not logged in
| re: what is the problem w/ pidpunk??? | |
Posted by:  |
fallingtofly 10:50 pm UTC 06/01/07 |
| In reply to: | re: what is the problem w/ pidpunk??? - Leesa 10:21 pm UTC 06/01/07 |
| When she first came in, I tried to be nice to her, not knowing who she was, and she responded with incoherent rantings and attacks. Someone directed me to her sites, and I responded that I pitied her if she believed her own ramblings, and since have been a pretty regular target. At the time, I had a blog as the temporary space for information about my writing career. When the new site came up and operational, I deleted that blog link from places people could find out about my writing and went back to using it as a normal blog. Apparently, she continued to haunt it, and I'd love to know how she got access to a restricted post. Already this year I've had to deal with one delusional stalker on an entirely different level- I was more than willing to leave Susan to her own psychosis until she decided to start attacking my children. By Monday morning, one way or another, I will not have to deal with her blatant libel of them any more. She's been warned of this by me, and I will feel absolutely no regrets when things fall out as they may. > Fallingtofly, you've pretty much nailed it. You can ask > some of the longest contributers here (if they recall that > far back)about what a zealot I am about free speech > message boards (got me in trouble!) and why that certainly > contributes to this being something of a sacred space of > sorts to me. And I know that both JD and Jim have that > same belief--sort of the anti-Meat Fan Club attitude, > which many of us here do take pride in being banned from!! > It was really hard for Jacqueline to finally agree to kick > Susan off the first time as the Rockman had weathered so > many other troll types without moderation; usually kids > under 16, I should think. Alot of them even stuck around, > turned around, and became some of our most interesting > contributers. They just needed to acquire some decorum and > mores in regards to their expression of their > opinions--i.e., how not to piss everybody off > constantly!--so there's a ton of merit in hesitating to > ban someone here. And that was all good. > This was really different. This individual has > consistantly presented many symptoms of dementia (my > father in law suffered from it for years) and maybe even > schizophrenia (which a good friend of mine has and who > behaves very much like Susan does here when she goes off > her meds). She's really more delusional and uses this > format and us to feed these fantasies--which doctors will > tell you is the worst thing we can do for her. > I read some of the past posts she had this spring and for > a while she did seem reasonable and perhaps deserved a > chance. But I don't think it's gonna work in the long > haul.I don't see her as an 'average fan'--she's very much > a stalker/Mark Chapman persona and is probably as > potentially dangerous now as she seemed the last time we > went through this. > I guess I wouldn't even hesitate. She's the reason we had > to change formats in the first place and I'd boot her. > John Lennon would have been better off without a fan like > Mark Chapman. > Cheers! > Leesa > > > Fallingtofly wrote: > > > > And gods forbid you A)disagree with her B)agree with the > > masses that she's a loon or C)simply ignore her. > > > > And since the mods are apparently on a permanent mental > > vacation I have absolutely nothing to lose by saying > > this- > > IMNSHO: > > She is a sick-minded individual who fantasizes about > > prepubescent sex and couplings- child brides and grooms. > > Her fantasy of a "commitment" and "engagement" to Jim as > > a child, her constant attempt to make a commentary on the > > NATURAL and ORDINARY games children play while building > > social interaction with the opposite sex into something > > dirty and perverted, show this. > > > > She's a stalker of the worst type- the kind who will feed > > upon her own vanity in order to continue her stalking > > behaviours. In answering herself, she is actually > > answering arguments she BELIEVES come from those of us > > ignoring her. > > > > She's a degenerate and indigent individual, as displayed > > by her own commentaries on her inability to keep a job. > > Notice, in that diatribe, that she consistently blames her > > termination on others while trying to play the "poor me" > > card. > > > > She's not going to be a problem much longer. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: what is the problem w/ pidpunk??? - pidunk 09:47 am UTC 06/02/07 |
| Next: | re: what is the problem w/ pidpunk??? - Leesa 07:03 pm UTC 06/01/07 |
| Thread: | |