Ban LoCAtek

[Lord Jim]

Meanwhile I note that the topic I raised on board toxicity and the players here who relish in it and in having a target to bully goes unaddressed by any response. Telling, that.

Yes, it's quite telling indeed...

It tells us that everyone else here wants to focus the discussion of the very serious topic at hand, (namely the permanent banning of another member) and that they have no interest in participating in a derailing of that discussion into one about the personal issues or complaints about the board of another poster. (If you want to have that discussion fine, start a thread about it. As I pointed out before, this thread is clearly not the vehicle for it. Everyone else seems to understand that.)

ETA:

As for this:

I believe they are without a difference.

Well, you are certainly entitled to believe that, or anything else you choose to....

However, by my count, as of the time you wrote that, no fewer than five members here, representing a wide range of views and perspectives, (myself, Scooter, Joe, Econo, and oldr) had all patiently and politely explained to you in detail the (what I believe most folks see as obvious) glaring differences between the two cases. (Since you last posted, I see two more posters, Big RR, and Alice, have also pointed out the differences)

For whatever reason, you don't choose to accept that. Obviously no matter what is said or who says it, you never will. Fine, there's no requirement that you do. But is there really any point in continuing to bring it up, after so many serious responses on it have been made, in a thread which really has a much more important focus?

[MajGenl.Meade]

loCA will be banned and the majority will convince themselves it's all fair and due process.

Sorry BSG but I actually don't think that "fair and due process" have any relevance in the make-believe world so I don't care. It is like giving credibility to the word "stalking" by imagining that dangerous word has any application whatsoever with what goes on in this forum.

This is not RL; it's a voluntary association of an odd bunch; it's facilitated by a couple of people who took the time and trouble to create a forum and invited some others to join it. It requires registration which is submitted for approval (yes it is) in some form or another - requesting that a thing be turned on or off means the authority to do so has been ceded. Loca's persistent cluttering of the board with spite against Gob and Hen (and yes, sometimes their unnecessary provocations - IMO - once she's started) must be halted.

But Loca is the problem and she has no business interfering in real lives. If she thinks this board enables "stalkers" to "stalk" her, then she should be off the board for her own good.

To be "banned" from this or any forum is like being told you are no longer permitted to take a cable car to Saturn while drinking mint juleps with Julie Newmar. If I were banned I would be pissed off for a bit, somewhat sorry but doubtless would manage to keep the heart beating and the lungs wheezing.

Some here seem to enjoy foul-mouthing particular posters and they get more of the same back. We could do with more civility and I've been guilty of forgetting that from time to time. There is a smell in this place and not all of it from Loca - although almost all of it revolves around her. To put it bluntly, "fair and due process" are so not needed when taking out the garbage so the flies don't gather.

Meade

[The Hen]

BSG, please start a thread to ban Jim and Joe Guy as well if you think that is fair.

Please start a thread on how crappy and toxic this Board is, if you like? Though it hasn't been toxic recently

I don't know why I have deserved to have Lo insert herself into my personal physical life, you think it's fair game and exactly the same.

Perhaps we are all better off where we were a week ago.

Goodbye.

[liberty]

But Loca is the problem and she has no business interfering in real lives. Meade

That is indisputable. There is nothing that could justify that, but has she admitted to it?

Another point that is totally off the subject is: If everyone is banned that someone has a problem with this will be a really dull place. It is the difference in opinion that makes conversation worthwhile.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh lib... Loca doesn't post differences of opinion. She posts vile innuendo and in fact is the only "stalker" on this boad if any there be at all. She can also post other things - which if she kept to it would not be causing all this.

I do notice a rather large target on your back though...... c'mon Dais, give me polling rights!

Meade

PS I think everyone agrees with your last para.

[liberty]

I do notice a rather large target on your back though...... c'mon Dais, give me polling rights!

Meade

What do you mean?

[Joe Guy]

Again, I'm not seeing the distinction.

Quaddriver says a bunch of nasty over the top things about people he doesn't like on this board, and insinuates that he might act in his professional capacity to affect the lives of a few posters (for the record, I was one of them and he actually posted very specific IRL information about me here which Daisy kindly redacted).

And it should be noted for those who didn’t follow the quad drama that he, quad, told everyone here (who read his stuff) that he had reported me to his employer as a stalker because he wanted to have me banned from this BBS. At the same time he was accusing me of being a pedophile and saying that I should be worried about someone showing up at my front door.

If there is any similarity to LoCA’s and my situation, it is that employers have been contacted - and that's where it ends.

Lord Jim advised me along the way but he didn’t do any reporting or have any direct contact with the U.S. Treasury as I did.

I also remember BSG claiming that she had friends in powerful places and warned quad to back off. I never threatened quad. I only went ahead and acted in defense of his unacceptable statements about me and his serious threats. I didn’t ask for him to be banned from here and he wasn’t. In the end quad’s employer did to quad what quad wanted done to me.

My point is our situations are completely different. LoCA totally disrupted the board for months and then attempted to get Gob, the owner of this board, in trouble with his employer. That’s a reason that would be good cause to ban a person from any website.

That’s why I said earlier that a vote should not be necessary. It was a direct personal attack on Gob & Hen. There is no good reason why they should tolerate it.

[The Hen]

It should be noted, that contained in the claims of Lo's complaint about Gob are actual lies.

So not only has Lo reported Gob to the HCCC, her complaint is fatuous and contains lies.

Is that the same as the quad situation?

It doesn't appear to be so.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I do notice a rather large target on your back though...... c'mon Dais, give me polling rights!

Meade

What do you mean?

Ah that was supposed to be a joke.... stupid of me. Sorry

[BoSoxGal]

loCA will be banned and the majority will convince themselves it's all fair and due process.

Sorry BSG but I actually don't think that "fair and due process" have any relevance in the make-believe world so I don't care. It is like giving credibility to the word "stalking" by imagining that dangerous word has any application whatsoever with what goes on in this forum.

This is not RL; it's a voluntary association of an odd bunch; it's facilitated by a couple of people who took the time and trouble to create a forum and invited some others to join it. It requires registration which is submitted for approval (yes it is) in some form or another - requesting that a thing be turned on or off means the authority to do so has been ceded. Loca's persistent cluttering of the board with spite against Gob and Hen (and yes, sometimes their unnecessary provocations - IMO - once she's started) must be halted.

But Loca is the problem and she has no business interfering in real lives. If she thinks this board enables "stalkers" to "stalk" her, then she should be off the board for her own good.

To be "banned" from this or any forum is like being told you are no longer permitted to take a cable car to Saturn while drinking mint juleps with Julie Newmar. If I were banned I would be pissed off for a bit, somewhat sorry but doubtless would manage to keep the heart beating and the lungs wheezing.

Some here seem to enjoy foul-mouthing particular posters and they get more of the same back. We could do with more civility and I've been guilty of forgetting that from time to time. There is a smell in this place and not all of it from Loca - although almost all of it revolves around her. To put it bluntly, "fair and due process" are so not needed when taking out the garbage so the flies don't gather.

Meade

I read this post Meade, and the thrust is that this place doesn't matter so things posted here, no matter how ugly or awful, don't really matter - it's 'make-believe', after all. (For the record, whatever I said to Quad in this 'make-believe' place, I didn't act on anything off-board and never have with regard to anyone. Ever.)

But if it's Joe and Jim and Quad is saying ugly and awful things to you, then instead of proposing a banning of Quad for cluttering the place up with nastiness, it's okay to interfere in his real life because what he says is real; he really means those threats and his calling someone a pedophile is far more real the all the other ugly disgusting nastiness that has been hurled at folks on this board, accusing them of mental illness, accusing them of professional incompetence, accusing them of being criminal scam artists, etc. That's all no big deal - but QUAD!! He MEANS what he says!! Let's report him to his employer!!

Selective reasoning, seems to me. Depends on who you are and whether you are well liked or only tolerated here; whether it's 'your' board or someone else's (it's ours, we were told - so we funded it happily . . . but I digress).

Does it suck that loCA sent something to Gob's employer that caused them all to have a good laugh at her expense? Sure. But if by his own acknowledgment it had no real effect on him - just a laugh at her poorly articulated lies - why all the outrage? Because it's cool to hate loCA.

This place is full of hypocrisy.

loCA got suspended and was supposed to be given a clean slate upon her return, but folks were just waiting to pounce on the littlest thing to start up the fights again. Scooter, Sean, Gob. Is she susceptible to that poking and egging on? Of course - she's an addict.

We all have so much sympathy for oldr, but as to lo - the piling on was quick and furious and without relent. Gob and Hen both engaged fully in that process most of the past two years - how many times did I post, asking folks to ignore and stop egging her on, to be the more mature, bigger, better - NOT ADDICTED - persons? How many times did Gob and Hen both acknowledge that was the better path? Several - the posts are there; go back and look.

But the pattern returned, over and over and over.

Again, this place THRIVES ON TOXICITY. Too many of you LOVE IT. When loCA is banned, you will turn your ugliness at rubato, who isn't ruffled by it. When that gets boring, a new target will be chosen. I have witnessed this since the summer of 2005, first at CSB, and now here. This is why so many good posters are gone.

You folks are fooling yourselves if you think it's not true, and you are fooling yourselves if you think you are all behaving as healthy, mature adults and loCAtek is the only garbage here that needs taking out.

[The Hen]

Lo submitted lies in her complaint BSG.

Let me state that again in big letters for you.

Lo submitted lies in her complaint BSG.

She took her hatred for Gob and myself, reported him to the HCCC all based on her lies.

We are not, and did not laugh. I am surprised you even think this is a matter for laughter.

We have had to live with this for a number of months and the Board has not been toxic.

That is all.

[Lord Jim]

Okay folks, what we clearly have here is a poster, who for whatever reason, is desperately trying to hijack an important discussion about permanently banning a long time board member and turn it into a platform for her to pontificate about her own personal gripes and grievances. It's really quite transparent.

The differences between this and the earlier case are blatantly obvious, but nevertheless numerous people have considerately taken the time to explain them to her, to absolutely no avail.

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that she doesn't really have any interest in that anyway; this is all about trying to make this discussion about her and all the ways she feels she was "wronged"

As far as "toxic behavior" goes, I think that trying to turn a discussion about banning another member into a discussion about your own personal issues is about as good an example of it as I can imagine. It's not fair to Strop, it's not fair to Hen, and it's also not fair to LoCa. (She deserves a straightforward discussion of the real issues without somebody trying to make the discussion about them instead.)

Personally, I suggest that unless she has something actually on point to add to the discussion, that these self-absorbed derailing efforts of hers just be ignored. (That's what I'm going to try to do.)

[Gob]

and what I've done all along

[The Hen]

Smarmy git.

[Lord Jim]

But Loca is the problem and she has no business interfering in real lives. Meade

That is indisputable. There is nothing that could justify that, but has she admitted to it?

Yes lib, she has done precisely that. She has freely admitted it, in detail. Here are her own words from last night, verbatim:

I am indeed trying to get in contact with my Australian firm; Maurice Blackburn Lawyers about what I may disclose at this time.
I will have to email them as I do not have the international service connection active on my phone service at this moment. When my phone payments need to be paid again in a few days, I can re-open this option.

I can speak about the procedure; as to whom I contacted. As stated, I first contacted Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited, in the spring for legal advice regarding a complaint. There were emails and phone interviews, whereupon the firm agreed that my complaint was valid enough to be forwarded to the HCCC - NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. A few months ago, I received a letter from the HCCC stating that they would look into this matter.
At no time, have I directly contacted Mr. Gob's employer; these actions were done the by HCCC, and deemed appropriate by them.

That is a text book example of how to interfere in someone's real life. It couldn't be more clear.

[Big RR]

BSG--Toxic or not, calling each other names and the assorted nastiness are part of online posting. Should people ignore it and stop the escalation in the threads? Sure; I've said that many times. But when one takes the the fights offline and into real life, that's something quite different. And that's what happened here; the pettiness was escalated to a real life confrontation. Now yes, Joe and/or Jim apparently took and online dispute with QD into real life, but this was in response (according to them) to Quad's threat that he was going to track them down and do whatever. They apparently felt that QD had the means to carry out his threat, and sought to counter it by striking back to defend themselves. I personally see this as justifiable; perhaps you do not, but at least the situations is different.

In the instant situation Lo admits that she filed some sort of complaint against gob with an organization which oversees his accreditation and licensing (and it's no surprise such a complaint wound up on the desk of his employers). Why she did so, I don't know and she isn't saying. But I see no real justification on the face of it. This is quite a different situation.

As for the question banning, this is something we each have to struggle with. I have been quite open about my opposition to it in all but the most serious of circumstances (see, e.g., my first post), but screwing with someone in real life is a pretty serious thing, and something I am struggling with. Is this "fair and due process"? Maybe not, but what more would you ask to be done?

Yes people are childish, mean, and vindictive here, but we all fight with the same presumption that the fighting will remain here. Escalating it by attacking someone in real life is a breach of this, and we as a group have the responsibility of deciding how we will handle it.

[Lord Jim]

Yes people are childish, mean, and vindictive here, but we all fight with the same presumption that the fighting will remain here. Escalating it by attacking someone in real life is a breach of this, and we as a group have the responsibility of deciding how we will handle it.

That states it perfectly, Big RR....

[Lord Jim]

BTW, it's been claimed that when LoCa revealed her struggles with alcohol that she received no support.

That is quite simply false.

I well remember when LoCa first talked about this, and the expressions of support, sympathy and affection for her at that time were numerous and nearly universal.

This was of course before she began the downward spiral of obsessive behavior that gradually left more and more people exasperated with her, but that is a fact.

It may be difficult to remember now but there was a time, for many years, when LoCa was well liked by just about everyone here, and at the CSB. The fact that this is no longer the case is a direct result of her own actions over a long period of time, (culminating now in this absolutely inexcusable effort screw up the lives of the objects of her obsession, with no justification whatsoever.)

[Joe Guy]

But if it's Joe and Jim and Quad is saying ugly and awful things to you, then instead of proposing a banning of Quad for cluttering the place up with nastiness, it's okay to interfere in his real life because what he says is real; he really means those threats and his calling someone a pedophile is far more real the all the other ugly disgusting nastiness that has been hurled at folks on this board, accusing them of mental illness, accusing them of professional incompetence, accusing them of being criminal scam artists, etc.

The fact that you only threaten to take legal action rather than taking legal action has little relevance to what I or anyone else does to deal with someone we feel has crossed the line. What I did was my own business. I didn’t care whether you or anyone else approved of it, but I knew what I was doing was right.

Selective reasoning, seems to me. Depends on who you are and whether you are well liked or only tolerated here; whether it's 'your' board or someone else's (it's ours, we were told - so we funded it happily . . . but I digress).

I am no more popular than you or anyone else here. You are just bitter for some reason that makes no sense to me.

Does it suck that loCA sent something to Gob's employer that caused them all to have a good laugh at her expense? Sure. But if by his own acknowledgment it had no real effect on him - just a laugh at her poorly articulated lies - why all the outrage? Because it's cool to hate loCA.

I don’t think anyone here hates LoCA. They all hate what she has become and know there is a good person somewhere inside her.

This place is full of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy would be for one to say one thing and do another. As in say she will take legal action and then not do it.

loCA got suspended and was supposed to be given a clean slate upon her return, but folks were just waiting to pounce on the littlest thing to start up the fights again. Scooter, Sean, Gob. Is she susceptible to that poking and egging on? Of course - she's an addict.

Absolutely untrue. We all accepted LoCA back until she started acting up again.

We all have so much sympathy for oldr, but as to lo - the piling on was quick and furious and without relent.

O & W has never gone off the deep end and insulted the board owners. He has always taken responsibility for his actions and is not “Toxic” to this BBS.

Again, this place THRIVES ON TOXICITY. Too many of you LOVE IT. When loCA is banned, you will turn your ugliness at rubato, who isn't ruffled by it. When that gets boring, a new target will be chosen. I have witnessed this since the summer of 2005, first at CSB, and now here. This is why so many good posters are gone.

Most people here are very blunt and dislike dishonest people. They will say things that someone with thin skin might not be able to handle. If you don’t like our style, don’t post here and don’t waste your time criticizing people who aren’t like you. Or just put some of us on ‘ignore’.

I’d prefer to see you stay here and post. You’ve always had interesting takes on issues. But you seem to always take things much too personally. So this place doesn’t seem to be good for your mental health and maybe you should take care of yourself instead.

[Econoline]

I have received a PM from loCAtek, with the subject line "The History." I will respect the confidentiality of the message itself, and under normal circumstances I would not publicly go even this far, by publicly revealing the existence of this message. But due to the nature of what's going on, I feel I must ask: are there others of you who have received this message? (You can PM me if you don't feel comfortable saying so in public.)


P.S. I think this statement bears repeating:

I don’t think anyone here hates LoCA. They all hate what she has become and know there is a good person somewhere inside her.