not logged in
| re: Jacqueline... | |
Posted by:  |
Willis 01:23 pm UTC 08/22/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Jacqueline... - Bright_Eyes 09:41 am UTC 08/22/07 |
| Seriously? Shutting down the board is the big idea? Deep down everybody here seems like a good person and wants to discuss all things Jim and Jim related. Susan's post disrupt that with all the "non-facts". It makes it very difficult to ever have a serious talk about a song if you spend ten posts debating what Rory Dodd did, or did not sing. Yes if she went to lurker mode it'd solve things. But that'd be exercising self control to not pester (and i'm convinced that's the main goal here) Now I've been fine ignoring her for the most part and will continue to do so. It's not that hard. And unfairly abused? It's the internet, don't visit the site or maybe ask yourself (not you specifically) "Why are people making these comments?" Cause anger or animosity usually doesn't come out of nowhere. As far as activity on the board, most non-susan or non-admin posts seem to be getting the most replys and interest. Every attack and defense is fueling the fire. I actually find it a bit entertaining, cause at the end of the day you can't control others and they'll post what they're gonna post. I think it'd be a great idea if Susan heeded your advice. Won't happen, but it'd still be nice. But shutting down the board? Lame. > It's not just a few who disappoint me, it's pretty much > the whole community. Maybe not every last person, but not > just a minority either. Even the ones who don't join in > the harassment, they still sit back and watch while you > are abused and harassed. Even the ones who are known for > being the nicer people on this board don't seem to mind > the way you are treated, and they sometimes add insults. > For some, the only case they can present against your > abuse is that it is a waste of time and space, as if the > abuse itself somehow doesn't count, because it's only > Susan. I've only seen a few make the comment that your > harassment is a bad thing in its own right. I'm more > disappointed in the normally nice ones than in anybody, > because Pudding can at least be written off as a mean > person. > > I can only think of a few here who were willing to make it > known that they were separate from the hate gang crusade, > and the admin here is one of them, and I greatly respect > her for that. This has nothing to do with ass-kissing; I > don't care what anybody here thinks of me, and I'm glad > nobody in this community knows anything substantial about > me. I also don't think my view of this situation has much > to do with compassion either. > > If I were the admins I would probably shut down the board > entirely, perhaps only temporarily. Maybe for a couple of > months. That way we can see if Pudding can even function > without his precious internet fan message board. Back when > people were begging for you to be banned, people were > acting like their whole life was being ruined by not > having their precious message board the way they had it > before. Going a while without it existing, might help them > realize that it's not that important, and it's not worth > the crusade they launched against you. Trust me they won't > miss anything they need. People have lost sight of how > important the discussions on this board are. > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Jacqueline... - Pudding 10:00 pm UTC 08/22/07 |
| Next: | re: Jacqueline... - Pudding 09:55 am UTC 08/22/07 |
| Thread: | |