Hmmm Kevin wrote this, and now I am hoping I did not make a mistake. If he truly believes this when all the facts presented show it was someone who had access to his Facebook and it was announced earlier their was a picture of him with his shirt off on mdb why would the conclusion lead here. What reason other then to obfuscate the real issue by using a distraction such as that? I wonder if there is just to much bad old history to extend olive branches and move forward.
There is no reason to be offended by my assumption that it was someone at MAD. I'm certainly not condemning the entire community there. But I'm pretty familiar with most of the posters here and I don't think I have any "home turf" enemies that would do something like this, even those who are staunch LDS apologists and even those who might resent MAD to a breaking point. I just don't see them taking these kinds of cheap shots at my expense. The person who made a remark about my Facebook pictures a few weeks ago is actually an LDS apologist, who from what I understand, migrated from the MAD board. The only enemies I'm aware of are those who call the MAD board home. I got the sense that some people were becoming very protective of Juliann, and I can understand that. But some people consider me to be one of her biggest enemies, whether justified or not, which is why I assumed it was someone from that board. I assumed they wanted to retaliate in some way, and I was the perfect punching bag available to them. I get dragged into a lot of criticisms of Will Schryver for the same reason. I just get to be enemy #1 for so many apologists at times.
Also, I thought the purpose of reactivating my account was because Nemesis wanted to communicate with me and work together in order to identify the culprit. He offered to use his list of user IP addresses to help pin-point the guilty party, which presupposes he was willing to accept the possibility that it was someone on his forum, so again I don't understand his response here about an olive branch. Is he really suggesting I return to the MAD forum and engage in the day to day conversations? Because that isn't what I understood his intentions to be.
Kevin I have been thinking, how could Eric Norwood known about your meme?
Quite easily actually. Early this morning I was working on removing all the offensive material on Juliann's photos. Others from the forum were awake and active on the thread, including Eric. When you go to the meme website, it shows you the latest memes that have been generated on the forum. By going to the main page, you scroll down and the bottom half of the page lists all photos from the most recently generated memes, and my photo was right there on the front page. Now, the reason I do not believe Eric is the culprit here is because:
1. He immediately informed me of this via private message. He said he wanted me to be aware of it, but that he didn't want to advertise it on the forum.
2. I expressed my gratitude for bringing it to me attention, and then asked him if he would go ahead and let the forum know that someone has decided to retaliate in the worst possible way. This he did, only after I asked him to, and he did not post a link to the "Apostate-Bliss" meme because he didn't want to expose me and my children in that manner. I thought that was cool of him.
3. I just don't think he is capable of this. He and I have gotten along fairly well as of late, and I just don't sense this kind of hatred towards me, and hatred is pretty much what would be required.
After he brought this to my attention I went to the main page of the meme site and saw my photo, as it was one of the recently generated memes. I didn't have to search for it. It just jumped out at me the same way it probably jumped out at Eric. This doesn't mean someone at MAD did this. I'm just saying I have a very hard time believeing Eric did.
Lets think about this your meme didn't have your name in it, who would have thought to do a search for apostate bliss?
They wouldn't need to for reasons explained above.
If I were you I would see if he is a Facebook friend of yours and consider removing him.
He is, but as Blair Hodges learned the hard way, one doesn't need to be on your friends list in order to snag photos from your albums. And as I said before, the only person I know who has been perusing my Facebook albums, is an LDS apologist. And no, I do not think he had any part in this either.
You were the only one that objected to his approval of the juliann meme and I can bet if shades looks at the poll it will be his moniker that comes up as the only vote out of sync with the rest of the group.
I wasn't aware of any approval expressed by Eric. In fact, he agreed with EAllusion when he said: "I condemn the obscene and genuinely meanspirited ones. In particular, mocking her for being abused is one of the worst things I've seen either side of the non-LDS/LDS divide from these boards. It's wrong. She's a real person, and it is not Ok to treat people like that."
That doesn't sound like someone who necessarily approves, but Eric can clarify if he so chooses. It seems to me that some thought a few of the memes were funny, but the rest were disgusting. And to be perfectly honest, I laughed at the first two or threee which were rather innocuous, and then I stopped reading after I saw a really offensive one. That's when I knew this had gotten out of hand.
Once again sorry they targeted you for taking a stand for something wrong. Hope this gets you one step closer to finding out who is responsible.
I appreciate the offer, but I'm not really that concerned about it at this point. The offensive stuff has been removed, and I know there is no chance the Russian based memegenerator website will be giving out IP addresses of whomever was responsible for it. I just wish whoever is responsible for the Juliann meme would remove the material instead of constantly adding to it.