not logged in
| re: Bright Eyes/Leesa | |
Posted by:  |
stewbeef 07:22 pm UTC 10/21/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Bright Eyes/Leesa - Mr.Egg 02:27 pm UTC 10/21/07 |
| how would you know you,ve only been on this forum for 2 minuites(or have you not been on longer?) > Leesa, I have said many times that I am in favour of, as > you say, "exposing the IP's". > > I have read Bright Eyes' posts and there is no reason for > you to think she is the mythical monster that people call > Susan. > > > So begin exposing the IP's and prove us all liars. > > Pure and simple. Alot of the lurkers here only post > > occassionally, mostly in response to something that > > motivates them--many discussions here interest me, I just > > don't always add. There were many suspicious things > > surrounding Bright Eyes' appearances over the last several > > months in regards to Susan, but I'm not going to go into > > that crap again. > > Like I say, expose the IP's--what do you have to hide? I > > bet copper to crumpets you'd be deadset against doing it. > > Leesa > > > > > Hi Leesa > > > > > > I think you should apologise for saying: "It's pretty > > > obvious she's Bright Eyes so we have imposter posting in > > > this as well." > > > > > > Bright Eyes writes very intelligent, meaningful posts. She > > > is also very polite. Some others (although not all) have a > > > go at me, just for writing my opinion. > > > > > > You should check Bright Eyes detailed response to my Bat > > > Out Of Hell Live post. It was so articulate that I thought > > > she (or possibly he - it doesn't matter) was a lawyer. > > > > > > I can't understand why you would think she is secretly > > > Susan. > > > > > > I don't want to fight with you and I am sorry if I sound a > > > bit harsh but I amazed that you have a problem with Bright > > > Eyes. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Mr.Egg > > > > > > Leesa wrote: > > > > > > "Well, nobody wants what we've had the last five months > > > here. But what exactly was the problem and what would > > > effectively change it? > > > The elephant in the room, so to speak, was Susan. What > > > made Susan unique to any other posters we've had was the > > > fact she believed alot of fantasy/crackpot theories/tall > > > tales/fan fiction, what have you. It went beyond > > > entertainment value for her as she actually believed it. > > > She fantasised about having a history with Steinman and > > > when he denied it, she at first ran off, embarrassed being > > > found out, then came back with tales of two Jims now. > > > What made the situation impossible for many of us was when > > > she began accusing Steinman of not writing his stuff, > > > having photos he claimed were him on this site, but were > > > actually this Cypherd character and deliberately trying to > > > confuse people. It's pretty obvious she's Bright Eyes so > > > we have imposter posting in this as well. > > > First off, when someone comes on a fansite and accuses > > > that celebrity of doing things, writing or not writing > > > stuff, etc. and the fans are up in arms to the point the > > > celebrity responds on their blog to clarify themselves, > > > and the nut comes back and tries to peddle the lies again, > > > any other site removes that individual. This isn't like > > > Meat Loaf's site where we only talk happy talk about the > > > Meatie One and have great Meat Days, but we don't slander > > > Jim, or his fans, with lies. > > > She should have been banned, pure and simple. > > > Now how to prevent a reoccurrance? Say she cops yet > > > another name/new IP and is back. We start hearing about > > > how Jim Cypherd is responsible for all this and those are > > > his photos, etc., then JD needs to give that person a > > > warning like she did Susan in the end, that this is about > > > Steinman, not Cypherd and stick to her guns. > > > Credit cards aren't going to do anything. JD knows pretty > > > much who's who from the registration we already have--it'd > > > be up her anyway to ban them with credit card info or with > > > what she already has before her now. > > > The thing is, in the 10 yrs the RR has been around, and > > > the Jimlist's history as well, Susan has been the only > > > reason we've had to reshape any of this site. The way some > > > posters responded to Susan did fan the flames, but you > > > can't have people slandering the way she did on this site > > > and expect fans to not feel like they need to defend Jim. > > > I still choose to see this as isolated and watch what > > > happens when/if she returns. She starts off on the Cypherd > > > shit again and she needs to be removed. She has her own > > > website for that nonsense.Jim deserves better. > > > But there's really nothing proactive we can do now that's > > > going to really matter. > > > Leesa" > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Bright Eyes/Leesa - Leesa 12:00 am UTC 10/22/07 |
| Next: | re: Bright Eyes - Pudding 12:44 am UTC 10/21/07 |
| Thread: | |