THE JERSEY GIRL MEGATHREAD

[_Bret Ripley]

Banning is punitive.

I think this is probably correct. If so, we can dispense with any notion that banning Jersey Girl had something to do with preventing her from "stealing bread from kids' mouths".

Sure, so long as the notion that banning Jersey Girl was a "gross miscarriage of internet justice" is tossed out at the same time.

But but but ... won't you miss the histrionics? <swoons>

I think we both agree that the conversation would improve were some parties less prone to the maudlin.

[_Alter Idem]

Anyone who cares about Jersey Girl is already in touch with her on a regular basis over at Liz's private geeky NOM board, and the rest of us who don't really care, well, who cares?

If you want to chat it up with Jersey Girl and care about her defense, ask Liz for an invite.

H.

That's not the problem. I am on Liz's board and can talk to Jersey Girl there. The point is that Shades is discussing her banning on THIS board, giving his skewed version of events and once again accusing her of trying to legally hurt him, his family, the board etc.--all of which she denies. BUT, because she is permanently banned, she is not able to respond.

As long as she cannot defend herself, he should not post his justification for what he did. If he's so sure he did what was right and best for the board, then he should not feel the need to explain himself, but should ignore the grumblings. That would be the right thing to do.

When he insists on responding by once again posting his justification for banning her, he has unfairly maligned her because she can't dispute his accusations. This kind of thing happened at MADB and it was wrong. When it happens here, it's wrong too.

[_Blixa]

My two cents.

The Jersey Girl situation was not handled well.

The Jersey Girl situation would never have happened if someone had listened to the argument (made by many) that Darrick Evenson should be banned.

I still cannot for the life of me understand how he lasted as long as he did.

[_Drifting]

Anyone who cares about Jersey Girl is already in touch with her on a regular basis over at Liz's private geeky NOM board, and the rest of us who don't really care, well, who cares?

If you want to chat it up with Jersey Girl and care about her defense, ask Liz for an invite.

H.

That's not the problem. I am on Liz's board and can talk to Jersey Girl there. The point is that Shades is discussing her banning on THIS board, giving his skewed version of events and once again accusing her of trying to legally hurt him, his family, the board etc.--all of which she denies. BUT, because she is permanently banned, she is not able to respond.

As long as she cannot defend herself, he should not post his justification for what he did. If he's so sure he did what was right and best for the board, then he should not feel the need to explain himself, but should ignore the grumblings. That would be the right thing to do.

When he insists on responding by once again posting his justification for banning her, he has unfairly maligned her because she can't dispute his accusations. This kind of thing happened at MADB and it was wrong. When it happens here, it's wrong too.

So you agree, posters should stop bringing it up?

[_Alter Idem]

It's not unreasonable for him to want to respond to their criticism, but when he does so by stating his version of events, which Jersey Girl denies vehemently, and she is not able to respond, that's wrong.

Who's version of events should he state if not his own?

I reckon, if you get people to stop bringing it up Shades will stop responding. Am I right?

Just because someone brings something up doesn't mean you have to discuss it.

At the MADB message board people would bring up something a poster at MD had said or done and they'd all discuss it, usually in a ridiculing, attacking way. The person who was being discussed was powerless to respond to even challenge what was said or even defend against the charges--because they'd been banned. This is what's happening to Jersey Girl. She disputes what Shades claims she did.

Once again, my point is that Shades should not continue to talk about her when she can't respond. He does not have to give his version of events, he can ignore the complaints, or discuss in private if he feels he must justify his actions.

[_Drifting]

Just because someone brings something up doesn't mean you have to discuss it.

You see the irony in this statement...yes?

[_Alter Idem]

So you agree, posters should stop bringing it up?

No; Posters can bring up the subject--I believe it's a free speech board. But Shades, if he doesn't want to be like the MADB board where people are accused without any recourse, he doesn't have to respond.

[_Drifting]

So you agree, posters should stop bringing it up?

No; Posters can bring up the subject--I believe it's a free speech board. But Shades, if he doesn't want to be like the MADB board where people are accused without any recourse, he doesn't have to respond.

Got it.
Gag Shades on a free speech board.
Allow Shades to be accused but give him no recourse.

Let's be quite clear.
Shades took a difficult decision in the best interests of both himself and this board. He had the necessary minerals to do what was required when a clear and real (as far as he could reasonably perceive) threat was put on him. The fact is that Shades has only responded with a version of events that is already commonly known because it was commonly seen by the posters on thus board. He hasn't revealed anything from his private e mails and messages, nor has he revealed anything from private sources that were shared with him to aid the resolution to the problem that Jersey Girl herself created.

I thought Shades handled, and continues to handle, himself with far more diplomacy and dignity than I would have been capable of.

[_Alter Idem]

No; Posters can bring up the subject--I believe it's a free speech board. But Shades, if he doesn't want to be like the MADB board where people are accused without any recourse, he doesn't have to respond.

Got it.
Gag Shades on a free speech board.
Allow Shades to be accused but give him no recourse.

No, you don't 'got it'.

Shades can accuse her and defend himself all he wants, but if he doesn't allow Jersey Girl to challenge his version(which she strongly disputes) and defend herself, he's as bad as MADB.

[_Drifting]

No, you don't 'got it'.

Shades can accuse and defend himself all he wants, but if he doesn't allow Jersey Girl to challenge his version(which she strongly disputes) and defend herself, he's as bad as MADB.

So. If someone gets banned from the board, they should be allowed to visit periodically just to put their version of events forward? Like a guest poster or something.

So, should we allow Derrick back to put his case forward?