Justice Watch Support JW "Banned!?" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Banned!?, Chris, 04:00:44, 4/24/2001 And Another Thing, Chris, 04:09:37, 4/24/2001, (#1) Chris, Twitch, 05:05:11, 4/24/2001, (#2) Twitch, Chris, 05:14:46, 4/24/2001, (#3) Chris, momo, 07:14:10, 4/24/2001, (#4) a lot us us have anger..I do and admit it...., Sixpence, 08:12:04, 4/24/2001, (#5) I stayed at Holiday Inn last night. . ., freebird, 10:26:59, 4/24/2001, (#6) hmmmm ..., Gemini, 11:18:39, 4/24/2001, (#7) ..JFJB, Sixpence, 11:53:51, 4/24/2001, (#8) Sixpence, Gemini, 12:20:11, 4/24/2001, (#9) Sixpence, Gem, Others..., Chris, 12:28:22, 4/24/2001, (#10) Chris, Sixpence, 13:02:38, 4/24/2001, (#11) Gem, Sixpence, 14:49:45, 4/24/2001, (#12) When you're all, Watching you, 16:29:40, 4/24/2001, (#13) As for my feedback, Watching you, 16:35:15, 4/24/2001, (#14) Not so veiled, WY..., LurkerXIV, 18:43:56, 4/24/2001, (#16) : ), Gemini, 18:00:48, 4/24/2001, (#15) Chris, JR, 18:59:36, 4/24/2001, (#18) L-XIV, Gemini, 18:53:07, 4/24/2001, (#17) Well, Chris, FT, 21:05:00, 4/24/2001, (#19) FT, LurkerXIV, 21:28:03, 4/24/2001, (#20) LXIV, FT, 21:30:33, 4/24/2001, (#21) Where I have been dissapointed, JR, 22:37:53, 4/24/2001, (#22) Weighing in -, Holly, 05:52:17, 4/25/2001, (#27) FT, Gemini, 23:05:44, 4/24/2001, (#23) Gem, JR, 23:14:39, 4/24/2001, (#24) I guess I, Watching you, 04:38:07, 4/25/2001, (#25) WY, Holly, 05:56:12, 4/25/2001, (#28) Holly, Watching you, 06:30:28, 4/25/2001, (#30) WY., Holly, 07:14:07, 4/25/2001, (#33) Just one more thought, Watching you, 05:03:51, 4/25/2001, (#26) Mame is not, Holly, 07:12:03, 4/25/2001, (#32) What do you think, Watching you, 07:15:19, 4/25/2001, (#34) WY, Holly, 11:05:02, 4/25/2001, (#42) And God Created Woman!, Jellyjaws, 05:58:16, 4/25/2001, (#29) JJ, Watching you, 06:41:34, 4/25/2001, (#31) I dunno, Waiting, 07:39:49, 4/25/2001, (#36) The bottom line, Watching you, 07:23:18, 4/25/2001, (#35) Confused in NJ, szundi, 09:56:34, 4/25/2001, (#37) on Fleet and forum disruptions..., mary99, 11:33:33, 4/25/2001, (#43) mary99 and Grace, Holly, 11:58:12, 4/25/2001, (#47) RR/RS?, janab, 10:35:37, 4/25/2001, (#38) No, janab..., LurkerXIV, 10:40:27, 4/25/2001, (#40) They are two, Watching you, 10:38:00, 4/25/2001, (#39) I understand..., janab, 10:50:14, 4/25/2001, (#41) I'm fascinated, Grace, 11:35:04, 4/25/2001, (#44) Mary99, janab, 11:54:05, 4/25/2001, (#46) Janab, good questions, mary99, 13:39:06, 4/25/2001, (#50) Mary99, Watching you, 11:38:03, 4/25/2001, (#45) my thoughts, fly, 13:56:40, 4/25/2001, (#51) Amen, Watching you, 14:57:37, 4/25/2001, (#56) When you do this Holly,, Florida, 12:54:56, 4/25/2001, (#49) The LIST, Holly, 09:45:53, 4/26/2001, (#72) Holly, Scully, 12:54:47, 4/25/2001, (#48) Scully., Holly, 11:48:05, 4/26/2001, (#73) Scully and FL, Holly, 22:48:20, 4/25/2001, (#69) Scully, Gemini, 14:23:42, 4/25/2001, (#53) Mary99, janab, 14:16:30, 4/25/2001, (#52) mary99, Gemini, 14:30:06, 4/25/2001, (#54) Gem and janab, mary99, 15:08:28, 4/25/2001, (#57) Yeah, Gem, janab, 14:52:40, 4/25/2001, (#55) Gemini, fly, 15:45:23, 4/25/2001, (#58) Good posts, mary99, Grace, 16:48:35, 4/25/2001, (#59) Grace, mary99, 17:50:01, 4/25/2001, (#60) Fly, Gemini, 20:15:33, 4/25/2001, (#61) dose Wamseys!, mary99, 21:14:53, 4/25/2001, (#63) JR, Gemini, 20:37:37, 4/25/2001, (#62) Hey Gemini, do you mean , mary99, 21:21:32, 4/25/2001, (#65) well personally.., Sailer, 21:19:36, 4/25/2001, (#64) By the way Chris.., Sailer, 21:24:07, 4/25/2001, (#66) Sailer..., Pedro, 22:32:46, 4/25/2001, (#68) LOL ... no Mary99, Gemini, 21:38:36, 4/25/2001, (#67) I have to disagree here, JR, 00:45:18, 4/26/2001, (#70) JR & Gem, fly, 08:07:24, 4/26/2001, (#71) Holly, Scully, 13:06:30, 4/26/2001, (#76) Gemini, Greenleaf, 12:32:52, 4/26/2001, (#74) I am.., Pedro, 13:06:14, 4/26/2001, (#75) Pedro, fly, 13:35:29, 4/26/2001, (#77) No cure, Watching you, 13:45:50, 4/26/2001, (#78) GL, Gemini, 14:33:48, 4/26/2001, (#79) Gemini, Greenleaf, 14:49:40, 4/26/2001, (#80) I'm not as, Gemini, 15:04:02, 4/26/2001, (#81) Greenleaf and Gem, JR, 15:33:33, 4/26/2001, (#82) ridicule, mary99, 16:26:56, 4/26/2001, (#85) Many have left, Watching you, 16:46:39, 4/26/2001, (#86) oh JR, Gemini, 15:38:10, 4/26/2001, (#83) grace, Jellyjaws, 16:05:53, 4/26/2001, (#84) Chris, Starling, 17:20:24, 4/26/2001, (#87) What a good post, Gemini, 17:35:30, 4/26/2001, (#88) I agree, Watching you, 17:42:42, 4/26/2001, (#89) HA!, Gemini, 18:02:14, 4/26/2001, (#90) Nope, Watching you, 18:11:14, 4/26/2001, (#91) Geez WY, Gemini, 18:31:25, 4/26/2001, (#92) Well..., Pedro, 18:52:19, 4/26/2001, (#93) LOL pedro, v_p, 20:01:07, 4/26/2001, (#94) Jellyjaws, Grace, 20:26:34, 4/26/2001, (#95) Scully, FT, 21:48:12, 4/26/2001, (#96) Gemini, Watching you, 04:11:56, 4/27/2001, (#97) WY....., Pedro, 17:39:07, 4/27/2001, (#103) Starling, Twitch, 06:02:31, 4/27/2001, (#98) Message Button?, Lacey, 06:09:50, 4/27/2001, (#99) Lacey!!!, Pedro, 17:40:05, 4/27/2001, (#104) Oh., Lacey, 06:11:22, 4/27/2001, (#100) Darby Missed the 100th Post Again!, LurkerXIV, 10:02:04, 4/27/2001, (#102) I meant massage., Twitch, 10:00:03, 4/27/2001, (#101) ................................................................... "Banned!?" Posted by Chris on 04:00:44 4/24/2001 A little misinformation to stir the pot? RiverRat claims she was banned. Read this exchange and you tell me if RiverRat was banned or left of her own choice. 7. "Szundi et al -" Posted by Holly on 04:44:45 4/23/2001 It looks like a wonderful group had a wonderful time. The pics are great - the commentary colorful. Did someone say Brightlight was there? Sigh. Mr Holly remarked - "I thought we were going to that". JW is the ONLY place to be. Have a great day! 12. "Twitch the Brave" Posted by RiverRat on 06:22:41 4/23/2001 My honored First Knight, you shall be the Keeper of Arms.........all stun guns report to Twitch. Starry - don't hold back now baby - you will blow a fuse.....release is good......... Holly - wrong again 13. "Hey RiverRat" Posted by Chris on 06:41:19 4/23/2001 Nobody is holding your feet to the fire to stay here. If you don't like it, leave. I've about had it with people who beat down the door to get in here and then bitch and moan about the forum, the posters, me, whatever... 16. "FINALLY" Posted by RiverRat on 07:15:12 4/23/2001 See Ya - Wouldn't want to be ya. Thanks Chris, it's been REAL. Geez! RiverRat left because RiverRat obviously wanted to leave...in fact, RiverRat appears to have been waiting for just such an invitation. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "And Another Thing" Posted by Chris on 04:09:37 4/24/2001 I guess somebody needs to explain this to me. I have an archive around here somewhere that has nearly 20 threads, sequentially ordered where Lake, Spade and others debated the juvenile theory, specifically making several mentions of Fleet White Jr. Jr., Burke, etc. Why isn't it they were accused of trying to control or run or whatever the forum? Why is it that a few select threads (that you don't even have to open or read if they turn you off so badly) about a topic that is bothersome to some of you is seen that way? Why all of this crap about "ruining JW" because some people want to talk about their theories and opinions in specific threads? They aren't going off onto other topics and trying to sway the discussion on those threads. I don't get it. I don't get how people who suddenly came to JW about a year ago (after seeing PMPT) can speak with some sort of authority about what JW was or is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Chris" Posted by Twitch on 05:05:11 4/24/2001 Are you upset with me for opening my big mouth? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Twitch" Posted by Chris on 05:14:46 4/24/2001 Nope. Just confused and trying to figure out what's going on, how to make things better, etc. While I think that comments made elsewhere like "People are leaving JW in droves" are wrong and intended to disrupt the forum. Our traffic numbers, logins, etc. certainly don't reflect that type of comment. I think that it's only responsible or reasonable or whatever to try to get to the bottom of it and try to figure out where that type of anger about or directed at an Internet forum comes from. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Chris" Posted by momo on 07:14:10 4/24/2001 I've noticed that RR has alot of anger, borderline rage. If you noticed on the daily yesterday, no one even understood what was going on. Of course, I did. :-) I read over at CS yesterday and didn't believe that she had been banned. Have you ever noticed that CS is where everyone goes whining to? It's really pathetic that posters use CS that way. Then she mentioned something about wanting to discuss the case. Haven't seen a post yet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "a lot us us have anger..I do and admit it...." Posted by Sixpence on 08:12:04 4/24/2001 ...I'm not a dead head nor do I whine on other forums... ..I've followed the line til it lead to JW..and have stayed put.. ..April is the worst month for me..and I tend to become a rolling ball of fire during the days of this dreaded month... ..death comes in April in my world... ..what I don't understand is..after all the posts I've put it..and I am a strong advocate for JFJB..I give one comment in 4-some years of posting and another poster tells me I have slapped the faces of ALL the posters and need to apologize...ALL the posters. period. ..not a moderator..but another poster. ..I was told the 'others' had treated me 'nicely'..as if I hadn't mattered at all..just been treated nicely and tolerated... and how dare I cross the line and open my big Irish mouth and say I was getting weary of the MW? mame/AK thing.. ..I never said they could not post about it..just said what I thought. ..even mame, who, I remember defending on the daily thread when a poster named rico said she had no integrity..she flipped me a terse comment that she wanted justice for this murdered child... ..as if I never have? ..well, I can get gritty too.. ..I'm no RR...but I do have my own opinions of some issues and its not always written in lines of poetry.. ..from now on I think my quiet mouth is the most melodious.. ..I love the little butterfly and want to know who and why she was trapped in her garden of stone..but I do not feel comfortable about my words here now.. ..banned..I never want to be... ..a lurker? ..maybe best for me and others.. ..JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "I stayed at Holiday Inn last night. . ." Posted by freebird on 10:28:19 4/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:28:19, 4/24/2001 And, I think we're all just hymen-ly challenged. ... 'cept for Momo [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "hmmmm ..." Posted by Gemini on 11:18:39 4/24/2001 Nikki Sixpence ... what you said was like a flutter in the leaves - should not have been a big deal. Maybe that poster's misplaced anger (sometimes very apparent) came from another place and just boiled over on you? I wish I were more empathetic ... but I'm not. It's always been a source of amazement to me that people who seem to be reasonably bright otherwise can not differentiate between attacking and debating an issue/opinion and spewing venom on other posters. Such a simple thing. And, that's really not such a much ... most of us get annoyed (or maybe just come into the forum in a pissy mood) and let loose a smack now and then. The really, really weird thing to me is to do that repeatedly ... THEN, get all offended if there are consequences. At that point, I've gotta think NOBODY here is stupid. I agree with the posters who said that by all accounts, they are surprised mame didn't leave the forum. And that's an indication that was the plan all along, and the issue is control. Either that, or we have a few members with no self control whatsoever. It's realllll hard for me to believe these older women who do most of the spitting and snarling are THAT inept at common interpersonal communication. And, even if that's the case ... this junk has been going on for years. Anybody can learn (well, most people anyway). It isn't as easy as it used to be. Maybe they've weeded out the folks who are easily hurt and now have to deal with the feisty broads. Mame ... chin up. I'm not into the bash-FW thing, but have been where you are. If your outlook is a little different, it scares 'em. If you're right ... why then, they must be ... wrong (shudder). I've been there, just for not being totally convinced the Ramseys deserved to be cut into little pieces and buried ALIVE : ). Hang in there. Chris, it sounds like that poster doesn't realize everyone at JW is allowed to voice opinions ... even you ; ). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "..JFJB" Posted by Sixpence on 11:57:28 4/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:57:28, 4/24/2001 ..is the reason I have stayed with the forum ..I refuse to bang paint like the late great Dale Earnhardt with a woman who is twice my age.. ..I don't want to get mean and nasty with her.. ..'nuff said bout that poster...... ..as for mame, I've always tried to respect her..as a poster and as a person digging for some truth in this terrible mystery of a murdered child..... ..don't know why she banged on me too..ouch. ..:) ..later all, ..Nik ..edited 'cause I still can't type worth a darn. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Sixpence" Posted by Gemini on 12:20:11 4/24/2001 I think it's mostly politics. Luv ya. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Sixpence, Gem, Others..." Posted by Chris on 12:28:22 4/24/2001 I appreciate your feedback and wish more people would voice their opinions about this topic. Even if they want to do it privately via email. I love good, honest debate and when it turns personal or nasty my skin just crawls. I am so disappointed when I see things reduced to that level especially when I know that the people behind the hats are intelligent. Sixpence, you are among the great JfJBR advocates. You have a heart of gold (mixed with that feisty Irish spirit of yours) and I'm so sorry that April is rough on you. It's one of those days where I wish I could crawl through my computer screen and give you a big hug. Hang in there, girlfriend! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Chris" Posted by Sixpence on 13:02:38 4/24/2001 ...I hug you too! ...and sure it will be the dragon will rise to the surface of its blackish sea and be exposed.. ..as the killer of the child I have learned to love. ..Jonbenet is the wind chime of my soul. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Gem" Posted by Sixpence on 14:49:45 4/24/2001 ...you are most likely a true gem (as in diamond) in real-time life also:) ..thanx for the love .I needed that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "When you're all" Posted by Watching you on 16:29:40 4/24/2001 done hugging each other, I'd like to speak to you, Gem. I don't know about the other "older women" on this board, but I can speak for myself. You're not qualified to psychoanalyze anyone, and just so you know, nobody's outlook scares me. Where do you get this baloney? If there is any control going on on this forum, it's not coming from this end. As long as I have a mouth, I will speak up against trashing anyone who has done nothing to deserve it. It really irritates me that when someone disagrees with something, it's because "they must be scared of something," "must have hit a sore spot." That's just crap. Speaking for myself, that is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "As for my feedback" Posted by Watching you on 16:35:15 4/24/2001 the insults were flying on both sides, Chris. Some were a little more veiled than others, but they were there. When certain statements are said for the sole purpose to inflame and instigate, then that's what happens. It's perfectly clear to me what's going on, and it's okay. But, I don't think anyone should be bitching about it. It's like, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Not so veiled, WY..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 18:43:56 4/24/2001 ...I don't take kindly to being called a "baby raper hench person", nor does any sincere poster here. That was the straw that broke THIS old camel's back. Personally, I don't believe that there is one single "baby raper hench person" at JW, nor would Chris knowingly allow such a person to register and post here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. ": )" Posted by Gemini on 18:00:48 4/24/2001 Well well, GA Watch, first I wasn't talking to you or about you ... next, where did you get that idea? ... and, it wasn't a psychoanalysis (what ???) ... it was an observation. Big difference! Huge difference! Last, what gives you the right to try to censure/censor my right to express my opinion? Just wondering why some opines are fine ... others get labeled, stamped (or is that stomped?) and chastized ... all in the name of fair play, of course? Isn't it? Or, is it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Chris" Posted by JR on 18:59:36 4/24/2001 RR was looking for a fight IMO. You didn't take a swing and s/he sulked away. Bet s/he is still lurking though. I have been here almost from inception starting with JW-7. IMO, there are simply those who can't focus on the issue but instead they focus on the person (poster). All posters could agree the sky is blue but if one particular poster says, well, wait a minute, yes it's blue but has puffy white clouds therefore it is actually blue and white then some think they have been attaked OR they attack simply because something that poster said somewhere along the line pissed them off and they never forget nor forgive and look for the opportunity to bash that particular poster. Usually, these are very insecure people IMO. Either that or it's PMS. ;-) Seriously, I find the references to cliques quite annoying considering I have yet to actually meet any poster on JW - how can I belong to a clique when I don't know anyone? No point in attacking the people who make this statement because they aren't going to change but I can come back with the statement I just made; it doesn't flame anyone yet allows me to "vent." I guess my point is, don't take it personal Chris. It is clear RR needed to be "the victim" at that moment. I think you have gone above and beyond any other forum and if people don't appreciate what you offer well, "Hey, there's the door, don't let it hit you in the @$$ on your way out." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "L-XIV" Posted by Gemini on 18:53:07 4/24/2001 I'd be willing to bet my last dime you are not any such kind of person. But, be of good cheer. We all get blasted sometimes ... some of us more than others. Bet you felt a little like I did when GL called me a "defender of baby killers". Not nice, those below the belt punches. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Well, Chris" Posted by FT on 21:05:00 4/24/2001 I can't speak for RR or anyone else, but I do have some simple thoughts on how Lake's impact on the forum was different from the mame/MW impact. Firstly, Lake never proclaimed himself to be a journalist and never pretended to be ethical. Few if any posters considered him to be a legitimate source of credible information, imo. Yes, he appeared to have an inside line from time to time, but my sense is that most posters primarily thought of him as a buffoon. Mame, on the other hand, is a self-described highly ethical, objective, grass-roots journalist with solid critical thinking skills. :-) So, different standards would apply to the two of them purely on the basis of how they represented themselves on the forum. Secondly, even for those posters who took Lake somewhat seriously, he was not a real life presence in the same way that mame/MW are. No one ever really knew if Lake was male, female, young, old, etc. He was amorphous. Mame, on the other hand, is quite real. We've all seen pictures of her, many of us have heard her "interviews," many posters have met her in RL. This automatically lends more apparent legitimacy to mame relative to the unknown Lake. And, of course, in addition to being a real person, mame has real case contacts: Alex Hunter, Lou Smit, Carol McKinley, MW, etc. No one ever knew whether Lake had any real insider info or not. Another difference between the two posters is that Lake's opinions were only posted under one hat. At times, there seemed to be many individuals posting under the Lake hat, but it was still only one hat. In contrast, the mame/MW contingent have had a tendency to post in tag team fashion, each with their own unique version of vagueness and ambiguity. For these reasons, I think the forum bar is rightfully set higher for mame than it ever was for Lake. We expected more from her in the way of objectivity, honesty, and integrity because she held herself out to be objective, honest and integrated. Lake never pretended as much. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "FT" Posted by LurkerXIV on 21:28:03 4/24/2001 Right about now I kinda miss lake. ;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "LXIV" Posted by FT on 21:30:33 4/24/2001 I know what you mean! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Where I have been dissapointed" Posted by JR on 22:37:53 4/24/2001 is when some people fail to even give the courtesy of a reply such as "Sorry, I can't or don't care to discuss that at this time." Questions have simply been ignored. One expects more from professionals/adults. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Weighing in -" Posted by Holly on 05:52:17 4/25/2001 There will never be total agreement on Nancy Krebs. Some of us have supported a complete and competent investigation of her claims and are still hoping that is possible. And that's because FW's behaviors have been troubling since day one and maybe her story holds the key. She never said she could solve the case. And what troubles me is that some posters promised to expose all of the dirt on Nancy over and over and over and over - and never did. Instead they heckled posters. It is possible to have prolonged and intelligent debate on case figures and issues and not boast, heckle, lie, grandstand or attach sinister motives to the posters you oppose. And what really troubles me, is that at the yellow tape forum some JW posters continue their rants. They continue to heckle, they continue to spread lies and continue to boast. Why can't we just attack the issues and not the posters? Healthy debate will help keep the cause of justice alive. So support it, participate, but leave the uglinesss out of it. And if case "heroes" are subjected to microscopic and often critical analysis - tough. Just say why you disagree and let productive debate continue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "FT" Posted by Gemini on 23:05:44 4/24/2001 That wasn't a half bad post. Some of it I agree with. Some of it mame would probably agree with because she does seem to want to hold herself to higher standards. The thing that jumps up and bites me is that there was really no reason for the Plaskett threads to degenerate into a slug fest. If discussion had stayed on topic (BJ's article and why White was choosing that particular route), it actually might have been interesting. The problems started because a few posters chose to level verbal attacks instead of focusing on the current news. Sorry, I still don't see why that's necessary. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Gem" Posted by JR on 23:14:39 4/24/2001 IMO a lot of people don't handle anger well and maybe some posters were angry at the Plaskett situation but took it out on other posters - just a guess here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "I guess I" Posted by Watching you on 04:38:07 4/25/2001 don't understand how nonchalant some posters are about posting vile, to use Patsy's word, hideous allegations about a man no one here has even met, including mame. I haven't particularly liked all the names the Ramseys have been called, although I think they are pompous assses themselves, but calling someone a pompous ass is a long way from calling him a baby raper and a perverted pedophile. And, Gem, I'm not censuring, I am stating my opinion that it's wrong. Once again, you get it wrong. I see nothing wrong with disallowing libelous statements about people who are not suspects in any crime and who, in fact, have for all intent and purposes been cleared of any involvement in the death of JBR. If that is what this forum is about, why do the libelous statements about FW being a baby rapist still continuing? It's the obsession of about four people on the forum, and every time it comes up, it is offensive. Furthermore, since I am on the subject, everyone may think they are safe hiding behind their computers - nobody can get me, I'm protected. That may be true, but I'm not sure that it is. Every time I read another FW/MW post, I just cringe, because it is libel, and it could be the demise of the entire forum if FW ever decides he's had enough of it. Maybe legally he doesn't have a leg to stand on, but he could make a hell of a stink, and JW would be forced to fight to keep its position on the internet. Is it worth it? The people who have made the accusations, veiled or otherwise, maybe they don't care that their lives be disrupted by having to fight a lawsuit (that word), but I care. I have no intention in getting into some pissing match with someone because of someone else's actions. If our moderator and owner is comfortable with even the slightest possibility she could be drawn into legal action because of this, so be it. I won't be. And every alarm bell in my head is going off every time this Nancy Kreb/Fleet White thing gets rolling again. For anyone naive enough to think FW won't ever do anything - well, anyone can sue anyone, whether it goes anywhere or not. Do you really need another clusterfluck in your life? Aside from legal aspects, I have respect for the privacy of other people. I think it is a gross injustice to drag FW out of his private spaces and drag him through the streets of JW for the entire globe to see, stoning him, hurling disgusting accusations at him, when the man has not been accused, indicted, or convicted of any crime whatsoever, except by a few people on this board. Doesn't matter what anyone says, it is not healthy discussion, it is mean spirited, vile, and deliberately calculated to inflict serious injury on the reputation of a man who has done nothing to any of us. That's it. I'm sick to death of this subject. I'll not be part of it. Today is the first day of the rest of my life. Who knows what it will bring. One thing I do know - I will not do anything to deliberately harm another human being on this earth - can you all say the same? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "WY" Posted by Holly on 05:56:12 4/25/2001 What if it's true? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Holly" Posted by Watching you on 06:30:28 4/25/2001 you have no proof that it is true, only speculation. If you do have proof, take it to the authorities and have FW's children removed from his house. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "WY." Posted by Holly on 07:14:07 4/25/2001 One does not have to have proof of anything to engage in debate. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Just one more thought" Posted by Watching you on 05:03:51 4/25/2001 by most standards, mame is herself a public figure mostly because she made herself that way. That is not a slam, it is a statement of truth. My aversion to exposing the personal lives of anyone, including public figures, includes the private life of mame. But, just think about it. Mame is a poster on the JBR forum. She is also a public personna in the JBR case, self made. Please don't tell me she is not - she is. In fact, she is more a public person in the JBR case than FW is, simply because FW has never said diddly to anyone about this case outside law enforcement. According to the thought processes going on here, it would be perfectly okay to make unsubstantiated accusations against mame. There have been some nasty things said about mame - it would probably be okay for me to pick those things up and make accusations about her. Right? Yes? No? Because I happen to be very intense about this subject, and because I also hold mame responsible for it, if I were the type to do so, I could go after mame in a most vile way, too, but you will never ever see me do anything like that, because that's not the way I'm built. Then why is it okay to do it to Fleet White? I'm not talking about the discussions themselves - I am talking about the wild speculations about his being involved in a pedophilic sex ring and the awful names he was called. Do you really think this is a just and fair way to deal with this man? Once that accusation is made, it never ever goes away. To some, he will always be that perverted pedophile who should have been strung up. I'm really going to have to rethink a lot of things around here. Not trying to force my opinion on anyone, just not going to be forced to be a team player in this matter. It will never happen. Not ever. So, ... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Mame is not" Posted by Holly on 07:12:03 4/25/2001 a public figure. I don't think she even qualifies for "limited" public figure recognition. Perhaps you could solicit an opinion of Mame's public figure status from NYL. She does not do a public show or column about the Ramseys or anyone else. She is an internet figure in the context of the Ramsey case. Fleet White became a public figure when he commented publicly and addressed his remarks to the people of CO. and sought publication in the public record of a newspaper. FW sought public attention for his caustic assessment of Alex Hunter. FW insited that his opinions become public information, and hence, I consider him a public figure of his own design. Mame has never sought to have her opinions of anyone case related addressed to the public at large. Mame functions in the world of internet postings. I think if you canvassed 99% of Boulder's population they would tell you they never heard of her. They might not be able to tell you they never heard of Fleet White. Even in MD, people have said, "Is he the Ramsey friend ?" It surprised even me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "What do you think" Posted by Watching you on 07:15:19 4/25/2001 the internet is, Holly, if not public? In fact - it is global. I disagree with you completely. I do not believe FW has done anything to seek public status. Writing a letter to the editor is not seeking public status. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "WY" Posted by Holly on 11:05:02 4/25/2001 I stand by my interpretation of Black's Law Dictionary. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "And God Created Woman!" Posted by Jellyjaws on 05:58:16 4/25/2001 Chris, these are a few thoughts on the general spirit of your thread and not on any individual posters. There will be a lot of generalities here, so don't everybody get too excited. With all due respect to the gentlemen, women are generally recoginzed as better at social activities. We're better at communicating, nurturing, and seeking and giving support. God made us that way to be the center of the family. Men, on the other hand, simply don't need that much nuance to go out in packs and bring down an antelope. Men would never stand around before a hunt sizing each other up, running back to change loin cloths or ask, "Now, has everyone gone to the bathroom?" Men keep their eyes on the prize! All of our female rituals would only distract them. (Female lions are excellent huntresses, however, and are the exception to the rule, which is why all women love cats.) Men are so matter of fact about things and it shows in their posts. A man might post that he'd just cleared the north forty, tossed down a few cold ones and fell asleep on the couch. A woman would tell you much more than that: the weather, the beautiful butterfly that perched on the tractor (surely an omen!), and her thoughts about life as she rested under a tree. So, what's this got to do with anything, Chris is wondering. Well, there are flip sides to all these positive sex-specific characteristics. Men get ulcers 'cause they hold things in and don't know what to do with themselves when they retire. And the ladies, God bless them. get prissy, pouty, catty, snotty. We can and do revert to the, "Junior High School Syndrome," which is hard to define but easy to recognize. We may as well face facts. Under stress, women often become, "Heathers," singly or in packs. That's just how it is. After conflicts, men shake hands, punch shoulders and get on with the hunt. Women resort to sobs, tears, apologies, hugs and then cook something. No harm done, but it has to play itself out. So, Chris, now you can see what a difficult job you have. You mustn't ruminate over these things, though. That's something else women do exceptionally well. Just know that you are the loving mentor of an auditorium full of potential "Heathers" and "A Few Good Men." Flame away, sisters. I'd expect no less. :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "JJ" Posted by Watching you on 06:41:34 4/25/2001 good post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "I dunno" Posted by Waiting on 07:41:52 4/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:41:52, 4/25/2001 I generally stay out of the forum frays---frankly, the only thing preventing me from hauling off and lambasting particular posters from time to time is the thought that they would lambast me back, and probably give better than they got! In other words, I'm a 'fraidy cat! :) It's hard for me to keep track, in minute detail about alot of the battles here, either among personalities or having to do with topics, such as MW, FW, etc. etc. If there is a kind of "second" forum culture in chat or via personal email that "knows" more than what's posted on the forum itself, I'm ignorant of that, not having the time or appropriate situation to go to chat, nor the time or inclination to get into email with other posters. I will say, that if there ever IS JFJBR, I will to to Boulder if I have to crawl along I-90 to get there. The thing recently, however, that really yanked my chain was the provacative posts by V_P---a poster whose views I respected and writing style was clear and readable. Those posts WERE teasers---any seasoned poster knows what a teasing post is---and not one, but two of them in the same thread and then, silence, and no further comment. Why do stuff like that? So those are the kinds of things that make me want to throw up my hands and say that my involvement with this forum is insane. But then, this place is the only place where any morsel of information about the can CAN be found. I do find the Jameson forum distasteful and Sue B. to be a creepy personality, so I keep checking in here instead. And Chris, you are doing a great job with Justice Watch. If I get teed off from time to time with my minimal involvement in this group, I can't imagine what a drain some of this junk must be on you. But thank you again, for providing this place. P.S. Nikki/Sixpence, your voice is unique---and much appreciated. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "The bottom line" Posted by Watching you on 07:23:18 4/25/2001 I'm not going to continue to argue this subject. I will do what is best for my own peace of mind and my own conscience. I have the sole responsibility of keeping my own integrity and reputation intact, not to mention the state of my heart, mind, and soul. These attacks on FW are an affront to my moral beliefs, and I've said my piece. Whatever happens, happens. At least no one can say they were unaware of what they were doing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Confused in NJ" Posted by szundi on 09:56:34 4/25/2001 Hi gang, I don't often come here, but have a few minutes before my next case. I read on the daily that it was Real Stormy who got banned and you guys are all talking about River Rat. Are they one in the same? Nikki: April is almost over. Hang in there kiddo. I'm not one for poetry, but do read whatever you post. You have a real gift. When I get pissed off at posters attacking my area of expertise, I try not to answer right away. After I cool off, I will come back and attempt to answer them. I really want to tell them what assholes they are and are talking through their "paper ass" (a family expression, I might add). My maternal grandmother's favorite expression was, "you're full of shit!" I have survived in this male bastion of the world of surgery, by not acting feminine and coming to terms with the guys on their own level. Survival is all important. If are female posters are acting feminine, that is their natural bent---accept it. If the heat gets too hot, then pull back, withdraw, or wait a while. Getting into a pissing contest never solves anything and takes away from the real purpose we are here discussing and debating. There is a lot of medical misinformation bandied about as fact. It gets me crazy and I want to scream at posters who will argue with me about it. They are not stupid----just misinformed. I will continue to do my best to educate and inform--and that's all I can do. szundi [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "on Fleet and forum disruptions..." Posted by mary99 on 11:33:33 4/25/2001 Szundi! I tried to paraphrase your insights on the autopsy on the Dr. Krugman thread but fly has gotten down to the nitty-gritty and you are being paged... Back to the topic at hand ;-) Watching you, my comments are prompted by your comparision of Mame and Fleet White as equal public figures. I agree with Holly that there is no comparision of FW and Mame as equal public figures...but I'll go a little bit further and discuss WHY White should be considered a valid topic for discussion. If you are sure FW is a good man, it comes as no surprise you would find these discussions painful. But as you admit that you don't know him personally, I'm somewhat perplexed as to why you feel he should be excluded from discussion as a suspect, accomplice or accessory after the fact in the Ramsey case, since the case is as yet unsolved and many valid theories are currently debated with different scenarios, motives and perps. As none of us know the Ramseys either, it's been much easier to discuss their behavior, their possible motives, their lies and their guilt...in detail, in numerous scenarios. Let's face it, in an unsolved case, what we call unequivocal PROOF was not enough to convince a GJ to indict, or for Hunter to allow an indictment. While it's certainly true most theories at JW focus on the Ramseys as the prime perps, it's not outside the realm of possibility that there were others involved. In fact, certain forums rely exclusively on scenarios, motives and perps which have nothing to do with the Ramseys, and we as a forum have questioned whether they are truly capable of a logical and unbiased appraisal of the behaviors and evidence of the main suspects and their group of friends. If we are truly the voice for JonBenet we must look as critically and as logically as we possibly can, ask the hardest, most painful questions, leaving no stone unturned in the process...without regard, basically, for the feelings of those who are under investigation...or even if they are not currently under investigation by the BPD. So it's probably a good thing none of us know the Ramseys or Whites! And if someone here did happen to know either the Ramseys or Whites, you betcha they would be uncomfortable and unhappy with the theories and scenarios proposed! But as we are an opinion forum, and protected as such, I would suggest that if they feel so awful reading postings that speculate on Ramsey or White involvement -- they should not read them. ;-) It ain't a pretty place to read for friends of the Rams or the Whites! And to that I say, so what? Are we here to discuss the brutal murder of a six year old and how she may see justice or here to offer support to the main suspects and their friends? We are either here to fight for justice, or we are just a cheering squad for our favorite detective or case figure...and that, imo, is when we will lose credibility as a forum whose motto is and always has been Justice for JonBenet. What's different in the last year is that the Ramseys were formerly the only perps discussed. Although we as a forum make the claim to go where the evidence takes us [as opposed to the Internet Everglades] it seems that now that is true only if it takes us to the Ramseys as perps. While many here fervently believe the Ramseys and the Ramseys alone are responsible for the murder of JonBenet, if we aim to be open-minded and unbiased without being hypocritical, we must allow other perps and scenarios to also be discussed. To stifle those discussions or to take such deep offense that flame wars and personal attacks replace civil discussion belies our stated objective -- Justice for JonBenet Ramsey - and makes us no better than those who will not allow any discussion of Ramsey guilt at their 'forum of record'. And what a monotone that record has become! It's been possible in the past for all kinds of theories here at JW to co-exist peacefully, but since Nancy Krebs came forward, there has been a concerted and specific effort to silence the critics of Fleet White and the posters who believe a sex ring operated in Boulder and was responsible for the death of JonBenet. Yeah...I know, it's an opinion forum and until PROOF of the Krebs allegations is forthcoming, some find the topic offensive and won't hesitate to say so every time it's brought up...as is your right. [Though you really don't need to repeat it ad nauseum...we know how you feel ;-)] But in doing so, those posters not only cut off meaningful discussion, replacing it with hostility; on the broad spectrum, it diminishes Justice Watch to become the forum where ONLY Ramsey guilt can be discussed, just as a certain other forum is diminished, imo, by it's exclusive focus on Ramsey innocence. As they deny and excuse what we see as guilty statements and behavior by the Ramseys, imo, those at Justice Watch who deny and excuse guilty statements and behavior of the Whites, or allow no discussion thereof to take place, have become no more than a support team, imo, much as the 'other' forum has become a Ramsey support forum. We call their approach narrow and ignoring the evidence, right? We have the opinion here at JW that we do look hard at the evidence and we do pick apart the Ramseys in every way and find the Ramsey Support Forum to be...well, not very credible...because they just can't do that or see what we see. Can those here who think White is a hero or the star witness and could never be considered a suspect also see how we too will become like those who give the Ramseys a pass, those who refuse to ever change their POV or claim to have considered Ramsey guilt but 'found no basis' and 'no history' and 'no motive'? We find that ludicrous, right? Can you not see how statements like the following (these are paraphrased and not quotes from any particular poster) also contain echos of that 'other' forum? 'making libelous statements about someone we don't even know' Do we know the Ramseys? Did that ever stop us from discussing their guilt? 'based on nothing but what some fruitloop said' My suspicions of White are supported by what Nancy alleged but are actually free-standing and would exist even if she never came forward. 'trashing his good name' Fleet White had a good name? Who spoke up for him aside from some internet posters who admit they don't know him personally? It was actually the Ramsey friends and the Ramseys themselves who said Fleet White was involved. And they do know him personally. 'someone [FW] who has never done anything to warrant suspicion' Again, Fleet White injected himself into the crime scene of his own free will. He touched every significant crime-related object or area and made 18 trips to the BPD to check on the progress of the investigation. There is no doubt in my mind he was involved in altering the crime scene. ...................................... This has become a WOR topic simply because others can't see fit to leave the threads they don't like alone...they feel they must go in and halt the discussion by expressing concern for libel suits which will bring down the forum, or make personal remarks designed to throw the discussion off track. In the end, it's been noted as a Fleet White/Nancy Krebs phenomenon...and it hasn't ever stopped even when Chris posted the disclaimer, that all content here is opinion and not to be taken as fact. Some have accused me and others of having an agenda to bring the forum down, or see it become a ghostown. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the high level of 'hits' generated by the FW/MW debate proved the opposite! Many deeply committed people want to see this case result in a trial. My belief is that Fleet White is deeply involved. Why is that so wrong? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "mary99 and Grace" Posted by Holly on 11:58:12 4/25/2001 My feelings too. Soon I'll put up my list of people, besides internet posters, who have wondered if Fleet White is involved in JB's homicide. And they admitted their concerns LONG before Nancy Krebs came to Boulder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "RR/RS?" Posted by janab on 10:35:37 4/25/2001 Zoon, that's exactly what I was wondering...are they the same poster under two different hats? Anybody know? . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "No, janab..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:40:27 4/25/2001 They are two entirely different persons. Both became embroiled in an archived thread over the weekend. Both are now gone. Anyway, this has evolved into an interesting thread,apart from those two posters. Apparently, several posters have issues regarding the Forum, and this is a good place to air them. As always, thanks to Chris for providing a place for us to thrash out our differences. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "They are two" Posted by Watching you on 10:38:54 4/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:38:54, 4/25/2001 separate posters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "I understand..." Posted by janab on 10:50:14 4/25/2001 ...the need for deleting certain posts and I understand why some people go back and edit posts when they feel that they've lost their temper/said things they shouldn't have/etc., but when that happens, and then someone gets banned or leaves voluntarily, it's hard for those of us left (who didn't read the unedited/undeleted posts) to know what's going on and say one way or the other whether.... I don't even know where I was going with that. I just know that my habits in reading the forums are to actually read the short threads (or threads that I can catch in the beginning) on the computer screen, but the longer threads (which, of course, are the most interesting and the ones I wish I could post on), I have to print them out and take them on breaks and take them home over the weekend to get them read because I just don't have time at work. By the time I've printed them and actually have time to read them, the offending material is usually gone for one reason or another. Chris, I trust you implicitly in any decisions you make regarding posters being allowed in this forum. As I said on the "oldies" thread in JBR, this is a place that I love to come to every day and I treasure the company here, and I can only imagine it is that way because of the excellent job you do moderating. After all, we "oldies" definitely know what can happen to a forum left to fend for itself, right guys? . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "I'm fascinated" Posted by Grace on 11:35:04 4/25/2001 by forum dynamics. To me, the internet (forums, chat, e-mail, all included) is almost like a good therapist might be -- it seems to allow people's inhibitions to be lifted and lets their baser instincts prevail. I think some of those old, repressed Jr. High feelings are somehow exposed. Along with that, maybe, is the desire to be accepted into a group, so when certain people start to express something we also feel, even though it might be negative and mean, we have the urge to jump in and say, "Hey, me too!" The occasional fighting makes your job more difficult, Chris, but maybe you just have to accept that and continue to steer the discussion back toward the case when things get out of hand. I think most people are grateful when you do that. When posters just can't contain their anger enough to stop attacking, I don't see much to do but ban them. IMO Fleet White is the most enigmatic, interesting figure in this whole case! I HATE not feeling free to discuss him! Way back in the beginning, lots of people looked at him with suspicion; then he was neutral. At some point, he became a hero, and now he holds the honor of being the only case figure who can't be discussed without threats of lawsuits and attacks on the person doing the discussing. Personally, I think he is strangely controlling and I'd love to know why. Can't we decide that we don't yet know whether he's a hero and keep trying to find out? If somebody, in a moment of rashness, calls him a pedophile, others are free to point out that there is no proof of that. But then let the discussion continue! Sixpence, I love you, too. I miss you all the time. Please start posting again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Mary99" Posted by janab on 11:54:05 4/25/2001 I don't know how long you've been at the forum (I really can't remember, please forgive me), but for you to say that the only people we've discussed as possible suspects are JR and PR leads me to believe you just got here! There have been thread after thread after thread discussing everyone from the McReynolds, to Burke, to LHP, to the Glen Meyer, and on and on! You write very well, BTW, and I'm probably not going to be able to express (or remember) everything that I want to say on this subject, but let me try. One reason I personally feel that people are taking offense to the FW/MW thing or Fleet-White-as-a-suspect thing is because he was officially cleared by the BPD. I know, I know, I'll be the first to cite the passage from PMPT that says that doesn't mean diddly and they can "unclear" him if they want to, but for now, he's been cleared and they haven't uncleared him. They've cleared Burke. And, although I don't believe they've been cleared officially, they have certainly stopped investigating people like the McReynolds and LHP and her family. So the point I'm trying to make here is that the only viable suspects in the eyes of those who are really investigating this case are the Ramseys. I also think you'd be surprised at how many people have changed their theories over the long haul. I don't think everyone came in here with a Patsy-did-it or John-did-it scenario and have stuck with it. Things change as we learn more about the case and posters' opinions have changed, too, so I don't think it's fair to say that we are all stuck with one theory and won't let go of it. Lastly, I think, is the fact that many of us don't see any reason to discuss FW as a suspect because WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU APPARENTLY KNOW. I don't know how many times that can be said or how many times the question can be asked before you all understand it. And, please don't come back with the same answers that have been given in the past. You and others constantly refer to NK "allegations against FW," so obviously there are allegations there and you and a few others are fully aware of them. The rest of us are not. I have never heard/read where NK accuses FW of ANYTHING. And, if she hasn't accused him of anything, how can we intelligently discuss whether he's guilty of those "allegations" or not? If you don't like the treatment that the FW/MW subject gets here, it wouldn't be too hard to set up an e-mail group so that the three/four/five of you can discuss this amongst yourselves. If you find something concrete out and are willing to share, please come back and tell us because we are all dying to hear it! Honestly. Or, if you are willing to share what you already know (that is quotes from NK's statement or descriptions of her evidence which connects her directly to FW in any incriminating way), I think you'll find many, many more posters willing to discuss this with you in the way in which you obviously want to discuss it. Okay, I've gone off on a rant and I think I'm finished now. I hope I haven't offended anyone because I honestly would never do that intentionally. I know that I've asked the same request/question of you that so many others have and I don't expect that my phrasing it differently will make any real difference, but I thought I'd give it a try. . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Janab, good questions" Posted by mary99 on 13:39:06 4/25/2001 I had forgotten all about Santa Bill, LHP, Wolf, etc., etc., for the simple reason we at JW have not seriously considered those scenarios in quite some time, and when they were discussed, the discussions never reached the level of animousity the Fleet White discussions seem to ignite. Those scenarios have become more prevalent elsewhere. You asked me to share my thoughts on why FW should be considered a suspect, accessory or accomplice instead of the star witness and also asked for evidence as conveyed by Nancy Krebs to support that belief. This thread is not the place to discuss why I believe he is worthy of further investigation, but I will address your request for more info. The big surprise is -- I don't have any more info than you! I respect the fact that many here will not go near Fleet until such time as more evidence or proof comes out. However, I find that by carefully examining the statements of Linda Arndt, the Lee Hill deposition of JR (which prompted Nancy to contact Hill) the accounts of Fleet's behavior in PMPT, ST's book, Singular's book, not to mention many online resources such as the Alex Constantine site, the Crime Library site, FW's own letters to the People and the media, and listening to the interviews with Nancy Krebs, there is much food for thought. Many posters feel that Nancy's story is just too pat: she was stun gunned, strangled for sexual gratification of her molester, marked with a heart, used in pornography, and knew the Whites. That's really all we know, but where it leaves many clueless, as to how it relates to JBR, to me it makes a lot of sense. I guess people who find no proof JR was molesting JB are equally clueless when confronted with the bedwetting, the fecal soiling, the Monday AM Nurse's office visits, etc. To them, this isn't proof of anything like sexual molestation. You ask why this isn't taken to email. Good question. Several reasons: 1) This forum's integrity rests on a free and open debate. The day a particular suspect or subject becomes taboo and has to go to email is the day that there is no longer free and open debate. 2) It's been said that numerous investigators and public officials read here now and then. As I believe in Fleet White's involvement, and want to see vindication for Nancy Krebs -- it would be wrong, imo, to not speak up on the forum. I want to press for a full and complete FBI investigation into those allegations. Just as this forum exists to let others know JonBenet is not forgotten, it also exists to put the spotlight on the investigation and the quality of the work done by the BPD. By voicing my concern and support, right here where it can be read by those that follow the case, I'm also expressing my awareness that the Fleet White and Nancy Krebs issue has NOT been forgotten, and many here are deeply concerned about seeing her allegations receive the attention they deserve. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Mary99" Posted by Watching you on 11:38:03 4/25/2001 you wasted your time if you posted that diatribe for my benefit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "my thoughts" Posted by fly on 15:33:40 4/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:33:40, 4/25/2001 Chris - Both sides are trying to "control" what is posted. One side doesn't want the opposition to post their protests, the other doesn't want their opposition to post what they see to be unfounded accusations. Every time somebody pushes the alert button, they are trying to control things. For that matter, there is an implied control almost every time somebody posts an alternative view (Believe ME. I'm right!) And good grief! Think of the many poor newbies who dared to post against the tide. JW-ers certainly did everything they could to "control" what was allowable. If it were really "control" that was the issue, Chris, you should have banned almost all of the active JW'ers at one time or another. I don't think the stimulus for the NK-inspired disagreements is based on a need to control. I think it is based on the need to fight for what one believes is right. Each side, unfortunately has their own strong opinion of what is "right," and that is the problem. I reread the three Plaskett threads, and I noted 3 things: (1) Certain folks feel compelled to diss FW every time and every way possible. (2) Most of the more blatant name-calling and personal insults this time was being done by the NK-skeptics. Much of it was totally unnecessary (and lacked Lacey's panache), but I didn't see anything really worth banning. (3) Mame is her own worst enemy. Whether or not she means to, she does exactly the things that whip the natives into a frenzy. The core of the FW dispute is the unwillingness or inability of the proNK folks to provide supporting evidence or even a specific description of the allegations. What does mame do? She posts "let's hope they know about this man (FW) and his past" but refuses to specify what she meant. Up until that post, the discussion had consisted mostly of dissing FW and his suit, a dispute over mileage, a charge that variable standards were being applied, with only a few minor spitballs for good measure. Then shortly after, mame follows up with a commentary on the state of journalism (another one of mame's highly irritating tendencies, IMO) and a notation about those major journalists tackling the dangerous NK story. Kaboom! Still not enough, apparently, because mame then lobs the final incendiary - she "never accused FW of anything." If anybody wasn't already howling in dismay, we have the final incendiary, "truth has a nasty way of causing such a ruckus. i'm proud to help stir the pot of truth." Oh, man! Is it any wonder that some people get incensed and mame gets blasted? Sure, some people will lob insults regardless, but this - intentionally or not - pushes it up several notches in intensity and ensures folks will be howling and grinding their teeth in frustration. Chris, as somebody (janab?) else nicely noted, there are important differences in the NK/FW situation and past instances of "innocent" people being targeted or how the Ramseys have been treated in discussions. And, in most cases, there were some protests that what was going on wasn't appropriate then, either. NK/FW will remain a highly flammable issue. Feelings are strong, and everybody has their personal bugaboos or hotspots. Flame-ups are inevitable, because the solutions are intolerable. Edited to improve format and to correct a typo [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Amen" Posted by Watching you on 14:57:37 4/25/2001 Fly [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "When you do this Holly," Posted by Florida on 12:54:56 4/25/2001 "Soon I'll put up my list of people, besides internet posters, who have wondered if Fleet White is involved in JB's homicide. And they admitted their concerns LONG before Nancy Krebs came to Boulder." Could you please show us where they posted he was a "baby raper", pedophile, pervert, sex ring member, etc. prior to Nancy Krebs arrival in Boulder? Everyone can understand why he might legitimately be looked at as the Ramsey's were at his home the night before, he was there that morning, he picked up evidence, he was angry in Atlanta, etc., however, I cannot understand why any of these things would lead anyone to call him the things he's been called by people on this forum and a small group at jamesons. In fact, there are many of us waiting for someone to show us where Nancy Krebs actually accused him of being what some of you claim he is. This question has been asked constantly but never, ever answered. It must have been asked at least 10 times by different people during over the weekend. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "The LIST" Posted by Holly on 09:54:22 4/26/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:54:22, 4/26/2001 This is the part of the JR depo where he is questioned by Hill about Fleet White's behavior. I think the theory was that maybe someone with an anti-JR grudge fed the tabs the Stephen Miles story. ..." 3 A. There were a number of people that questioned 4 the Whites' behavior to us. Why are they acting so 5 strange? 6 Q. Do you remember who those people were? This 7 item is really important. This is kind of the heart of 8 this whole interview, so work with me as much as you can, 9 please. 10 A. Well, my brother had commented on that. The 11 Westmorelands in Atlanta; the Davises; Patsy's sister, Pam 12 Paugh; the Stines. 13 Q. So far the Stines are the only ones who live in 14 Boulder; is that right? 15 A. Yeah, so far on that list. 16 Q. Who lived in Boulder? 17 A. Right. 18 Q. Anyone else in Boulder? 19 A. Not that I recall. 20 Q. Did the Walkers ever make any suggestions to 21 you? 22 A. Not now -- I mean, not that I remember. 23 Q. Is it possible that they may have made 24 suggestions to your wife that you're unaware of? 25 MR. CRAVER: Don't speculate. " Besides the Stines, Davises, Jeff Ramsey, the Westmorelands and Pam Paugh add the following *Mark Beckner in ST's book, Beckner wonders if FW may have killed JB. FW was refusing to testify for the grand jury. *Alex Hunter in PMPT took a dim view of FW and wanted to know about his life in CA. He talked to Jeff S about digging into White's past. I'll let you know if I find more. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Holly" Posted by Scully on 12:54:47 4/25/2001 Why didn't you just come right out weeks ago and state that you thought there was reason to believe that FW should be considered a suspect? It would have saved the forum a lot of misery and frazzled nerves if you had started a thread devoted to this topic weeks ago so that the issue could have been debated point for point. If you consider FW a suspect then surely you have a clear, concise picture of what his motive might have been, how he gained entry into the Ramsey residence, constructed the ransom note and murdered JBR. Wouldn't other aspects of FW's suspicious behavior have to include discussion of all of the above before concluding that he is a viable suspect? I don't imagine that many posters are willing to consider him as a suspect based solely on the alleged connection between FW and MW. Would you mind starting a thread? (many insightful posts on this thread....FT, WY, janab and many, many more) Chris...it looks like RR was a troll...??? Don't sweat it...you have a wonderful forum and do a fine job moderating it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Scully." Posted by Holly on 11:48:05 4/26/2001 Is there a reason to state the obvious? IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Scully and FL" Posted by Holly on 22:48:20 4/25/2001 I only read thoroughly, JR's depo yesterday and was shocked that Hill asked that question and the list JR gave. And I had a few in my own notes. FYI, Scully. I actually do believe Nancy Krebs. She is the witness to her own experience. She does not necessarily have what cops can connect to JB's homicide. But that does not mean she lied. After 14 months can't any of her detractors prove a single Krebs' or Bienkowski lie? FL -Do you have a thread or post where FW was described in those terms prior to 2/25/00? I've never heard that. I just thought he was a jerk. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Scully" Posted by Gemini on 14:23:42 4/25/2001 RR, a troll??? Lordy! Even my skeptical thought processes hadn't come up with that. If so ... might explain a few things ... dunno. WELL! IF everybody should ever agree it's perfectly alright to examine White's involvement with this case (under a microscope) ... I'm gonna be pissed! A bunch of you would never, NEVER, let me try to turn over the rock under which Randy Simons hides. humph! (and I wasn't even calling him names) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Mary99" Posted by janab on 14:16:30 4/25/2001 Thanks for that post. Believe it or not, I didn't find it to be more of the same pat answers and appreciate very much you sharing that opinion with me. I agree on your reasons for not taking this to e-mail. I also feel that the forum is an open place and can understand and appreciate the fact that you want others to read what you have to say without having to contact them directly. Scully, ditto on the fine posts on this thread. It's refreshing to see, yes? . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "mary99" Posted by Gemini on 14:30:06 4/25/2001 Janab is right. On the site from which JW evolved (J-7), there was heavy, serious discussion about the McReynolds. Actually, it was somewhat similar to the current White discussion ... and it got the same protests ... mostly from people who came in from the BNF and were determined to keep the focus on the Ramseys at all costs. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Gem and janab" Posted by mary99 on 15:08:28 4/25/2001 Thank you, janab, for your thoughtful input. I'm glad you asked why this isn't discussed in email, as it may have seemed insensitive to the mood of the forum to not do so. As with all matters concerning content, it's ultimately up to Chris and by my comments I in no way meant to imply she must allow discussion on White [or anyone else, for that matter] if she chooses not to for whatever reason. Since she started this thread to explore the reasons why the topic becomes too heated to carry on a discussion, I may have assumed she wanted to find a way to take the anger out of these discussions. Gem, Thats very interesting about the McReynolds topic provoking flame wars and heated debate. Do you think there may have been some intentional forum manipulation back then? I wouldn't be a bit surprised, but that's me. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Yeah, Gem" Posted by janab on 14:52:40 4/25/2001 Let's not even discuss the protests that each and every single Burke thread got. Lordy, I had never seen people so hot under the collar (until FW/MW, that is). . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Gemini" Posted by fly on 15:45:23 4/25/2001 Gemini - Hang on! I think your characterization of the motive for protesting the Santa-did-it discussion is flat out wrong. The way you stated it implies (to me, at least) that BNF-ers blindly, arbitrarily named Santa an innocent and demanded he not be discussed. My memory of those debates suggests that was far from the case, and that the protest was based mostly on the facts in the case. That also holds true for most of the protests against Burke-did-it threads, JAR-did-it threads, Beuf-is-a-pervert/incompetant threads, etc., BTW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Good posts, mary99" Posted by Grace on 16:48:35 4/25/2001 I'd like to add a few of my own reasons for wanting to discuss FW on the forum, rather than in e-mail. (Maybe I'm rephrasing what mary99 said, to some degree.) 1) There might be interested lurkers or neutral posters who would like to read what is being said. The e-mail route makes some people feel left out. 2) It's easy to get carried away and lose objectivity. Remember the Whitecalf threads? My interest isn't in proving Fleet guilty. It's in figuring out why in the heck his behavior has been so strange. When people with all viewpoints can look at something, the chance of making sense of things is a lot higher. 3) In my mind, there are possible explanations for FW's behavior that fall between his being totally innocent and his actually being involved in sex abuse or murder, but I have no idea what they could be. Some unbiased thinking might yield some insights. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Grace" Posted by mary99 on 17:50:01 4/25/2001 Good points about the value of multiple points of view and the importance of including lurkers and infrequent posters who choose to read any threads on the subject of Fleet White. There is a world of trouble in asking posters to discuss FW in email. Wouldn't that quickly become fodder for more personal attacks by the ones who are currently offended with the FW discussions on the forum? Sometimes in the angry crossfire, I feel sad because it seems like those who are venting about FW's good name have forgotten all about why we are here...it isn't even about the Ramseys, it's about and for JonBenet...dead at six. (I miss you too, Nikki/Sixpence) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Fly" Posted by Gemini on 20:17:07 4/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:17:07, 4/25/2001 I was never convinced the McReynolds had anything to do with it and, in fact, was one of the more vocal protesters ... especially in regard to the crazed analysis of Janet McReynolds' newspaper articles. However, the point I was going for is that for three plus years, there has been a faction on J-7/JW that will rabidly protest anything that hints someone other than the parents may be the perp or have a hand in the murder. To me, that IS tunnel-vision. I'm not in favor of labeling anyone, but certainly believe the people who made up the circles around the Ramseys can be given a closer look. If they are innocent (and that will usually be the case, I think), anyone who believes so can say so and state their reasons. I'm not suggesting these folks be dragged behind the forum van, but to try to restrict forum discussion to BORG threads is, IMO, a control issue ... one that undermines the credibility of forum content. If that becomes the case (and there have been times it's been that way), the forum wouldn't be devoted to JfJB, but to "kill da Wamseys". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "dose Wamseys!" Posted by mary99 on 21:14:53 4/25/2001 Gemini, that is exactly what I was trying to say...but you said it better. (Thanks to you, I found Eva Cassidy. Do you see parallels between her and JonBenet, too?) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "JR" Posted by Gemini on 20:39:31 4/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:39:31, 4/25/2001 I think you're probably right, but it isn't always the anger issue. One interesting thing not often addressed is a tactic intended to kill a thread (and the discussion therein) faster and more effectively than shouting and bashing. That is undermining and ridiculing. This is a favorite diversionary tactic practiced by a number of the forum folk ... often those who protest THEY NEVER flame. IMO, that's not a result of anger. It is calculated to accomplish a particular end. It's quite subtle and rather underhanded ... not based on out of control emotions, but, I suspect, on a determination to control. jmo of course : ) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Hey Gemini, do you mean " Posted by mary99 on 21:21:32 4/25/2001 like what happened on today's daily? :-( [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "well personally.." Posted by Sailer on 21:19:36 4/25/2001 I think most of you guys believe the parents did the crime, but you just throw out this stuff to stir up the pot and keep the forum goin. JMO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "By the way Chris.." Posted by Sailer on 21:24:07 4/25/2001 You just ahead and ban whoever you think is making trouble. This is your place, and you do whatever you have to do to keep it right. Personally, I'd ban Pedro! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Sailer..." Posted by Pedro on 22:32:46 4/25/2001 ...I am sure you'll like that!!! All the ladies for yourself, shelfish friend!!! LOL. How are you? China say hi. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "LOL ... no Mary99" Posted by Gemini on 21:40:51 4/25/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:40:51, 4/25/2001 I don't think that daily goofiness was for control or to kill the thread ... just the usually SA crew doin' their thing. Now, there's another way ... kinda what Sailer is doing now. It's also a finely tuned skill of Sparks and WY. It has to do with diverting the discussion through humor. I think it's just that a few folks feel uncomfortable when very serious discussions (except bash-Ramsey type threads) get heavy. They have a deep need to lighten things up. I have to admit to a soft spot for these guys : ). (arrrrgh! I give up. I'm putting drops in my eyes to get rid of the allergies and am getting really sick of needing to edit! No more tonight!) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "I have to disagree here" Posted by JR on 00:45:18 4/26/2001 Janab and Fly. IMO the reason the threads which were aimed at "Burke did it" got so hot and heavy went beyond the what you have stated. Again, IMO, the anger stemmed as much r more from the fact that people were attacking a minor child. Had the topic been John Andrew I am sure the anger would have been there, but not as vocal as it got on the Burke threads. Hold those same discussions today (after all the headlines on school shootings etc.,) and you might find more people willing to at least discuss the possibility that Burke could have been involved. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "JR & Gem" Posted by fly on 08:07:24 4/26/2001 JR - I agree that Burke's age was important in provoking stronger feelings. Added to the facts of the case which pretty much made him a non-suspect, his age made it even more reprehensible to continue to flog him online. Gem - I certainly won't argue that some folks are suffering from tunnel vision. I just didn't think that the disputes were primarily due to that kind of bias. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Holly" Posted by Scully on 13:06:30 4/26/2001 How can I consider White a suspect if you are unwilling to link him to any other aspects of the crime or the crime scene itself? Is it fair to expect anyone to consider him a strong suspect if you conveniently fail to link him to the most important evidence found at the crime scene? (i.e., ransom note, etc.) Anyone who has been a member of this board over the years has read through hundreds of theories about possible suspects in this case. The majority of these theories used the evidence made available to the public and tidied them up with some sound, logical reasoning in order to sway the reader. I am not adverse to reading a theory implicating FW as a suspect, but you will need to address many other issues besides MW if you hope to be taken seriously. We cannot expect other posters to be held to a higher standard when presenting their theories when the only evidence you have against FW is his alleged connection to MW. It's no wonder that many posters have developed 'zero' tolerance for the FW/MW issue. Even this alleged connection is not backed up by supporting evidence yet we are expected to sit idly by while his reputation and character are being thoroughly trashed. If you think that FW was involved in the murder of JBR, then leave MW out of the picture for a few minutes and explain how FW, JR, PR, and Mrs. White engaged in a conspiracy to commit the murder and what role they all played in the subsequent coverup. If you cannot devise a workable theory that incorporates all of the aspects of the crime scene, then I see no sense in discussing FW any further. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Gemini" Posted by Greenleaf on 12:32:52 4/26/2001 You wrote: "But, be of good cheer. We all get blasted sometimes ... some of us more than others. Bet you felt a little like I did when GL called me a "defender of baby killers". You, Gemini, are a liar! I challenge you to find any such quote from me. I NEVER SAID THAT!" My opinion of you just plummeted to minus zero. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "I am.." Posted by Pedro on 13:06:14 4/26/2001 ...sure now, we're all disease. :-). Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Pedro" Posted by fly on 13:35:29 4/26/2001 Pedro - Perhaps, but the more important thing is, "Is there a cure?" I'm betting no. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "No cure" Posted by Watching you on 13:45:50 4/26/2001 virus is spreading. Called the Stoopid Virus. Affects brain cells. I don't have it. Yet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "GL" Posted by Gemini on 14:33:48 4/26/2001 IMO, you need serious help with your anger management. No, you were not speaking to only me, but to the fence sitters, among whom I stand and have for a long, long time. However, if you want to get nit-picky, you've shouted and cursed at me repeatedly for posting my own opinions concerning the case. p.s. I save very few posts from the forum. I'll check but don't think any of them are yours. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Gemini" Posted by Greenleaf on 14:49:40 4/26/2001 Now, I KNOW what kind of person you really are. You have left no doubt in my mind. You have sometimes been like a pit bull,attacking those who disagree with you. I have never cursed at you, and I do not appreciated you putting into quotes, something I never said. Why don't you copy that quote on the JonBenet forum, and ask the posters if any remember me saying that, or ever remember me cursing you? Put your money where your mouth is. I dare you. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "I'm not as" Posted by Gemini on 15:04:02 4/26/2001 respectful of elders who earn no respect as Sixpence is, GL. Don't keep pushing this 'cause too many other people have seen the posts in question. I won't accuse you of lying, could be your memory is off, or you were in such a blind rage when you typed the diatribes it was like an altered state. My advice, let it go and so will I. I feel for you, but will not put up with your crap anymore. I'm not going to continue to squabble with you, and since I know a lot of others saw the posts, feel no need to defend myself against your out of control emotional reactions. Take a pill. This too shall pass. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Greenleaf and Gem" Posted by JR on 15:33:33 4/26/2001 I sort of recall the posts but not what thread they were on. Seems to me 3-4 posters were involved and who ever initially acused one person of making the statement did come back and correct themself in another post (with an apology.) Maybe an archive search would find the thread and clear the air? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "ridicule" Posted by mary99 on 16:26:56 4/26/2001 is not fair play. some have left the forum because their ideas didn't fit with the mainstreanm and they were subjected to a lot of needless namecalling. My point in bringing this up is to say that those tactics seem to be the refuge of those who feel threatened by new ideas or POV yet choose not to debate intelligently. The issue is not whether someone can flame back or not, but one of at least a pretense of respect for opposing POV. As Gemini said, it boils down to a control issue where others who don't fit in are ridiculed and called names till they leave. Also known as oppression. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Many have left" Posted by Watching you on 16:48:43 4/26/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:48:43, 4/26/2001 the forum because of the cowardly attacks on FW. If you don't believe me, M99, go ask them yourself. Furthermore, when the pot wants to call the kettle black, the pot should be alert to the possibility prior infractions may be revealed and hypocrisy proven. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "oh JR" Posted by Gemini on 15:38:10 4/26/2001 this has been months ago ... maybe even a year. Thanks, but IMO there are ongoing probs here you can't help. Glad I came back in tho. This time, I'm bringing the computer down to clean, so won't be here to reply again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "grace" Posted by Jellyjaws on 16:05:53 4/26/2001 I enjoyed your post. You addressed the point. The dynamics of the Forum are facinating, aren't they? It would take a lifetime, and then some, to figure us all out. And, Chris is stuck with us? Superb ring master! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Chris" Posted by Starling on 17:20:24 4/26/2001 I read the threads and go on sporadic posting frenzy's - but some of the threads are just not my cup of tea. I particpated in some of the Lake/Spade Juvenile Theory Threads. I even participated in some of the early MW/FW threads - but since have backed off totally. For me there's not much there. From where I sit - NK's family has a past, but guilt through association only can never be prooven. You can rehash it and rehash it but that's where it still stands, from what info I know about it. I think it really rubs some of our forum members the wrong way, especially when the term baby raper henchmen came up. If one really sits back and reflects on those three words - it implies so much. It's not like being called a turnip head by Lake.Lol So it is a tad different and emotions really run high regarding FW. Mutual respect is a two way street and all I ever wanted and still want is this to be the best place to come to for information and JBR case interaction. Alot of really good people, with really good hearts stand side by side in the hope for justice in this case, wheather they post once a day, 10 times a day, stay in lurk mode - or post at other forums. I don't know what to suggest Chris - other than the proverbial 'please review your posts carefully, before hitting the post button.' Maybe it could be possible to take NK related posts to the True Crime forum - since at this time, the status remains it's not related to JonBenet? Just a sincere thought, Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "What a good post" Posted by Gemini on 17:35:30 4/26/2001 Starling. Actual, helpful suggestions. WY, I can't even imagine you're talking to me in a squirrely round-about way, but, just in case ... I've never denied writing flame posts. I don't start 'em, but can hold my own. Lordy! If I couldn't, I'd never have survived this long : ). Mayr99 is right ... ridicule is underhanded and cowardly. If used in retaliation to flame posts or other verbal abuse, it's understandable. If used to wound posters not making mischief, it's dirty pool. jmo of course [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "I agree" Posted by Watching you on 17:44:15 4/26/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:44:15, 4/26/2001 Starling's post was superb. I wasn't addressing you at all, Gem. Good Lawd, woman, I do think about other things than you all the time, you know. Dirty pool comes in all shapes and forms. Paybacks are a bitch, as they say. Haha, Edit, Edit, Edit - I do not revert to that behavior whatsoever, though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "HA!" Posted by Gemini on 18:02:14 4/26/2001 You've been hob-nobbing with Denver ; ). Why (oh why oh why) would anybody think a different opinion from their own deserved a pay back. OTOH, If you mean White getting his revenge ... well then ... that's his own turf. If asked, I'll bet he'd have some choice words for ALL JBR forum folk ... not just the ones hot on his trail. WY, the guy's attitude makes the Ramseys seem positively humble. Talk about arrogance. He has plenty from all appearances. He doesn't need you or me or fly or RR. The best any of us can contribute to our own sense of fair play is to butt out ... or in ... whichever way we feel comfortable. I wish I had a dollar for every time you've said you are not going to type on the FW/MW subject again. Silence can be ear splitting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Nope" Posted by Watching you on 18:11:14 4/26/2001 It's not the different opinions that deserve pay backs, Gem, you have completely drawn the wrong conclusion again. Whatever am I to do with you, woman? Why oh why would I want to pay back an opinion? Think carefully, now. You'll get it eventually, I know you will. I can't give an opinion on FW's arrogance or lack of it. All I can see is his desire to be left alone. His kids are both still living. Why do you think he is arrogant? I think it is arrogant to think FW owes any of us anything. But, that's just me, I guess. I'm out of here. I may not be in a good mood tomorrow, so watch what you say. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Geez WY" Posted by Gemini on 18:31:25 4/26/2001 Do I have to walk you through the post? I gave an either/or on the payback thingy. The first was mostly in jest and, of course, that's the one you pick up on. I don't think White owes us diddly. I think he would surely agree. But WY, don't you realize the more squabbling goes on the more attention the MW/FW threads get? Plus, they'd probably drop faster if they didn't always spark controversy. Believe it or not, I also feel concern for his children. To me, it doesn't matter which faction of this debate wins or loses. It matters that the arguments get so much attention. BTW, in ref to the JB forum thread on which we are ... er ... chatting ... like I already posted, I'll browse the book when I have time, prob tomorrow and post more. AND, I said information ... didn't say evidence. off to work [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Well..." Posted by Pedro on 18:52:19 4/26/2001 ...I was right!!! We're all sick. 1.- If anyone attack you and piss you off, click the alert bottom. 2.- If anyone, other than ME, answer back to an attack, then both are in *default*. 3.- I am always right, because I was disease before all you. (Chris is right too, but we all know that, she's the boss) 4.- WY, me and other like yourself are still here, leave is a personal decision. 5.- I would like to say that as higher one put himself, higher is the standard by which you are judged. 6.- That's the reason why I am perfect even disease. 7.- Logic arguments, with a base of possibility and share of information are a MUST in a forum of debate. 8.- You all know my position about NK, I believe she was severely abused, but I believe she ash no relation with JBR's case. 9.- Logic is something inside each one of the human brains, use it. 10.- Who knows what's the status of the NK allegation investigation? 11.- All the above is BS, do as I tell you and you'll be all happy. 12.- ....well, I run out of ideas, bye now. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "LOL pedro" Posted by v_p on 20:01:07 4/26/2001 I will let that be the last post I read today ... going out with a diseased smile :o) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Jellyjaws" Posted by Grace on 20:26:34 4/26/2001 Thanks! I really enjoyed yours, too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Scully" Posted by FT on 21:48:12 4/26/2001 Your post #76 needed to be said. I hope you get answers to the questions you've raised. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "Gemini" Posted by Watching you on 04:11:56 4/27/2001 HA!! Well, now we're down to the nitty gritty. ST did not reveal case evidence. He revealed information aka gossip. Lou Smit is revealing actual case evidence, so it would seem. That remains to be seen, of course, but I guess it's pretty obvious if he is showing crime scene photos. There is a big difference here, Gem. Pedro. Depending upon my mood, I can either respond or ignore. It's the nature of this beast. There are only so many times I can ignore something though before I blow. Sorry, that's just the way she blows, hahahahaha. Gemini, I can do what you suggested, and in fact, I would want it that way. But, when it gets to the second, third, and fourth threads, it's obvious my ignoring the issue isn't making any difference at all. It just isn't in my nature to just sit there and do nothing. I know you can do it, but you never lived with my ex, haha.. If you did, you'd know what I'm talking about. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "WY....." Posted by Pedro on 17:39:07 4/27/2001 ......I like you much (don't tell HER). WY, I do think all normal people get piss sometimes, no problem at all, as you well know I lost it often !!! LOL Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "Starling" Posted by Twitch on 06:02:31 4/27/2001 You always show up with something wise to say. Maybe we should all put more thoughts into our posts and be a little slower with the post message button. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "Message Button?" Posted by Lacey on 06:09:50 4/27/2001 What message button?? Where is the message button Lacey [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 104. "Lacey!!!" Posted by Pedro on 17:40:05 4/27/2001 .......ALERT bottom. heh ;-) Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Oh." Posted by Lacey on 06:11:22 4/27/2001 Pardon me. I thought you said, "massage" button. I heard massage. Nevermind Lace [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "Darby Missed the 100th Post Again!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:02:04 4/27/2001 Guess she's not having much fun lately. ;( [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "I meant massage." Posted by Twitch on 10:00:03 4/27/2001 Did I say message. Sorry. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]