THE JERSEY GIRL MEGATHREAD

[_LDSToronto]

None of this changes my view on the reasonableness of Shades' judgement call, given what Jersey Girl posted here.

If Jersey Girl issued enraged threats of legal action she didn't really mean because of [tangential personal information deleted], I do not see why Shades had any obligation (or indeed, any right) to take risks with his own family's peace and security in order to indulge her. He still doesn't have any such obligation, and since he has made it clear he will not change his mind I do not see what point there is in prolonging the discussion.

in my opinion, if Jersey Girl had recently acknowledged via Liz...that she shouldn't have said she intended to "initiate" anything which might lead to legal ramifications..I'd still be supportive of her...but because she's not acknowledging this, I'm currently not supportive. While I believe she never would have intended to "initiate" anything which would lead to legal ramifications...she hasn't acknowledged. She's not acknowledged that she over-reacted in making a threat she had not intended but said in the emotional heat of the moment. Not acknowledged time was not a crucial factor ...no need for any ultimatum of a 15 minute response or else....and threats of initiating anything which might lead to legal ramifications was inappropriate.

Jersey Girl you are sticking to your guns that how you handled things and what you said was well justified..and I don't agree with that. I believe I understand why you said and did the things you did and I understand you would not intentionally create serious problems for the board, Shades or any mod. I understand you had the best intentions at heart. But you are not acknowledging you used bully tactics which were not necessary. At the time you may have perceived pressure bully tactics to be necessary, but upon reflection I think you should acknowledge that they weren't.

Marg, do you know for certain that Jersey Girl acknowledge [tangential personal information deleted] via posts on this message board?

If not, you need to delete your prior post.

H.

[_sock puppet]

None of this changes my view on the reasonableness of Shades' judgement call, given what Jersey Girl posted here.

If Jersey Girl issued enraged threats of legal action she didn't really mean because of [personal information deleted], I do not see why Shades had any obligation (or indeed, any right) to take risks with his own family's peace and security in order to indulge her. He still doesn't have any such obligation, and since he has made it clear he will not change his mind I do not see what point there is in prolonging the discussion.

in my opinion, if Jersey Girl had recently acknowledged via Liz...that she shouldn't have said she intended to "initiate" anything which might lead to legal ramifications..I'd still be supportive of her...but because she's not acknowledging this, I'm currently not supportive. While I believe she never would have intended to "initiate" anything which would lead to legal ramifications...she hasn't acknowledged. She's not acknowledged that she over-reacted in making a threat she had not intended but said in the emotional heat of the moment. Not acknowledged time was not a crucial factor ...no need for any ultimatum of a 15 minute response or else....and threats of initiating anything which might lead to legal ramifications was inappropriate.

Jersey Girl you are sticking to your guns that how you handled things and what you said was well justified..and I don't agree with that. I believe I understand why you said and did the things you did and I understand you would not intentionally create serious problems for the board, Shades or any mod. I understand you had the best intentions at heart. But you are not acknowledging you used bully tactics which were not necessary. At the time you may have perceived pressure bully tactics to be necessary, but upon reflection I think you should acknowledge that they weren't.

We've all said things in our life that we regret. The consequences often linger the rest of our lives. Would that I could take back some things that I have said. We cannot unring the bell.

My concern with threats of litigation is that while Jersey Girl was trying to head off real life consequences by Darrick using the Board in some way as a tool, Jersey Girl was herself making real life threats (litigation against the Board owner/admin/mod team--"guys"). Certainly as long as Jersey Girl has been a Board participant, she has learned of instances where threats of litigation interrupted the Board being online and caused threads to be closed. It is obvious that Dreamhost and Dr Shades take such threats seriously. So in pulling that lever--threatening real life litigation--JG herself joined Darrick in using the Board to make real life threats.

I like Jersey Girl, but I do not think that Dr Shades' reaction to the legal threats Jersey Girl made was disproportionate. I'm sure that being banned from MDB is not the only consequence that Jersey Girl (like all of us) is living with for having said something that on later reflection we wished we had not said.

I think it is admirable that Dr Shades lets this topic be raised, time and time again. That's free speech. But I for one am tiring of it being rehashed ad nauseum.

[_marg]

You have a double standard there LDST...you had no problem talking about what was in your pm's between you and Jersey Girl ..and that was well before any ok was given you to show those pm's. Your post had malicious intent whereas mine does not. Nothing I said regarding Jersey Girl's [personal information deleted] has intent to malign her..and it doesn't malign her. The information I gave was very general..supplying only a bit of context to her situation at the time. I think she has said something on the board about this event, but while I'm not 100 % certain..since I see no potential damages to her, so I will not delete anything.

[_LDSToronto]

You have a double standard there LDST...you had no problem talking about what was in your pm's between you and Jersey Girl ..and that was well before any ok was given you to show those pm's. Your post had malicious intent whereas mine does not. Nothing I said regarding Jersey Girl's [tangential personal information deleted] has intent to malign her..and it doesn't malign her. The information I gave was very general..supplying only a bit of context to her situation at the time. I think she has said something on the board about this event, but while I'm not 100 % certain..since I see no potential damages to her, so I will not delete anything.

Um...do you see the difference between me stating that Jersey Girl had sent me PMs that refuted what she was publicly saying regarding this specific matter, and you divulging information about [personal information deleted]?

Liz, if you are reading this thread, would you mind checking in with Jersey Girl to see if she indeed made public [personal information deleted], and if not, would you please have the decency that eludes marg, and remove her posts?

Thanks,

H.

[_EAllusion]

Since almsot all of Jersey Girl's defenders seem to be her female friends, the term "pussy" seems derogatory towards them as women. It already has that built in connotation as it derives its power from the association with women as being the weaker, more cowardly sex. I'd avoid it.

Regarding the PM's -

Doesn't come across like someone acting in a blind panic for their personal safety, does it? Also, she clearly is aware that her behavior might create problems for the board. Finally, it makes it clear that she is referring to this board's admin and not the webhost as the party(s) she referring to with the word "liability" in her legal threat, doesn't it? And yet she has the audacity to insist Shades, et. al. are lying about her on this topic for saying she threatened the board admin? Despite multiple quotes to that effect?

I didn't know about this:

Shades told me that EA already banned Darrick for one month.

I suppose it's asking too much for a little truth around here.

Harm was the one who banned Darrick for a month. So, no, I didn't lie. The perma-ban was later decided by me at after Shades gave the go ahead.

[_LDSToronto]

Since almsot all of Jersey Girl's defenders seem to be her female friends, the term "pussy" seems derogatory towards them as women. It already has that built in connotation as it derives its power from the association with women as being the weaker, more cowardly sex. I'd avoid it.

Well, we can argue over the meaning and derivation of 'pussy' and evolution of language all we want. The point is, aside from Liz, I don't know the gender of JGs friends and Jersey Girl is not being singled out based on gender.

As I said, if Alter Idem wants to start a thread on my misogynistic ways, s/he can go right ahead.

H.

[_LDSToronto]

I didn't know about this:

Shades told me that EA already banned Darrick for one month.

I suppose it's asking too much for a little truth around here.

Harm was the one who banned Darrick for a month. So, no, I didn't lie. The perma-ban was later decided by me at after Shades gave the go ahead.

I find this quote to be the most damning (I had forgotten about it until I was copypasta'ing the PMs):

Thank you. I'm done with this bloody nonsense. If Joseph can get this board taken down, then so can I. I'm not up for EA's quibbling regarding this issue.

[_EAllusion]

I might as well just isolate this quote from her PM's:

Okay, I appreciate it. I'm looking at the DreamHost website and terms of service. According to their contract, Mav is fully liable for what goes on here and what Darrick has done is against their "Acceptable Use Policy". That is, assuming that making threats is,

"Also, using DreamHost’s servers or network to conspire to commit or support the commission of illegal activities is forbidden as well."

and

"Collecting or using email addresses, screen names or other personal identifiers without the consent of the person identified (including, without limitation, phishing, Internet scamming, password robbery, spidering, and harvesting)."

DreamHost incurs no liability whatsoever. This is part of the Terms of Use agreement.

Add that to the comments

The man's mind is all over the place. I consider the above to be a threat directed towards MCB, Dan Peterson and MYSELF and if you don't have the f*****g spine to block this guy, EA, in favor of political correctness, you guys are gonna have a legal f*****g fight on your hands and I'll initiate it.

Keep in mind that there are no published disclaimers on this board so admin is in it up to their eyeballs if they don't knock this guy off the board.

Like now.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 94#p570194

and

Liability is a bitch, EA, and make no mistake about it, so am I. No part of me is willing to stand idly by while a person makes threats against myself and others without moving on it.

I'm giving the mod team 15 minutes from the time this post goes up to block Darrick and assure this community that he has indeed been blocked. If I don't see that happening, I'll begin with filing a complaint.

15 minutes, starting now.

Now compare that with her assertion:

I did NOT threaten to sue any person. I did not threaten to sue at all.

I said that "you guys would have a legal f*****g fight on your hands" (meaning a conflict with the WEBHOST due to a violation of the terms of service regarding the transmission of in real life threats).

When I went to the WEBHOST site and read over the policies, I decided to see if it were a true violation of the terms of service first.

I mistakenly said in public that I was filing a complaint with the WEBHOST. I did not file a complaint, I submitted a f*****g inquiry.

At NO TIME DID I THREATEN TO SUE ANYONE!!!

This was explained to and clarified for Shades by myself and others.

And yet, he continues to perpetuate LIES about me!

Not much makes me truly angry online, being misrepresented is one thing that does.

He is outright LYING about me.

Color me ticked off!!

She clearly was talking about this board's admin being "liable" in her legal threat and not the webhost.

Notice in her non-public PM's she repeatedly characterizes her inquiry as a complaint, so that was more than a single public slip of the tongue.

And the content of the inquiry is this:

Reports have been made to the administration team regarding the conduct of
a poster whose screen name is "Daheshist". This person's mental state is
obviously in question, his communication is threatening and abusive, and
last evening (3-24-2012) he issued a statement that contained an apparent
threat regarding "blood must be shed".

Links preceeding the threat:

vie ... 70#p570170

Link containing the threat:

vie ... 71#p570171

Link wherein the person is attempting to gather real life information on
another person:

vie ... 72#p570072

This person made repeated requests for the identity of the same person.
Any searches made on this persons screen name will result in a litany of
vulgarities culminating with the statement that "Sometimes blood needs to
be shed".

Evidence of additional threatening behavior against yet another poster.

vie ... 58#p570158

Attempts by myself and other uses of this online message board to report
these possible violations to the administration team and appeal for this
person to be removed based on threatening conduct have failed.

I do not know if the above constitutes a violation of the General
Acceptable Use policy of the contract with DreamHost. I do however, appreciate your time and attention to this matter.

I don't think she was just innocently asking if this was a violation of the terms of agreement. She was putting on a case that it was then passive-aggressively asking for action. The PM's make it all the more clear that's what that was about, in my opinion. And, as her PM's also make clear, she was fully aware that this might result in shutting the board down and that her behavior was similar Joseph's which he was banned for.

But, even if you don't accept that, calling other people liars for failing to adopt highly technical, strained readings of this affair is a bit much, if you ask me. This is especially true in my case, as I've simply stated with confidence that she threatened to initiate legal action and acted on filling a complaint with the webhost that could've impacted the functionality of the board which is backed up by direct, unambiguous quotes.

[_EAllusion]

Thank you. I'm done with this bloody nonsense. If Joseph can get this board taken down, then so can I. I'm not up for EA's quibbling regarding this issue.

Wow. I didn't know about that one. People are seriously defending this?

[_marg]

Um...do you see the difference between me stating that Jersey Girl had sent me PMs that refuted what she was publicly saying regarding this specific matter, and you divulging information about [personal information deleted]?

LDST..the reason one is not supposed to divulge pm's is because they can be doctored/misrepresented and/or they can negatively impact someone's real life.

Your posts divulging pm's between you and Jersey Girl, could have both those issues involved. When you were revealing her pm's in your own words, they could have been misrepresented..but even with you putting what you claim are her pm's on the board ..it is possible for you to have doctored them. In your case your intent is to malign her and it have real life negative consequences. By comparison, nothing I said could have real life negative consequences for her.

Liz, if you are reading this thread, would you mind checking in with Jersey Girl to see if she indeed made public her tragedies of the past couple of years, and if not, would you please have the decency that eludes marg, and remove her posts?

Jersey Girl was essentially forced to give you permission to put the pm's on the board because you were discussing them anyhow.. in your own words.

Once again you have a double standard and you are creating much ado about nothing.