Has the time come...

[Sean]

Thank you, I'll amend my statement accordingly.

Then, will all due respect, you know nine-tenths of fuck all Eco! That just shows how little grasp you have of the situation. You are making wild assumptions without bothering to check facts first.


It's strange though that you think that I "crave certainty--and VICTORY" but not of any of the others involved. May I ask why?

[Sean]

BTW you still haven't answered my question Eco. I'm beginning to think that there is no answer except for the obvious one...

[Lord Jim]

A few points to put this whole thing in context:

First of all, I think it should be noted that for a considerable period, LoCa herself did not believe PMSP was her ex's girlfriend. (That's why she was giving her the third degree that resulted in the creation of the Inquisition thread.)In fact she seemed so unconcerned about PMSP's presence here, that it was a period of a couple of months before she even focused on her.

In retrospect this was probably because she was busy trying other avenues for being able to pursue her vendetta against Hen without getting suspended again. Like changing the line of attack rather than focusing on a single one, taking breaks of a couple of days between attacks, and using the "rules" attack on the admins as a cover.

In fact, except for the period of about a month when she finally did focus on PMSP, it looks to me like LOCa has been continuously testing ways to continue her harassment of Hen and keep the drama going without getting suspended ever since she returned from the last suspension. And now of course, she has found a way to make her concerns about her ex and PMSP yet another tool to use in what has been her primary focus for well over a year now; namely her animosity towards Hen over her ending their off board relationship. (This is why she's trying so hard to make Hen out to be a liar. Having completely thrashed her own reputation, she now seems to want to try to thrash Hen's.)

It also seems to me that what LoCa has been doing is to try to find a "cover issue" to use to pursue her vendetta that not only would avoid her getting suspended again but might even win her a few supporters. I believe that's what the whole "rules" thing was about. (But of course that backfired; she found very little sympathy for that, and would up with a majority vote for her to be banned from the board permanently.)

With this sudden concern about PMSP, (which she didn't express for a long time after her return to the board, even though PMSP had started posting while she was on suspension.) she seems to have found a cover issue to go after her primary target that has in fact won her some sympathizers.

I'd rather just see her put this behind her and become a reasonable and valuable member again.)

Nobody would like to see that more than I would, and I'm sure that every single person here agrees with that.

But I have to say that when you look at this as a part of the overall pattern, rather than just as an isolated issue, it seems to me that chances of that happening are very, very slim....

Why should she put this "behind her" when it's accomplishing for her what she wants to accomplish; namely to provide her with a way to go at Hen without fear of being suspended? Why should she either "come up with an answer or concede that there is no answer" so long as this is enabling her to do exactly what she wants to do?

The key to bringing an end to this isn't resolving this particular cover issue. (I'd certainly like to see it resolved, but anyone who thinks that's going to bring an end to this drama is fooling themselves.) Resolve this, and as sure as night follows day, there will be something else.

The key to ending this once and for all, is when LoCa finally decides to stop trying to punish Hen for ending their off board relationship, and using that as a way to get attention and make her resentment the board's central focus. Which at this point I can't see happening without another suspension. (Though personally I would prefer one month to two; given the terms of the probation as I said before I don't believe the board administration needed to get another vote at all for an additional suspension, and certainly doesn't need any mandate from the membership for a suspension equal to the first one, in light of the warnings and continuous pattern of behavior.)

[Scooter]

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.

How about:

(3) No one presumes the existence of any non-public communication to the admins (and therefore refrains from passing any judgment on what the admins "should" have done) because there is no way of proving that the communication took place in the form that is being asserted (forwarded copies of emails are not evidence, as they can be doctored to say whatever one wants)

(4) We do not stretch the definition of stalking beyond all reason, such that one is labelled a "stalker" merely for joining the board because someone we know is a member and we're interested is seeing what they have to say (if that were true, everyone who joined Plan B would be a stalker).

(5) If someone has concerns about a potential stalker, those are brought to the admins at first opportunity, rather than engaging him/her in friendly banter for 3 or 4 months and then shouting "stalker" as a way of attacking the integrity of the admins.

(6) When asked by the admins what you want to happen with an alleged stalker, respond in a timely fashion to the FIRST request, and don't evade answering while the admins ask you OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again, while continuing to complain that they are doing nothing.

[Econoline]

I agree that (3) and (6) would be useful, but if you look at what I said in (1) then your (4) and (5) become unnecessary. (3) should probably say "to or from the admins"--and once those words are added I think I could use that sentence verbatim as a reply to Sean. And (6) might also be applied more generally to other complaints about actions or inactions of the admins.

And Sean...I knew nine-tenths of fuck all around the time I graduated from high school, so I'm sure I know at least 98% of fuck all by now.

[Scooter]

Lovely. Now that we are all on the same page on that topic, could we return to the issue of whether loCA deserves another suspension (which we have all already agreed has absolutely no relationship to the issue of how posters/admins should deal with stalkers and which, therefore, has not been precluded by this group chorus of Kumbaya).

[Sean]

And Sean...I knew nine-tenths of fuck all around the time I graduated from high school, so I'm sure I know at least 98% of fuck all by now.

Very cute Eco. Fine then, you carry on in your own little world, but please don't continue to insult my intelligence with your non-answers. It's a shame really, I always thought you were better than that.

[loCAtek]

(5) If someone has concerns about a potential stalker, those are brought to the admins at first opportunity, rather than engaging him/her in friendly banter for 3 or 4 months and then shouting "stalker" as a way of attacking the integrity of the admins.

My first opportunity to bring it to the Admins attention was over two years ago; which I did.
My second opportunity came after my first suspension, and after it was brought to my attention by BSG that PMSP claimed to be dating my Ex.
PMSP's post was made while I was gone, and during that time, I did not read anything on Plan B, let alone her blatantly calling herself my stalker.
Honestly, my first thought was that it was prank; and I gave her the benefit of the doubt, hence the 'friendly banter'. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. Meanwhile, I contacted Admin again about my concern; RB earlier in this thread has admitted that she received that PM, and also replied to it, however I was to left to verify that PMSP was who she said she was by myself. Hence, what became 'Lo's Inquisition'.

(6) When asked by the admins what you want to happen with an alleged stalker, respond in a timely fashion to the FIRST request, and don't evade answering while the admins ask you OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again, while continuing to complain that they are doing nothing.

Starting with the first email over two years ago, my only request was that I be alerted, so that I could do something myself. I understand it is much more effective to deal with this in the real world. Since there wasn't much confirmation except from PMSP; I took upon myself to ask questions.

Hen began interjecting claiming:

She didn't know about the Work Furlough

She'd never known about the Domestic Violence

I don't have PTSD.

PMSP isn't stalking me.



I found this objectionable because;

I was not incarcerated in jail, I participated in work furlough.

I was subjected to domestic violence, and spousal abuse.

I had told many people about it, at length or in part, publicly and privately, whether or not they remember.

I have PTSD.

My ex is stalking me.



Continuing to provide more and more evidence in my defense can not constitute as harassment. I do have my moments when I don't appreciate the wild speculation, and so make fun of it, particularly when it suggests that I shouldn't be allowed to communicate the facts.

I have no problem with anyone contacting me, asking questions and deciding for themselves. What I won't do - banned or not, is deny the reality of having a stalker, and the reasons for being in that situation.

[Joe Guy]

Who diagnosed your PTSD?

And what did that person decide was the cause of your PTSD?

Why do you believe you are being stalked here at Plan B?

What has the stalker done here that proves that you are being stalked?

What do you hope to achieve by continuing to post here about your personal life if you really believe that you are being stalked?

[Econoline]

Sean:

I agree that (3) and (6) would be useful, but if you look at what I said in (1) then your (4) and (5) become unnecessary. (3) should probably say "to or from the admins"--and once those words are added I think I could use that sentence verbatim as a reply to Sean. And (6) might also be applied more generally to other complaints about actions or inactions of the admins.

So...

(3) No one [should] presume[s] the existence of any non-public communication to [or from] the admins (and therefore [should] refrain[s] from passing any judgment on what the admins "should" have done) because there is no way of proving that the communication took place in the form that is being asserted (forwarded copies of emails [or PMs] are not evidence, as they can be doctored to say whatever one wants)

In that vein, I'd like to amend the following paragraph from one of my earlier posts:

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?

...to read instead: "I agree that if what Daisy just said wasn't conveyed to loCAtec back in 2010 it should have been, and I would hope that whichever of the administrators replied to her request made it clear that s/he was replying on behalf of all of them. 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?"

[loCAtek]

Joe the first psych eval was actually before the marriage completely ended. I get confirmations up to and including from the VA. My current BF is aware of it, as are my close military friends. PTSD is not isolated to the military however; it's in fact more common in the civilian sector, and can be triggered by traumatic events such as car crashes, natural disasters or even giving birth. Other forms, like C-PTSD, Complex-PTSD can be the result of extended stress, like abuse or struggling to survive.

Why do you believe you are being stalked here at Plan B?

What has the stalker done here that proves that you are being stalked?

PMSP has admitted it.

What do you hope to achieve by continuing to post here about your personal life if you really believe that you are being stalked?

Well, say something really bad in real life happens? An attack or destruction of my property? Law enforcement will investigate as to whether it was random, or deliberate; if it was deliberate, what was the motive? Who had a reason to be hostile towards me?
PMSP has stated that my financial affairs make her (and I naturally assume my Ex) angry; and yes, in the past, it could be little things that made him mad enough to lash out.

Better than hiding and cowering, putting it all out in the open, makes it very hard for him to do anything without getting caught: I'm leaving an e-trail.

On top of that, let me say to my Ex-

I've also contacted MCPH Master Chief I, he's been briefed about all of this.

I love the Navy! You can always call on your Chief; doesn't matter if you haven't worked for him for years. A civilian job will say, 'Oh, we don't get involved in employee's personal affairs' ...but your Chief will always be your Chief, and will step up for you when ever you need him.

Hoo rah!

[Rick]

Since I seem to be a "shit" stirrer we'll make it easy.

Once I'm gone the stirring should cease, sorry for the drama queen stuff buuuut.

Gob please delete my account if I should decide to return I can create another (you'll know it's me).

Will miss ya'll, later

OK (with sheepish grin ) I withdraw my drama queen request, even though it wasn't honored to begin with.

I'm going through withdrawal...

[Lord Jim]

Glad to see you back Keld.

[The Hen]

Ditto what he said.

[Gob]

Nice one Keld.

[loCAtek]

Welcome Back...

From the DEAD!!!