[arderkrag]

Naming the street is not publishing an address. They are two vastly different things. Also, they haven’t lived at the listed address for quite some time. If the reporter had actually wanted to cause harm, she would have used the current address.

[txhurl]

Maybe she didn’t have the current address and was ‘fishin’ around for someone to give it to her.

Who did that journolist who leased a house right next to Sarah to harass her work for?

[Karl Spooner]

The Times thought they had the right house. Which makes it worse yet because someone else could be living there. Also, since they did list the street, there is a AFP photo showing the house and the mailbox with the street address on it. Without the street, it would have been more difficult to find.

[Lazamataz]

Naming the street is not publishing an address. They are two vastly different things. Also, they haven’t lived at the listed address for quite some time. If the reporter had actually wanted to cause harm, she would have used the current address.

Besides, those damned Jews had it coming to them, dominating every level of business and banking like they did. Bringing them to a concentration camp doesn't actually cause them harm.

WTF is going on with you?

[Smokin' Joe]

Also, they haven’t lived at the listed address for quite some time. If the reporter had actually wanted to cause harm, she would have used the current address.

So, by publishing what is someone else' address as Wilson's, that makes p-o'ed hooligans showing up on the lawn at night with felonious intent okay? Even if someone else lives there?

What if that was your house, now?

[catfish1957]

If the reporter had actually wanted to cause harm, she would have used the current address.

I bet that is reassuring to every other person who lives on that street.