"Unreadable content" is roughly equal to "no content," yes?

[saffronhare]

It looks like I am a Person of Interest to a person in the Russian Federation: poloffnick. Huh. I have no idea why, and this person's LJ is all in cyrillic...er, stuff.

Comments

[fitzjameshorse.livejournal.com]

Actually on reflection, I would probably block also.
Ive taken a look at his profile and first off we have the language problem.
Second off he did not ask permission to add which I think is a pre requisite (I should state that my own compose a message does not work). I dont think that I would try to add a woman as a friend without asking.

Third off hes born in 1988...which may or may not be an issue for you. For me Id prolly hesitate to add a woman only 20. Id prolly decline an add and I wouldnt try to add one.
Fourth his interests...well he has three and I Cant identify them even by linking them.it all leads to fellow Russians.
Next off he has 160 friends..ie he has added 160 people, mostly western ladies.
On the other hand only 40 have friended him back ...which indicates hes doing it systematically.
I think all of us have a limit as to how mant friends are reasonable to have to do them all justice...

160 in a language we dont speak?
All this......no pic of course. Id hesitate to add and Im probably block. (Ffishing, Hacking, ID theft) all of which he might be totally innocent but I see no compelling reason why he needs to add you.
All this and the normal protocols of a woman online needing to be careful...I tend to go with blocking.
Maybe its unfair of me but Id urge caution.

[saffronhare.livejournal.com]

Those are all good points. :)

I had no intention of friending this person back. You'll recall it took me a while to add YOU, even with the endorsement of a very close friend...and that all your comments were screened until I did? This is a generally cautious bunny.

Thank you for sharing your reasoning and perspective. I suppose I'm fortunate never to have needed to *block* a person before.

Cautious bunny

[celticwhistlin.livejournal.com]

Redundantly redundant?