| re: Bright Eyes/Leesa | |
|
Posted by: |
Leesa (gallytrotter@mchsi.com) 12:00 am UTC 10/22/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Bright Eyes/Leesa - Mr.Egg 02:27 pm UTC 10/21/07 |
Didn't catch those posts, Mr Egg--my apologies for the presumptions. My hearfelt kudos for your views. And I strongly suspect that Bright Eyes isn't 'the one who won't be named'--but by virtue of her (BE) defending her (the 'one's') good points whilst she ('the one') accused Jim of fraud and plagurism, she (BE) unfortunately landed very suspiciously with a number of us. As did the fact that BOTH she and 'the one' disappeared from the RR when 'the one' was banned.She did reappear when I pointed out that it was 'obvious' we had a connection. Guess we didn't. Whatever. There are other things but no one here wants to rehash this stuff. You owe it to yourself to check out the forum's archives to see for yourself. I am sorry you came onto this forum as we stand. Cheers! Leesa J > 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 - Mr.Egg 02:27 pm UTC 10/21/07 |
| Next: | re: Bright Eyes/Leesa - stewbeef 07:22 pm UTC 10/21/07 |
| Thread: | |