Think I'm protesting overmuch, Hellcat, as you indicate elsewhere? Or that there's no specific conclusion one can reach regarding the identity of the person being indicted here? REALLY?
Pray give us a list, then, culled from your bloated archives, of the persons meeting the qualifications in bold:
"I started to post at another smaller board mainly to get away from the harassment by an individual here who is either afraid to go there or whatever, has often stated they won't go there."
The person must:
1) be here at AW
2) not be known to be posting at this "smaller board," presumably Ross's
3) have stated more than once, publicly, that they "won't go there" (to that smaller board).
To the best of my knowledge, I'm the only person who answers that description. If you can provide information (with URLs, or direct and attributed quotes) leading to other conclusions, please do. Otherwise, I recommend you don't make yourself quotable on any public board intimating that I am overreacting to the nasty smear dreamed up by the "nice" multi-ID'd poster who launched this thread.
And perhaps, Hellcat, you can also explain your perception of how someone can "feel followed around" to not only where they went, but also to where "they didn't go." Howzat??? Are you suggesting, as it appears, that such persons are being persecuted by their own shadows? Were that true, all their fears are foolish fancies. Ah, at long last, a glimmer of reason in il teatro dell' irragionevole...
posted on August 3, 2000 08:30:30 PM
Oh dear. Looks like I have more reading to do. I never go to the right place.
I certainly hope she doesn't mean you Pareau. I have seen no evidence of harrassment from you at AW. I am more sorry than you know to see this happening.
Think I will leave this thread to those who know what is going on.
posted on August 3, 2000 08:40:15 PM
You really do make a person think that it MUST be you, Pareau, whom Donna makes reference to, even though it is only your assumption that it is Ross's board to which she refers. The fact of your having announced several time that you would not post at that board really doesn't have much to do with Donna's post unless in fear of exposure you read it that way.
Since nearly all of the relevant boards are smaller than AW, why do you feel that the finger is pointed at you? It looks to me that most all of the things to which Donna has made warning here occured on that other board, not Ross's. I don't know if you have also stated that you would not post there, but even if you had it would not matter much since as you are anonymous here so you would be there, or anywhere.
As to your repeated blowhard threats of some mysterious legal or other action because of things said about you personally, I'm afraid that I do not understand. Has there once been any case where anyone has made any remark about you personally? How could there be? To do that would require that you be addressed by name, and you don't reveal a name.
So, you are just blowing hot air with all of your mumbo-jumbo, or is it a smokescreen to allay suspicion away from you of actions you actually are making occur?
This is not the first case of intimidation of harrassment that you have involved yourself in without apparent provocation. Yet here you are and I can't help but wonder why.
edited to add "not ross's"
[ edited by krs on Aug 3, 2000 08:42 PM ]
posted on August 3, 2000 08:58:57 PM
Can we stop this, please? It's getting really ugly, really fast. It's apparent that LadyofLake is not available to respond. I don't think people should be pointing fingers or naming names, especially when there seems to be some confusion about what LadyofLake was referring to in the first place. This has all the charm of a witchhunt.
posted on August 3, 2000 09:03:16 PM
Krs, nevermind the reason why they've stated it, but do you know of anyone else who's stated what I have, repeatedly, about not posting at the "small board"? Do you know anyone else who's stated, repeatedly, that they wouldn't post at any other board--at which the person who launched this thread now posts? Come on, be a pal, I'd really LIKE to have some company here. This does NOT look good for the person who started this, and posting an accusation this ugly and leaving town, as another reports she's done, is about as bad a "hit and run" as can be done. It's anything but "nice."
You wonder why I'm here, krs? I don't expect you to remember, but when Staysea pulled this stunt (except she had the guts to name names), you asked me what took me so long to rebutt her accusations. I would have figured you'd applaud my being proactively defensive against the smears of another misdirected attention-seeking boardie. *Sigh.* One just can't keep up with your whims, can one?
posted on August 3, 2000 09:07:18 PM
I don't think that it's that bad, Spaz. Donna evidently was hurt by something that happened in boards. Not really anything newsy about that, we've had many near identical threads over time from a wide variety of posters. I'm sure that once said she's done with the matter, and all will be well again by de by.
But this blather by pareau is innappropriate in it's force, and these 'challenges' for 'evidence' are ridiculous.
posted on August 3, 2000 09:08:20 PM
Oh ok, I know about womanly PMSing and I know about Private Messaging (I do have ICQ and Instant Meassanger, not that I use either much lately). I just wanted clarification. Thanks!
(Not about to get into the middle of the rest of this thread though, because like I said I'm new )
~~~~~~~~No, I\'m not a cat.~~~~~~~~
Yes, I'm MouseSlayer everywhere. It's a great name, so I use it!
posted on August 3, 2000 09:11:31 PM
Well, pareau, right off the top, Spaz has said that he won't post to ross's.
And you seem to be missing the point. Staysea may have mentioned your 'name' and that would warrant a defensive response, but Donna has not mentioned you, so why this?
I had not thought that it MIGHT be you that had upset her until you responded the way you have.
posted on August 3, 2000 09:19:37 PM
She was "evidently" hurt, krs? There's no "evidence" of anything of the kind. There's just a very nasty accusation by someone who doesn't mind hurting at least one person, and using the innuendo tool to hit as many as possible. We have seen the victim schtick used at AW ad nauseum, and it nearly always dissolves under scrutiny. I don't think her complaint is based in reality, and suspect it's more wishcraft than anything, like her friend before her. So she can either name names and offer proof, or retract this nonsense. And you can leave me alone in this, krs. It's none of your business--or if it is, spell out your involvement.
posted on August 3, 2000 09:28:24 PM
But I have been mentioned, krs. Is your memory that short? Why, not five hours ago you addressed someone publicly on the very topic of my being the subject of this thread. Or were you being coy?
Either way, give it a rest. If the person who started this crap doesn't come back and address it, I'd think the thread had definitely become nonproductive. And you know what happens to nonproductive threads!
pareau felt donna was talking about him/her, for reasons pareau has already explained. Maybe donna didn't come out and name pareau, but pareau felt that donna's allusions were hitting close to home. So pareau spoke out in his/her own defense. I would not begrudge pareau, you or anyone else that right. It's a natural reaction when you think your character is being impugned.
posted on August 3, 2000 09:45:49 PM
I think Lady was upset about something and it came out via this post she did. There are many things going on in RL that none of us know, or some of us know but cant betray confidences. Deaths, illnesses, fear, sadness, anger....and sometimes, there isnt a place to vent it, so the only place to let out the poison is amongst those who may sympathize and respond with caring words. Perhaps this is what happened with Lady? Concerning the Staysea thing....she had an agenda here, and it was met (according to her), but I am not at liberty to discuss it further, although I did share with a few others my concerns (didnt want to be alone with it) about the whole thing and avoided it to the best of my ability. From what I know or understand, Staysea's accusation about pareau was very different than the hurt that Lady has shown. I think its more than what was said, because its isnt "like" Lady to do that. What she said at Ross's board was very much unlike her, so it leads me to think something bad has happened in her RL and she just needed to vent.
posted on August 3, 2000 09:59:10 PMBut I have been mentioned, krs. Is your memory that short? Why, not five hours ago you addressed someone publicly on the very topic of my being the subject of this thread. Or were you being coy?
Cutesy of you, pareau, not to mention that my response to that poster who implicated you was in fact in defense of you by denial that the situation was necessarily as presented by that poster, but I thought that the subject was Donna's having mentioned you or not, not whether anyone ever had. Or are you attempting to be coy?
Oh, I missed you: It's none of your business--or if it is, spell out your involvement..
Well, that's simple enough. I like Donna, and you have, pareau, in my opinion attacked her quite brutally and personally in her absense, without her having mentioned you at all.
[ edited by krs on Aug 3, 2000 10:04 PM ]
Obviously, something is going on somewhere that I'm completely unaware of. What is clear, though, is that this thread is going bad with a downhill pull.
Please, take a step back. If someone's posts bother you, use your ignore button.
I don't want to lock this thread, but I will if the combativeness continues.
posted on August 3, 2000 10:26:17 PM
Now that's a real incentive to become combative, Pat! Getting this thread locked would be a public service. With Donna off-line, continuing this thread only serves to provide fodder to the other boards.
That is the reason I don't want to lock it. It seems unfair to lock a thread when the person under discussion is obviously not available to respond. But I simply will have no choice if it continues down the same path it is going. Of course, it's possible it could be reopened should Donna indicate that she was ready to rejoin the conversation.
And as much as I don't like the idea, providing fodder for other boards is something I just can't consider as a basis for making a moderation decision.
posted on August 3, 2000 10:50:41 PM
Yes, Pat, but it is something I am allowed to consider when pondering whether to become combative or not. (Psst - My previous post was tongue-n-cheek.)
posted on August 3, 2000 10:58:28 PM
Pat, I think it would be a good idea to lock it. It's clearly a troll post, intended to cause problems here. If the person who started the mess--who's probably enjoying the multiboard attention she's getting immensely, BTW--bothers to show up, she can begin her game again on a new thread, or ask that you reopen it. That seems fair. Fairer than leaving it open while she's "out of town," don't you think?
Huh? I said (elsewhere) that since Donna's post was nonspecific, it was unreasonable to conclude about whom she might be speaking. I said that, given the nonspecifics of her post, I was surprised by the strength of the response to it, which concluded that it was you to whom it referred.
To be honest, I don't read many of your posts. I don't keep track of where you "will" or "will not" post, and with (or without) whom, or why. Lacking that essential knowledge about your preferences, I did not see any finger pointed at you. But I have read posts by a number of people saying that they do not post one place or another. Since I don't much care where people choose to post, I don't pay much attention to it. However, I guess any one of those posters here who has made a public statement of disdain for another board could form the same conclusion that you have--that Donna was referring to them.
As to your suggestion that I, "[i]Pray give us a list, then, culled from your bloated archives, of the persons meeting the qualifications in bold:
"I started to post at another smaller board mainly to get away from the harassment by an individual here who is either afraid to go there or whatever, has often stated they won't go there.[/i]""
Pray elsewhere...you have apparently already determined that the shoe fits you. Why would I bother to provide dissuasive information otherwise which would only be fodder for a continuing diatribe? I am on my way to morning prayer, however, and shall light a candle for you...hope it helps.
Beth
edited for UBB
[ edited by hellcat on Aug 4, 2000 03:20 AM ]
posted on August 4, 2000 03:25:47 AM
Pareau-
I was the first person (you can check if you want) to chastise Staysea for unfairly and incorrectly accusing you of stalking her. What she did was wrong and baseless.
I don't see what LadyOfLake has done to be at all the same. It is not clear that you are the person she is dicussing; I suspect it is a different poster who has also appeared in the thread today. A quick scan of the many other boards shows that she was abused at one of the other boards.
Now for my interpretations:
It is disingenuous for some of the earliest posters on this thread to say that these charges are baseless - it is quite obvious to me from words, posting style, syntax, etc. etc., that one of them was there doing the abusing (not you, Pareau).
posted on August 4, 2000 07:24:24 AM
Hellcat, your disingenuity and transparency give me my morning giggle, deepened to a guffaw over your mention of some sort of religious posturing involving candles. I love your self-important "parade of piety." The only way you could fall on your knees and make it matter is if you couldn't reach your keyboard at the same time. Unlikely; I envision your prie dieu equipped with laptop AND cellphone. Methinks you'd best save your devotional flames for yourself--your archives have failed you this time. LOL.
rca001, what the person who originated the thread has done is to launch a baseless accusation against someone here at AW, of following her to other sites (AKA "stalking" and "harassing" her. If you remember, Staysea began her campaign without naming names, then asked for strength from the collective masses as she pointed the finger. It's a smear, it's drivel, and I'm calling it out. The originator of the complaint can offer proof of her claims--and she's made a number of them--or zip it. We shouldn't be subjected to this, and as someone who was targeted the first time and who's been implicated by insinuation this time, I'm not behaving passively. Think of it this way: The only way this sort of accusation isn't treated as a grotesque violation of board ettiquette (and CGs) is the possibility that there's validity in the claims. I know there are no grounds for such from this quarter, and since I've been named elsewhere as the most likely object of the poster's "agenda" (and the fact that this thread represents a repeated attempt to do something--see the opening--attests to the existence of same), I'm not waiting until HRH deigns to grace us with names.
For the record, I fail to see the justification for her complaints against anyone here, and haven't seen any plausible links between specific posters at GB and those of any AW posters. If she can't prove her allegations, the smear should boomerang, and this gambit of hers should be rewarded with the contempt it deserves.
posted on August 4, 2000 07:39:12 AM
Yet no objection to the similarly ambiguous accusations made by rca001 who actually refines the prospective doers of this dirt to those who initially posted to this thread?
Parroting Pareau, rca001; to whom do you refer? To Femme, to Meya, to myself, to HVQ? Whom? Since you are so certain, as you say, by the it is quite obvious to me from words, posting style, syntax, etc. etc., that one of them was there doing the abusing statement that you've just made, the answer shouldn't be long in formulation.
Or do you mean to enter the innuendo fray? Or to take sides in postures similar to that car person?
posted on August 4, 2000 08:29:49 AM
Doesn't matter whether the subject of LoL's post here is pareau, me, or the Man in the Moon.
Fact is, she's made some pretty nasty accusations about SOMEbody, but has refrained from naming her victim. That's right, HER victim; what she's done is provoked a whole lot of speculation and stirred up completely unnecessary enmity here, then sat back (smirking, I'm sure) to watch the fireworks.
All any of us has asked of her is to name names. She's not "protecting" anybody by keeping this big secret to herself.
At this point I couldn't give a rat's ass whether she's been "stalked". What she's done on this board is at least as reprehensible.
pareau, my deepest sympathies. Keep in mind that the first to cry "victim" (in this case, LoL) invariably gets knee-jerk sympathy from those reluctant to look past the words to the message, and anybody who dares question this party's veracity or motives is doomed to be demonized.
posted on August 4, 2000 08:33:34 AM
Since I don't have a clue as to what originated this tirade of Ladyoflake, I had planned on staying out of it. But, never mind that.
Ladyoflake posted a seriously inflammatory rant which did everything but explain what she was talking about. For me, it threw up red flags as to even being a part of this community.
[i] some users, even current AW members, that will stop at nothing to criticize and
destroy people...Don't kid yourself. Even some of the people who are nice here at AW...they are performing "hatchet jobs" on the most personal aspects of the same individuals they interact with here. [/i]
Strong words to post and then leave unanswered, I think.
It also seems to me to mimic the very behavior she is complaining about. Whether or not she meant to implicate Pareau she is certainly savvy enough to have understood that her words would at least point suspicion toward Pareau among others. Yet, she felt comfortable enough to post and leave the deciphering to the rest of us. An incredibly sad and cruel thing to do to someone I at least thought was her friend. Not to mention the ramifications it had for the rest of us.
Ladyoflake might very well have had good intentions. But her words are purposely and obviously inflammatory and meant to harm "someone" - she wasn't clear about that. I for one would have greatly appreciated a little more clarity and a little less warning.
)
(Psst - My previous post was tongue-n-cheek.)
and "harassing" her. If you remember, Staysea began her campaign without naming names, then asked for strength from the collective masses as she pointed the finger. It's a smear, it's drivel, and I'm calling it out. The originator of the complaint can offer proof of her claims--and she's made a number of them--or zip it. We shouldn't be subjected to this, and as someone who was targeted the first time and who's been implicated by insinuation this time, I'm not behaving passively. Think of it this way: The only way this sort of accusation isn't treated as a grotesque violation of board ettiquette (and CGs) is the possibility that there's validity in the claims. I know there are no grounds for such from this quarter, and since I've been named elsewhere as the most likely object of the poster's "agenda" (and the fact that this thread represents a repeated attempt to do something--see the opening--attests to the existence of same), I'm not waiting until HRH deigns to grace us with names.