THE JERSEY GIRL MEGATHREAD

[_EAllusion]

Where in the hell are you getting that? Where did she say anything about provoking someone else to sue, and how is that an understandable reading of her comments?

It's one or the other. She threatened to initiate a legal fight. Either that means she was going to sue herself or she was going to take some action that would cause others to create the legal fight. What, is she trying to make the whole legal threat thing disappear in a cloud of rhetoric?

Perhaps it would be better for her to assert she's being misread and ask comments about the incident to be reworded that she threatened to "initiate a legal fight" against us rather than "sue."

Take a look at her actions which coupled with her statements. Take a look at what she did. She filed an inquiry with the web host. And the content of the inquiry was not something that involved lawsuit at all. Her purpose in all of this was singular...to get Darrick off the board.

First, I read that inquiry and it passive-aggressively encourages the webhost to see this board in violation of its terms of use, so I don't agree with this characterization. That's what she said her first step would be in initiating a legal fight and she made good on that. As far as that goes, her actions did match her rhetoric. Second, Darrick was banned at that point, so there was no opportunity for a next step in her threat chain. But, as you know, I thought her threat was an idle one. She never was going to initiate that legal fight, if only because there's no legal case about "liability" to be had and the very idea is laughable. It still doesn't change the fact that she made the threat she did.

[_Yoda]

I think threatening the Web Host for perceived behavior by this board is tantamount to messing with this board by proxy. It's a ridiculous argument to say otherwise. Jersey Girl was picking a fight with the Zen Master, Dr. Shades, and she lost. That's that.

Go find another board to mess with, sister.

- VRDRC

Shades, himself stated that he had no problem with Jersey Girl, or any other member suing the board. Those are his own words. At worst, that is what Jersey Girl was threatening to do. Beyond her clarification in her email, her basic actions show that she was pursuing the webhost...and she was pursuing the webhost not for dollar amounts which would take money out of our individual families' hands, but pursuing the webhost to do one thing and one thing only....block Darrick from the board. That was her sole purpose! It is blatantly clear.

Jersey Girl did not threaten to sue us, as individuals. Period. The very thing that Shades stated is simply not true, and has been proven false, not only by her own clarifications which she offered Shades, but also by the very actions which she took.

[_EAllusion]

This is where the whole major split between me, Harmony, Jersey Girl, and you and Shades differ. Darrick's previous history has EVERYTHING to do with his behavior on our board being alarming. And I didn't say that his behavior was criminal, but it was close. You even admit that.

Ok, some context has to be added here.

Harm, and to a lesser extent you, were arguing that Jersey Girl shouldn't be banned because she broke no explicit rule where banning is explicitly listed as the consequence. I countered by pointing out that this is true of Joseph and Darrick as well, yet no one was advocating for them to be unbanned. Everyone was on board with their banning in the first place. Harm, in particular, vociferously advocated for Joseph's banning at the time. I found this to be intellectually inconsistent.

Anyway, Jersey Girl, clearly up to date on this chain of argument, argues in that email response to me that Darrick did break a board rule by involving the board in illegal activity by cyberstalking. So I'm pointing out here that, no, Darrick's posting behavior here wasn't illegal. That's exaggerating it.

[_Shulem]

Jersey Girl did not threaten to sue us, as individuals. Period. The very thing that Shades stated is simply not true, and has been proven false, not only by her own clarifications which she offered Shades, but also by the very actions which she took.

At minimum when anyone threatens legal action of any kind you return fire. Cut them down as fast as you can and go for the throat. Don't just sit there and let the ememy take shots and do God knows what. Jersey Girl crossed the line. The hell with the rules. Protect yourself first and foremost. Protect your family. Protect the message board too.

Shades was slow to react but he did what he needed to do. He took her out and shot her. I'd do the same to anyone who threatened to sue me or my board, if I had one.

Paul O

[_Yoda]

First, I read that inquiry and it passive-aggressively encourages the webhost to see this board in violation of its terms of use, so I don't agree with this characterization. That's what she said her first step would be in initiating a legal fight and she made good on that. As far as that goes, her actions did match her rhetoric. Second, Darrick was banned at that point, so there was no opportunity for a next step in her threat chain. But, as you know, I thought her threat was an idle one. She never was going to initiate that legal fight, if only because there's no legal case about "liability" to be had and the very idea is laughable. It still doesn't change the fact that she made the threat she did.

Had she known that Darrick was banned, she wouldn't have filled out the inquiry form to begin with. And yes, she pointed out that the board was in violatioon of its terms of use. That is exactly the same type of claim that Seattle Ghost Writer and Joseph claimed, and they were both allowed to continue to post!

Again, this is NOT about Jersey Girl being allowed to post here again. This is about clarifying her statements and what she did because she is incapable of doing that for herself.

As Ray indicated, you and Shades have both GROSSLY misunderstood and therefore misrepresented her motives. That is the bottom line here.

I will not be able to respond for a while. I am going swimming with my family, which is a hell of a lot more important than this board.

[_Yoda]

Jersey Girl did not threaten to sue us, as individuals. Period. The very thing that Shades stated is simply not true, and has been proven false, not only by her own clarifications which she offered Shades, but also by the very actions which she took.

At minimum when anyone threatens legal action of any kind you return fire. Cut them down as fast as you can and go for the throat. Don't just sit there and let the ememy take shots and do God knows what. Jersey Girl crossed the line. The hell with the rules. Protect yourself first and foremost. Protect your family. Protect the message board too.

Shades was slow to react but he did what he needed to do. He took her out and shot her. I'd do the same to anyone who threatened to sue me or my board, if I had one.

Paul O

That may be so, but I am trying to hold Shades accountable for HIS OWN WORDS.

[_LDSToronto]

For the record, LDST keeps showing up in the chain of events (Jersey Girl's words) because I:

1. Did the rational thing - I used my feet to say how I felt
2. As much as I can't stand DCP, Derrick was threatening him and I don't want any physical harm to come to anyone, so I warned DCP
3. Jersey Girl asked me who the host of this board was. I did a traceroute and told her it was Dreamhost

See? That's what *rational* people do.

H.

[_LDSToronto]

For LDST, the classless piece of s*** himself, my comments regarding Jersey Girl can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24868&p=615162#p615162

While I am proud of my title, the thing that's really classless is Jersey Girl's inability to take responsibility for her actions, and her posse of pussies whining about her banning every few weeks.

H.

[_Shulem]

For the record, LDST keeps showing up in the chain of events (Jersey Girl's words) because I:

1. Did the rational thing - I used my feet to say how I felt
2. As much as I can't stand DCP, Derrick was threatening him and I don't want any physical harm to come to anyone, so I warned DCP
3. Jersey Girl asked me who the host of this board was. I did a traceroute and told her it was Dreamhost

See? That's what *rational* people do.

H.

Sometimes you are a classy piece of crap.



Paul O

[_EAllusion]

Had she known that Darrick was banned, she wouldn't have filled out the inquiry form to begin with.

She sent that before he was banned. You can see the timeline. She gave me 15 minutes to ban Darrick, then sent it 15 minutes later when I didn't. Harm banned Darrick something like 30 min after the ultimatum when she got on, though she didn't make an announcement at the time.

As Ray indicated, you and Shades have both GROSSLY misunderstood and therefore misrepresented her motives. That is the bottom line here.

I have not misrepresented her. Goodness. I'm saying she threatened to initiate a legal fight against the board admin. As for evidence of that claim, how about this quote:

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.

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.

It seems like she might be claiming that she wasn't threatening the board admin, but as you can see from her words, that is complete BS if that is indeed the case.

In any event, I'm clearly not misrepresenting her.