| re: Cypherd board | |
|
Posted by: |
Bright_Eyes 01:30 am UTC 10/22/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Cypherd board - Leesa 12:46 am UTC 10/22/07 |
| > Oh my god. Susan (the 'one who won't be named') came on > here and basically accused Jim of having a man named Jim > Cypherd's photos posted on the RR, falsely claiming to be > Steinman instead of Cypherd. Nevermind, Steinman actually > wrote the score to 'Rocky Horror'--Steinman's really > Richard O'Brien. Susan kept discussing Cypherd as if he > was the 'other Jim' but still Steinman--when we went nuts, > BE diplomatically decided to prove how easy it was to set > up another fansite as many, including Smeghead, insisted > she should, as she was, talking about ANOTHER PERSON!!!! I made that board, in less than five minutes, to show Smeghead, and Pudding, how easy it would be for them to make a board where they could be the admin, instead of having to complain constantly on a board whose admin they don't respect and insult repeatedly. That was the only objective. Please don't take my actions and try to spin them around your views and grudges. > There is a huge history around this and your challenge > will be to find someone with the wherewithall to delve > into this mind-numbing nonsense again. > 'Purely a joke' is really a strange tag to pin, > considering Susan still posts there--about Steinman, mind > you, not Cypherd. When you do something, you get to say what your motives were, and when I do something I say what mine were. That is how it works. Picking that name was a joke. Whether or not she posts there has nothing to do with why I picked that name. I could have called it anything and it wouldn't have made a difference. The board doesn't cost me any money or time, so I will allow anyone who wants to post there to do so. That board was never supposed to become an active board, and I'd rather it didn't because I don't want to spend time moderating, but if anyone wants to use it they can. > This is why your credibility suffers, BE. You enabled this > plainly ill person. You never posted to her on this site > explaining she'd lost it--in a constructive way; why we > freaked. You were just as much a part of the problem for > her as you were to us. I was never a problem to her or to the board. People who really wanted a board where everybody hates Susan probably found me to be getting in the way, but I'm proud to have done that. I'm not on this board to fight for YOUR grudges--that is for YOU to do. I'm here to stay aware of Steinman related discussion, and to argue about anything I see on here as I see it. > I don't have to prove a damned thing to you--go read some > archives. Please explain what you think I'd discover if I did read some archives. I've read the board more carefully than you do, and doing so does not make me adopt your views. In fact, a lot of my stated views about the Susan debates are very similar to those of Jacqueline. I have to wonder why you don't make ridiculous statements about her as well. >You're not Susan, but I suspect you know her. Can you explain how you concluded this? Hopefully with an actually valid chain of reasoning, and not just another vague pronouncement. > You're both in LA. No we're not. I do not and have never lived in Louisiana, Los Angeles, Los Altos, Los Alamos or any other place called LA. I do not know where Susan lives. >We know where you both are. No you don't. You just named a place where I don't live. Comments like "we know where you both are" are making you start to sound kinda psycho yourself. Your recent posts make it sound like you're obsessed with Susan. The stalking mentality is pathetic; even if you could stalk me and figure out my exact address and what side of the room I sleep on, it won't prove any of your views. And to respond a remark of yours in another post, after Susan was suspended I started posting again as soon as I returned from a trip, not because of anything you were doing. As usual, please do not make pronouncements about why I do things. Your such pronouncements invariably revolve around your own grudges and biased views. You can speak for yourself, and I can speak for myself. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Cypherd board - Leesa 12:46 am UTC 10/22/07 |
| Next: | re: Cypherd board - Markus 05:01 pm UTC 10/21/07 |
| Thread: | |