Has the time come...

[Joe Guy]

At this point if LoCa were to continue to attempt to discredit Hen, harass her or just keep on offering a bunch of mumblefuckisms, it wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

[loCAtek]

Thank you  Lo.  Thank you VERY much for posting the following:

Gob, the earliest email to you (both) was on;

 May 22, 2004 3:25 PM

Subject: Living the vida Loca!

Sent to:


Xxxxxxxx@ozxxxxx.com.au

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7097&p=87989&hilit=La+Vida#p87989

You see, you sent it to an email address that had not been our email address for over 16 months.  In fact we were onto our second joint email account at that stage of our relationship.  ozemail.com.au was a dead address.
.

You're welcome, I understand you change email addresses a lot, however if you would allow me to forward the exchanges, you could see where not only did I send email to that that address, but that I received replies from you and Gob.

[Joe Guy]

You're welcome, I understand you change email addresses a lot, however if you would allow me to forward the exchanges, you could see where not only did I send email to that that address, but that I received replies from you and Gob.

I haven't followed all of your story regarding harassment and everything else you're going through, although I've tried to keep up to date, since it is the biggest drama that exists here nowadays.

But I don't understand what the point is, or what you are attempting to achieve by proving that you have privately communicated with Hen & Gob in the past.

Should that matter to anyone else here?

[Lord Jim]

And what the hell would it have to do with her "stalker" issue, which is her supposed reason for this whole soap opera...

You know, since it's obvious that the effort of LoCa's to badger and bait PMSP into a back and forth where supposedly she would say things that would help LoCa's "case" has been an epic fail, if this were really her objective, you'd think she'd take a different tact....maybe sit back and say nothing and hope that then PMSP would let her guard down and reveal something.....

I'm beginning to wonder if we all don't have the wrong end of the stick, regarding what LoCa's supposed "case" is, that she's supposedly gathering evidence for....

What if it isn't some sort of legal action she wants to pursue against her ex that's involved here....

What if what she really thinks she's doing is gathering evidence against Strop and Hen, as the board owners for some sort of complaint she imagines she can lodge because they haven't banned PMSP?

It would of course be crazy for her to think she could do something like that, but if you think about it, that explanation fits her comments and behavior a lot better than the idea that she's gathering "evidence" to use against her ex since her ex's girlfriend clearly isn't posting anything that would help her with that....

It would explain this obsessive focus she seems to have over just when she let them know about her domestic violence problems and her concerns about her ex joining the board....

Maybe she thinks she can take some sort of legal action against them, or maybe she wants to try to get the board shut down....

[loCAtek]

Um no, I thought I was just dealing with a stalker, and not a stalker's enablers.

Thus so, the enablers at least I can talk to FWIW

[Scooter]

And we're back to the accusations of criminal facilitation. How many times do the admins need to be subjected to this harassment in the form of accusations of criminal behaviour before her enablers are finally willing to hold her accountable?

[Joe Guy]

Um no, I thought I was just dealing with a stalker, and not a stalker's enablers.

Thus so, the enablers at least I can talk to FWIW

[Econoline]

What to you suggest we do about it loCA?

Ban PMSP. Ban the IP address, most people have multiple dynamic IP addresses these days wouldn't work.

Lock down the forum so no-one else can see it? Sorry we're not going to do that, it goes against the very nature of Plan B.

Block the whole of San Jose?

What do you think we can do about this?

NOTHING, if you don't want your ex following you online, don't go online.

LoCa - before you call any of the administrators "enablers" you *MUST* answer this question.

What did the administrators of this board do, or fail to do that they could have done differently?

What you told them and when you told them is irrelevant if there was nothing they could do you didn't (and still don't) suggest anything. I was hoping that your "neutral counsel" could answer this question for you, because I can't come up with an answer either, without ascribing to the administrators powers that they simply don't have.

And Scooter - I think continuing to discuss this until she either comes up with an answer or concedes that there is no answer would be more helpful than another suspension (unless this argument spreads all over the board again--which it hasn't).

[loCAtek]

As requested, and I may say they[admin] initially agreed, to tell me that my stalker had found me here, when he/she registered.
I would have dealt with this offline, and much sooner as possible; sparing the readership as much as I could.
However, dealing with it publicly was about the only option left to me.

BTW 2004 is in fact, over 16 months ago.

[The Hen]

I have had to clarify my last post in this thread.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

[Daisy]

FYI we get over 100 registrations a week to this board almost 100% of those are spam.

Right now we are in the middle of a spammer storm and there are 750 registered inactive users that need checking and in all probability deleting.

I am one of the admin that trawls through all these registrants trying to find the humans over the pill pushers. I can't remember if I was the admin that let PMSP through or not but if you're suggesting that we have time besides giving a cursory glance that the ip isn't Russian or Ukrainian to dig right down into whether tha ip is from some street in San Jose then you have a bloody screw loose.

All the admin here have demanding full time occupations and lives off this board.

How dare you describe any of us enablers.

[loCAtek]

Very well, if that had been part of the response to my initial request in '10, I may be posting differently.

[Sean]

Would any of the admins/other people directly involved have any objections to lo posting the initial request and response(s) here? It does seem to be the basis of her claim against the admins...

Though I have to wonder why lo didn't raise this with the admins as soon as she realised who PMSP was...

[Econoline]

I agree that what Daisy just said should have been said much, much earlier--in unison, by all of the administrators. At present it's a moot point, and no further purpose can possibly be served by belaboring it...other than, perhaps, to learn some lessons from this whole sorry affair?

Those lessons might include (1) there is not much the administration of this board can do to prevent the mere presence of a stalker, absent some sort of clearly illegal activity (e.g. quaddriver's threat here to use the resources of the IRS in a vendetta against Joe Guy) and (2) if a member makes an unreasonable request of the administration, that member ought to be told immediately and clearly why fulfilling that request is not possible.

ETA: I don't think Sean's suggestion would serve any purpose other than to prolong the argument. As I said, it's a moot point now.

[Sean]

I agree that what Daisy just said should have been said much, much earlier--in unison, by all of the administrators.

Seriously? Now you're blaming the entire board admin for poor little lo's fuck up?
Have you checked to find out whether or not this has been said before by the admin (who, by the way, are not a choir...)?

(2) if a member makes an unreasonable request of the administration, that member ought to be told immediately and clearly why fulfilling that request is not possible.

You're assuming that the request was made and not answered properly. Again, blaming the admin. None of us have seen the request or the answer(s).

ETA: I don't think Sean's suggestion would serve any purpose other than to prolong the argument. As I said, it's a moot point now.

Is it? Is it really?
I suppose it is for those who have decided that poor little lo has been shat on by the big bad admin...

[Econoline]

You're putting words in my mouth, Sean, and as I'm also busy downing a beer, I don't appreciate that!

No, I just think it's a moot point and I'm willing to chalk it up to an honest failure of communication without blaming anyone. What point does it serve? (I guess if you think getting rid of loCAtek is an important goal in and of itself that would be the purpose...but I don't; I'd rather just see her put this behind her and become a reasonable and valuable member again.)

[Sean]

I don't think I am putting words into your mouth Eco. You spoke of what admin should have done and what they ought to do to stop situations like this developing. If I was admin I would take that as a slap on the wrist. If you weren't blaming admin then would you be kind enough to set me straight on what your point was?

[Econoline]

My point was that maybe we now have an opportunity to stop the argument and (hopefully) learn something from it without it devolving to yet another interminable game of "he-said-she-said/no-you-didn't/yes-you-did/then-prove-it/no-you-prove-it!" (Unless you think that's a good thing?)

Look, I know you crave certainty--and VICTORY!--but life is full of ambiguity, and in my doddering old age I for one have learned to deal with that. My opinion is worth no more than yours, and what (if anything) happens next is obviously up to Lo and the administrators, not the two of us,

[Sean]

Well I must say that I agree with your last sentence Eco.

I do however notice that in all your flanneling before that you have completely failed to explain what you meant by that other post. Let me try to put it more plainly:

I agree that what Daisy just said should have been said much, much earlier--in unison, by all of the administrators.

(2) if a member makes an unreasonable request of the administration, that member ought to be told immediately and clearly why fulfilling that request is not possible.

Now you say that you are not blaming the admin for this situation. So please tell me what else I (or admin for that matter) should take from that?

And BTW...

Look, I know you crave certainty--and VICTORY!

Then, will all due respect, you know nine-tenths of fuck all Eco! I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you think the same of Gob, Hen, LJ et al. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. That just shows how little grasp you have of the situation. You are making wild assumptions without bothering to check facts first.

Then again, why would you check facts. They are moot after all...

[Econoline]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you think the same of Gob, Hen, LJ et al. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong.