey) in all of this. The person did indirectly represent the company, though I still see it as a couple of pixels in a much larger image. The Tattler knew who it was that did it. They knew that the employee was not representing their company during this. It was personal. On both sides. But you make a point.
>
>Even still, enough ought to be enough.