Has the time come...

[Andrew D]

It bears noting that if the threshold for banning or suspending a member were the vote of a majority of the entire membership -- rather than permitting the banning or suspension of a member by the vote of the handful of people who are out to get someone -- none of these campaigns to get rid of loCAtek would have even a prayer of success.

[loCAtek]

Of course you can--and you probably will--say that you don't believe a word of it

You're absolutely right, I don't believe a word of it. When challenged to provide that very evidence that she had notified Gob and Hen about this alleged "stalking", she came up with a few lines of jibberish that proved nothing of the kind. Then she miraculously comes up with the very statements for you that she was unable to reproduce in public.

How about this - she took a pre-existing email she sent to Hen and Gob, appended those few lines to it, sent it off to you and said "See! I told you I warned them about my stalker!" I guess that possibility didn't occur to you, did it?

No problem Scooter, please check your PM's.

[loCAtek]

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

[Econoline]

It bears noting that if the threshold for banning or suspending a member were the vote of a majority of the entire membership -- rather than permitting the banning or suspension of a member by the vote of the handful of people who are out to get someone -- none of these campaigns to get rid of loCAtek would have even a prayer of success.

11 votes to suspend isn't even a majority of the 26 total votes cast in the earlier poll.

I voted "yes" (to suspend her) in that poll; I voted "no" in this one.

That time there was one very specific (and IMO reasonable) demand placed on her--either an apology to Hen for a specific claim she'd made, or evidence to substantiate that claim--which she did not comply with. This time the suspension seems to be based primarily on Lo's basic personality and emotions.

(Maybe it's time to revisit the question of board rules?)

[Crackpot]

It has been pointed out that she has been making unsubstantiated specific claims again (supporting domestic violence) asked to prove and retract again with the same result.

I see it time for another intervention

[loCAtek]

Agreed.

Though I would just like to add, we have only received one person's version of the man involved. I am sure he probably isn't as bad as he is presently being made out to be.

He may sound like an arsehole, but I take most things Lo says with more salt than is in the Pacific.

You're OK with Domestic Violence? Really? Okay, you go ahead and feel free to enjoy getting punched in the face, and pulled around by your hair; I'm glad you like that kind of thing for yourself. Me, not so much. So, I called the cops.

...and no, you don't have to believe me; in my country, there's the California Penal System that has already decided that's not cool, and a violation of civil rights.

Kinda what I said to my Ex, 'Six months of counseling; a marriage therapist and a County Judge are all wrong; and you're right [to do that]!?'

LOL, he said, 'Yeah'. You two would get along, great.

Meanwhile, she was present on CSB, when I publicly disclosed the DV. Privately, I sent an email to:

May 22, 2004 3:25 PM

Subject: Living the vida Loca!

Sent to:


Xxxxxxxx@ozxxxxx.com.au


I said she didn't have to believe me, she could believe the courts. I've provided evidence as follows;

FWIW here is the DV card I received from the arresting SJPD officer on the night of the assault;




(previously, my memory was off and I said July 17th, 2003)


They give this to the crime victim, with phone numbers and resources to assist in how to proceed.

[Gob]

How can I put this Lo?

We are not interested in your shitty little life.

[Gob]

This time the suspension seems to be based primarily on Lo's basic personality and emotions.

There is no suspension, no decision has been made, teh matter is still being debated.

(Maybe it's time to revisit the question of board rules?)

Why should this whole board keep revising its rules just to placate Lo's incessant obsession with slandering people?

[loCAtek]

I was answering CP, not everything has to do with you.

revising its rules

What rules are those?

BTW Was there not to be a 'three strikes' before suspension was brought up? I only have one strike.

[Econoline]

This time the suspension seems to be based primarily on Lo's basic personality and emotions.

There is no suspension, no decision has been made, teh matter is still being debated.

Duly noted.

(Maybe it's time to revisit the question of board rules?)

Why should this whole board keep revising its rules just to placate Lo's incessant obsession with slandering people?

Uhhhh...because it has no rules, so it's hard to figure out if someone's breaking them?

[Daisy]

Ummm no loCA you have two warnings against you right now.

[loCAtek]

This is what my control panel looks like;

Your activity
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:49 pm
Last visited: Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:49 pm
Total posts: 7936 |
Show your posts

(9.13 posts per day / 9.21% of all posts)

Your warning level: [1]

[Scooter]

First, there was nothing in the terms of the suspension/probation requiring Daisy to wait for the accumulation of three additional offenses before coming back to the membership for another suspension.

Second, loCA has had ample notice that she already had been given two warnings:

LoCA. If you're gonna behave like a child, I'm gonna treat you like one.

QUIT IT!

You are on your second warning already you may well find your next one comes with another month in the tank.

Your first warning was for your constant request about The Rules. Rules I might add that we had to bring into force because of YOUR behaviour.

The second time was for your unnecessary attack on BSG.

You shat in the sandpit and ruined it for everyone.

[Lord Jim]

Thanks for that Scooter, (I was just about to start looking up what you found, because that was my recollection as well; you saved me the work )

there was nothing in the terms of the suspension/probation requiring Daisy to wait for the accumulation of three additional offenses before coming back to the membership for another suspension.

Actually, if you follow that link, there was nothing in the terms of the probation that required the admins to "come back to the membership" for any further suspensions at all, so long as LoCa, "continues to stalk and harass Hen"...

I don't think any objective, fair minded person reading what was posted could dispute that was happening repeatedly with the unsubstantiated charges LoCa kept making accusing Hen of not caring about domestic violence. LoCa clearly decided to use the "Inquisition" thread, not only only to discuss her ex, (against whom she may have valid grievances) but also as a vehicle to renew and pursue the personal vendetta she has against Hen for ending their off board relationship, with new unsubstantiated scurrilous accusations.

Which is what got her suspended in the first place.

[loCAtek]

Then what purpose does a warning counter serve?

also as a vehicle to renew and pursue the personal vendetta she has against Hen for ending their off board relationship, with new unsubstantiated scurrilous accusations.

Good thing, I didn't say that.

I also didn't say: that because I knew what date and email to find Hen and Gob's first interactions regarding my DV; that I was obsessed with them... that was hearsay.

The truth is: I have Smart Email; I do save all of Hen & Gob's emails ...as well as saving all the other emails I've ever received [Kiko, Garaelb, My Ex, My Dad, etc. Etc.] because they may be useful history some day ...not because I'm obsessed with each and every one.
My Email is smart enough to remember details for me by;
lowering down a drop box when I run a cursor over a contact, which will offer:

send email...
find email...
Move all from...
delete all from...

Quite handy.

Makes it a matter of seconds finding old messages, and in fact quicker than obsessing.


Which also why I easily found, and would have been happy to forward to Hen, our past email exchanges regarding this issue.

I have no vendetta; I'm just confused as to why she does not want communication. She's been adamant about refusing it offline, up to and including a two year old warning that my stalker would come by here, resulting from a nine year old divorce of an abusive marriage.

So, let's see if I have this straight;

The person(s) who 'cut off all communication' two years ago, are frustrated because I've been trying to communicate, on and off board, a potential problem with a stalker, that I initially did not want to make public.

Her/His insistence that; I'm NOT being stalked, is based only on public info, and not the private info which they chose to ignore.

{Regardless that the public behavior of following someone to pages, they wouldn't normally know about, is also a definition of stalking.]

In some reaches of the Twilight Zone, this is known as harassment. correct?

[Miles]

My personal opinion is that if I had caused myself to be suspended from this board I would be too ashamed to return. Cali get youself together and try to find a way to stop this negative attitude. You really can be the better person that you used to be.

[loCAtek]

Cool...


and how do I stop myself from being stalked, so as not to inconvenience anyone?

[Daisy]

Well to start with you can stop posting all the shit about your life here. If you want to put that sort of stuff out there in an open forum you have practically invited in.

Reality Bytes gave you the best advice and you chose to ignore it. Leave this online life behind, vanish and reinvent yourself somewhere else.

You'll probably ignore this as well.

[Econoline]

I have to say I've enjoyed most of loCAtek's autobiographical writing in "All Our own Work" and before that in the "Writers Corner" as CSB. Happy Trails (my fave), Homie Improvement, Plate O Fish, Welder World, With Friends Like These...(as well as shorter pieces in other threads).

[Daisy]

Unfortunately it's precisely those sort of threads that have alerted people from her past to her online whereabouts now.

If you were trying to shake off the past would you broadcast your life in an open to anyone forum? You cannot demand your right to privacy if you have never tried to keep yourself private.

But it's everyone else's fault this has happened according to loCA.