Justice Watch Discussion Board "Forum Issues" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Forum Issues, Watching you, 10:04:10, 8/24/2000 And, another thing, Watching you, 10:08:31, 8/24/2000, (#1) Yep, Baybb, 10:13:32, 8/24/2000, (#2) Was it, Watching you, 10:43:39, 8/24/2000, (#3) I'll post here Wy, Twitch, 10:47:22, 8/24/2000, (#5) I posted this on the JBR forum, Florida, 10:46:05, 8/24/2000, (#4) the fw/mw "thing", ericasf, 18:49:02, 8/24/2000, (#25) Well,, 1000Sparks, 10:51:07, 8/24/2000, (#6) Heh, let it, Watching you, 10:52:49, 8/24/2000, (#7) cat's away?, fly, 10:57:55, 8/24/2000, (#8) I'm in the middle of the road., ayelean, 10:58:13, 8/24/2000, (#9) What to say now we are all here?, Baybb, 11:34:19, 8/24/2000, (#11) Justice Watch Survivor?, Chris, 11:33:55, 8/24/2000, (#10) DIYD/DIYD, Penguin, 12:19:00, 8/24/2000, (#12) IMHO, Paralegal, 12:44:55, 8/24/2000, (#13) Chris, fly, 13:34:10, 8/24/2000, (#14) comments, Chris, 14:03:02, 8/24/2000, (#15) ok, Gemini, 15:45:53, 8/24/2000, (#19) Gemini, Chris, 16:11:46, 8/24/2000, (#20) Chris, fly, 15:11:39, 8/24/2000, (#17) Fly, Chris, 15:32:17, 8/24/2000, (#18) Chris, mary99, 15:05:26, 8/24/2000, (#16) Yes Chris, Gemini, 17:11:33, 8/24/2000, (#23) Well Gem, Chris, 19:53:55, 8/24/2000, (#29) I'll try to explain..., Florida, 16:38:11, 8/24/2000, (#22) Consider this, fly, 16:17:13, 8/24/2000, (#21) Good Points, Chris, 18:43:11, 8/24/2000, (#24) Gemini & Chris, fly, 19:11:18, 8/24/2000, (#26) Fly, Chris, 19:45:20, 8/24/2000, (#27) FWIW, rico, 20:34:07, 8/24/2000, (#31) uh, Gemini, 19:53:52, 8/24/2000, (#28) A final note for today, Chris, 19:56:14, 8/24/2000, (#30) Florida and fly and friends, darby, 23:49:03, 8/24/2000, (#32) Chris..., A.K., 04:44:24, 8/25/2000, (#33) wrath?, darby, 06:52:07, 8/25/2000, (#34) Point of Order, marral, 07:08:03, 8/25/2000, (#35) Chirs, starry, 08:04:43, 8/25/2000, (#36) Friday, Chris, 08:47:35, 8/25/2000, (#37) Well Darby,, Florida, 10:58:59, 8/25/2000, (#38) Florida, darby, 12:19:54, 8/25/2000, (#42) Florida, darby, 11:22:39, 8/25/2000, (#39) Chris, Gemini, 12:03:25, 8/25/2000, (#41) Gemini, Chris, 12:28:14, 8/25/2000, (#45) Darby, Florida, 11:58:48, 8/25/2000, (#40) oops, darby, 12:20:57, 8/25/2000, (#43) Florida, Chris, 12:26:14, 8/25/2000, (#44) Chris & darby, fly, 13:43:20, 8/25/2000, (#47) Fly, Chris, 14:10:31, 8/25/2000, (#48) Chris, Darby, Florida, 12:58:10, 8/25/2000, (#46) just one last thing, darby, 15:00:13, 8/25/2000, (#50) Chris, Longhorn, 14:42:47, 8/25/2000, (#49) Chris..., Pedro, 20:54:03, 8/25/2000, (#51) Gemini..., A.K., 03:49:17, 8/26/2000, (#52) fyi, A.K., darby, 08:30:23, 8/26/2000, (#53) FYI, AK, Holly, 11:00:50, 8/26/2000, (#55) Holly..., v_p, 12:30:59, 8/26/2000, (#56) v_p., Holly, 21:54:21, 8/26/2000, (#62) Vile, Isabella, 10:11:55, 8/26/2000, (#54) :-) A.K., Gemini, 12:36:13, 8/26/2000, (#57) Isabella, Gemini, 12:40:24, 8/26/2000, (#58) Gemini, Isabella, 16:05:36, 8/26/2000, (#61) rather disappointed, Chris, fly, 13:41:40, 8/26/2000, (#59) I'm disappointed too, Fly, Chris, 14:53:42, 8/26/2000, (#60) ................................................................... "Forum Issues" Posted by Watching you on 10:04:10 8/24/2000 Okay, I'll start the thread. I appreciate Chris's willingness to discuss this. Even though this is the WOR, and we are supposed to be assholes here, I will personally bash anyone who can't speak as an adult and in a mature fashion on this thread. I will not tolerate any downright nasty posts to Chris. I do not agree with removing those posts on the FW lawsuits thread, but after first spitting and sputtering, I believe that Chris has always been fair, and I do understand some of her problem, and this thread is for posters to, in a mature fashion, give their opinions about this subject. Okay, I have never used the Alert button, because I am not a whiner. I also do not judge what should or should not be allowed on the forum. I have made no secret that I had a huge problem with the MW/FW subject, but I never believed that because I didn't like it, that meant my will had to be imposed on other posters. By the same token, I felt it appropriate that those who nay-sayed the MW supporters should have their day in court, so to speak, too. I have absolutely hated the posts about FW, simply because I felt there was no substantial proof about anything against him. That was my belief, and it is still my belief. I was brought up to believe you do not make hurtful accusations against anyone without damn good proof. I got so angry at one point, I took a hiatus from the forum. I came back when the MW stuff died down. Chris has explained her reactions to some of the posts and why she deleted them. I understand some of it, but as I said, I have never seen the need for the Alert button. People were posting their opinions, and those of us who disagreed posted ours. That's how it should have been. I don't know how many e-mails Chris got - I only know I never sent her one complaining about the subject matter, although I must confess I was a little concerned that certain posters, and certain posts, could pose a problem for her in the future. That was honest concern, BTW. So, when the posts were deleted today, I truly was baffled. That just didn't sound like our Chris, who has shown fairness in the past. I mean it when I say I have a lot of respect for Chris. I get pissed sometimes about some of the posts, but that's my problem, no one elses. All I say is, as long as we don't get into really slinging the mud at each other, all manner of posts should be allowed. I really think this time, Chris, you did over-react. I think we should all be aware, when we post, that our opinions could possibly, down the line somewhere, cause problems for Chris, as the moderator of JW. I don't think the posts that were removed were in that class, but I think many that were not removed could possibly be. That is my opinion, given in all sincerity, and I hope Chris will take it not as criticism but as a true issue of concern on my part. And, don't forget, I'm elderly. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "And, another thing" Posted by Watching you on 10:08:31 8/24/2000 BayBB has a lot of nerve posting that other thread. Ignore hers and post here, you wanna? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Yep" Posted by Baybb on 10:13:32 8/24/2000 I wanta post on this one [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Was it" Posted by Watching you on 10:43:39 8/24/2000 something I said? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "I'll post here Wy" Posted by Twitch on 10:47:22 8/24/2000 but you know me, I'll probably just end up regretting what I posted and apologizing for it. I didn't see the deleted posts so I can't comment on them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "I posted this on the JBR forum" Posted by Florida on 10:46:05 8/24/2000 but this is probably a better place for it. The charges made by MW against the Whites have never really gone beyond Boulder and 2 fourms on the internet. This is one of those forums and it has allowed the most dispicable charges and innuendo to be made against the entire White family. In discussing this news and whether this suit is justified or not I believe that the posts made on this forum and another forum have to be considered and discussed because this is really where most of the discussion of the MW and her charges have been. The poster who Lacey alluded to made herself a part of the MW team by allowing her to live at her house and giving her an outlet by broadcasting her "interviews/charges" on the internet. She is a part of this case. Why can't this be discussed? Why was Lacey's post removed? It is extremely difficult to discuss the posts without discussing the posters and their various agendas and attitudes. I have asked a number of people who "kind of" follow this case and not one of them has ever heard of the charges made by the MW. This is basically an internet thing. If there was going to be censorship then it should have taken place the first time someone called Mr. White a pervert or worse. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "the fw/mw "thing"" Posted by ericasf on 18:49:02 8/24/2000 I can understand Chris's reasons for it but like Florida said, i think that it should have been nipped in the bud at the beginning. I'm sure that you all will agree that it got really ugly on here during that time. I can also tell you that I have talked to some of the politicians in Boulder, as well as other officials involved in the case and they DO look in on this forum a lot!!! I posted a letter that I had received from both Mark Beckner and Ben Thompson and both are well aware of JW. So, in that respect, since Chris is the webmaster, best thing to do is CYA. For her and her members. It's just a messed up situation all together. I was just saying earlier today to another poster that I wonder if the "gossip" regarding Fleet White had anything to do with him reaching the end of his rope with this MW thing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Well," Posted by 1000Sparks on 10:51:07 8/24/2000 I haven't decided yet where to post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Heh, let it" Posted by Watching you on 10:52:49 8/24/2000 be a challenge to you, sparky. WY is heading out and won't be back until Monday when school starts full stride ahead. I hope to see a decent thread, here, when I return, with some really good thoughts and issues. Love you all. Most of you, heh. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "cat's away?" Posted by fly on 10:57:55 8/24/2000 WY - So we can all get real nasty and will escape our punishment until you return Monday. BTW, you're taking some days off at the wrong time. Monday will be the "all hell breaking loose" day for you at work. That's the time to take off. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "I'm in the middle of the road." Posted by ayelean on 10:58:13 8/24/2000 I have never bashed FW, or MW. just don't know about them, and I don't think anyone here knows. Posters bring with them their own baggage. There is no evidence to support ritualistic sexual abuse with JBR's death. If you remove the staging it is a family homicide. Somehow you have to take the known facts and figure out how a parent used the facts to stage the crime. Maybe the latest libel case will reveal how a parent knew about MW's real or perceived abuse. Fleet was in a tough position when MW's story broke, as evidenced by the way posters on this forum jumped all over it. I am glad something is being done now, and hope he has enough ducks in a row to help solve this crime. IF MW was abused in the manner she relates, it was indeed horrendous, and I am truely sorry for her, but I was puzzled by the absence of the Rams jumping on the info. I have an idea that her info coming out hurt the Rams case. The only way that could be true is if it could be shown that the perp used the modus operendi of the abuse in the staging. Maybe it took the Whites all this time to be able to prove this is what happened. When posters here were jumping on the 'hang Fleet' bandwagon I cringed, thinking that this was playing into the Ramspin. I just wanted them to stop, but if you voiced it, they did it all the more. I am also guilty of never using the alert button, I just shyied away from posting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "What to say now we are all here?" Posted by Baybb on 11:34:19 8/24/2000 At times the JW forum did get out of hand and that wasn't anyone in particular's fault but the fault of many. What I have learned from it is this, once you let it get so far, there is no easy way to stop any bashing and get back on track. If you try to nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand on a thread, then you run the risk of seeming to stifle discussion or showing favoritism to some. That wasn't what was wanted to happen, but that is what it looked like to many. It is a No win situation at times. Mostly I was/am ( I don't go there as often as I did) involved in the Chat room part of JW and basically only one rule applies there. No fighting. Sometimes something snide gets said about a poster or something they have said but usually all are civil while in chat. It works and the Chat stays busy most of the evenings. Some don't like other chatters and they can leave if that is the way they feel, but all are civil about it. Being civil does work. #JusticeWatch gets many visitors from other forums/chat rooms and all are welcome to stay as long as they all get along and getting along takes an effort at times. It is much easier to rant at someone than to try to see their point of view or ignore what you may think of as stupid. I have sat on my fingers so often that I think they are permanently flat, but it works for me and I sometime find that I like someone I didn't think I did or I at least can see their side of things in a different way. The WOR is here for this kind of discussion but many either forget about it or don't want to come here. Old habits are hard to break and many of us started posting on forums that had everything in one forum and don't like to move to another forum on the same site just to say some kind of things. Baffles me to no end because they will then go to an entirely different forum on another site to complain about it instead of where they could go to complain where they started from. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Justice Watch Survivor?" Posted by Chris on 11:45:57 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:45:57, 8/24/2000 I think you guys are gonna vote me off for sure. I'll be back in a few (trying to juggle too many balls today) to address your points WY. But one thing that I want to understand is this two wrongs will make a right mentality. I was criticized before because things got out of control. All attempts to bring things back into some sort of order are criticized. What is it you all want? Do you want it to be a free-for-all? Do you want an unmoderated forum where anyone can post anything they want? If that's popular opinion, that makes my life easy. But, then don't criticize me because then someone posts something you don't like. Remember J-7, right before it crashed and burned? Is that what you'd prefer to have? Is there a happy medium that I/we haven't found? Do you know where it is? I'm certainly between a rock and a hard place right now and I want to hear what you all have to say. As I've said time and again, I consider this everyone's community. The issue with mame isn't a good one. While mame is a poster, she has chosen to take a road that some don't agree with in terms of her involvment in this case. But then do you say, well so-and-so went to MD and broke bread with mame so they are a bad person now. And, so-and-so paid mame a compliment the other day so now they are in on the conspiracy as well. It just doesn't work that way. What might appear to one person as one thing is, in reality, something completely different. So, when you suggest that mame has/is/was promoting an agenda and/or was being fed/lead into an agenda that's one thing. But then if you go on to say that those who went to Maryland drank grape koolaid, implying there was some sort of group think then you involve others and you have crossed a line. I was there and I didn't drink any grape koolaid, neither did anyone else. And, IMO, mame was not serving grape koolaid. Maybe that's when it gets personal, I dunno. The bottom line for me is that I have always wanted Justice Watch to be a place where there can be a safe exchange of ideas - even if there are disagreements. I just don't know if that is even possible anymore. It's very discouraging for me because like any project I take on, it's personal when it's not working out right. And, I do get terribly annoyed when people lie about me. I guess that's one of my "buttons" and I'll have to be more careful when it is pushed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "DIYD/DIYD" Posted by Penguin on 12:19:00 8/24/2000 I may stand a little to the left or a little to the right on the whole White issue - but one thing I've learned - sometimes it's best to remain silent. When it comes to moderating, things that I've personally found offensive - were not found to be offensive by others. That makes a moderating job hard, because once you pull a post people may feel you are picking sides on an issue, when in all reality you are just trying to do your job, and do it the best way you know how. Damned if you do - damned if you don't. Chris you do your job and you do it well. If it's offensive, pull it. That's what it boils down to. Be weary where you shit folks because this place is the forum of record. Try hitting your review button before you post your messages. If something in your post is offensive, fix it yourself. That makes a moderators job much more easy. When you shit in public, someone has to clean it up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "IMHO" Posted by Paralegal on 12:44:55 8/24/2000 I missed most of the brouhaha over MW/FW and where everyone stands on the issue, so my comments here are limited in that respect alone. I do have to say that there are a very small few here at JW whose posts are constructed to diminish, discredit and ostracize others, and that is what's offensive. If we truly respect one another, we will allow one another to have differing opinions without reducing what is supposed to be discussions into a personal assault on another's character. That is kindergarten behavior and totally inappropriate for a discussion forum. Unfortunately, this is a public board so it will draw people with all kinds of baggage, hidden agendas and "buttons". And that is why I for one am glad it's moderated, and I believe Chris has her hands full. But it's not Chris who is responsible for our behaviors toward each other, it is US, and there should be some accountability when we encroach on others' sensitiviies in moments of uncontrolled reaction. I HAVE used the alert button, and emailed Chris, regarding offensive or potentially flaming posts, and don't feel guilty or wimped-out for doing so. Yes, this board has liability for the information posted here, and that liability is everyone's responsibility, not just Chris'. Keep on keeping on, Chris, and DO hold posters accountable for their behavior. An organized society does that. And just FYI, as with the laws regarding sexual harassment, offense is in the eyes of the beholder and if a poster finds another's posts offensive, the offended party's need should be given credibility and accommodation rather than blowing it off because moderators or others don't find it so. What is offensive to one may not be to another, but in the spirit of respect for all, let's all learn to tread a little more lightly and stay focused on the topics and not someone else's persona. No one here knows anything about another with certainty, to speculate is to offend, and is not in keeping with the agenda of this forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Chris" Posted by fly on 13:34:10 8/24/2000 Chris - Perhaps if the posts felt to be inappropriate could be moved to the WOR, rather than deleted entirely, people would be less irritated. Sure, they still won't be happy, but they couldn't cry censorship with quite as much justification. I didn't see the yanked posts, so I can't comment on whether yanking those particular posts was justified. In general, I don't see anything wrong with a civil discussion of how this news relates to past forum events. I don't even see anything wrong with a civil "I told you so." Whether the yanked posts went beyond that I don't know. I understand your desire to keep things from spiralling into a brawl. It is tough to know when to slap the duct tape on somebody's mouth. At the same time, I doubt that many here want JW to be turned into a tea-party where the conversation is oh-so polite. Afterall, that would put an end to Ramsey bashing, too! ;-) Discussions here always have ranged beyond discussion of "the news," and posts composed almost exclusively of strongly worded personal insults or unfounded accusations or characterizations of other posters have rarely been yanked. So, any sudden and tight restrictions on what can and cannot be discussed are bound to get people riled up. That's especially so when the posts being yanked might seem to involve posters who have been on the unpopular, opposite side of an issue from some of the more "revered" folks. Bottom line: I think you've done a good job with JW overall. I'd suggest a very slow trigger finger concerning most deletions. If disputes truly threaten to turn into a brawl, move them to the WOR. But as far as I'm concerned, as the forum hostess you have the right to make any rules you want. Now, dealing with a specific item: In your post to WY just above, your comments about the purple Kool-Aide characterization make it seem like part of your reason for yanking things stem from what your personal disagreement with that characterization. I really do hope I'm misreading the situation, because that makes it appear as if your actions were partly stimulated by personal pique rather than objective principles of forum behavior. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "comments" Posted by Chris on 14:03:02 8/24/2000 Fly, I don't know. I was just trying to be honest and forthcoming. I try very hard to be objective and yes, sometimes it's hard. Does that make me less than human somehow? A side-note, when I am feeling less than human, I do check with at least one other person to see if they concur with my gut reaction. I figure that's some sort of balance. I think it's pretty clear that this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't issue. So, I think I'll just go back to moving stuff out of JBR that is off-topic and let everyone have at it. But let's also be clear that I'm not going to have much patience for those who would take me to task for not having a heavy hand. I think it was Fly who recently made a comment that suggested that I should have been more heavy handed during the FW/MW stuff. Hey, I'm human. Lately I've had a big powerful gulp of the kind of shit that forces you to take a step back and re-evaluate. The sister of a very good friend suffered a severed abdominal aorta while she was donating a kidney to her husband. She's now in a coma with little brain activity. Our neighbor (who we bought our house from) suffered a brain aneurism this week. A man with everything in the world to live for: a wonderful marriage, a successful business and a beautiful new dream home. He is brain dead. In the blink of an eye, no warning. John Prine is sounding better all the time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "ok" Posted by Gemini on 15:45:53 8/24/2000 i didn't see the posts either, but can imagine how it must have gone because people don't change much, and all this has been part of JBR forum interaction (off and on) for a long, long time. The core of the problem (imo) was addressed a couple of years ago in a beautiful post by Spencer ... the one we were talking about on a JBR thread last week. Her point was that people are so different, not only in regard to their backgrounds and life experiences, but in their natural reaction to particular situations. One of the most important differences is probably whether our responses are based on emotion or thought. Some of us could type 'til we sweat bullets about the importance of addressing opinion, issues and actions instead of launching personal attack, and it wouldn't change anything. Why? Because: 1) apparently, there are folks who cannot manage to separate disagreement with opinion from dislike (in some cases it almost seems to be hate) of the person who expressed that opinion. and 2) there are others who just really get bored with civil discussion and WANT to turn disagreement into confrontation. Chris, you've had a good understanding of when to let things slide and when to pull them back ... most of the time. From a personal POV, I've only been the target of one vicious, totally unjustified attack (and yes, part of it was a post with an incredibly venomous lie) on JW. I'm comfortable with mentioning this because I'm NOT inclined to whine ... not even in connection with past sieges by Curious and the multi-hatted one. Most of the time, I don't have a problem with verbal jousting because ... face it ... sometimes it DOES pick up the pace and allow for better understanding of all sides of an issue. However, this particular group of posts (3 or 4, all by the same poster) should not have been allowed to stay. But, stay they did. Only L-XIV - always a class act - offered an objection. If it had been my call ... no matter who the target may have been ... I'd have pulled them and given the poster a time out. So, I guess my main concern is that judgement calls be made with equality. If a post contains vicious personal attack against a fence sitter or pro-ram, it should be dealt with in exactly the same way as a flame post against an anti-ram or ... even ... a personal friend. Now, about the current dilemma. If posts are critical of Mame (Carol McKinley, Peter Boyles, or anyone else who reports or offers commentary on this case through public media) in regard to opinion expressed in posts, articles or audio news reports, they are probably within bounds and should be allowed to stay. However, if the disagreeing poster launches a personal assault (and I cannot believe there are many who do not know the difference ... unless they choose not to know) ... that's a foul and there's really no excuse to let it ride. jmo, of course. afterthought: I used to operate a local board with a number of forums moderated by staff members. The girl who took care of the Writers forum was very religious and measured everything by that yardstick. We had to be away a couple of weeks one summer and left the forum ops to handle traffic in their own areas during that time. When we got back, my email was stuffed with complaints. The Writers Forum gal was deleting every post that contained a slang expression. Her reasoning? "Darn is just another way to say damn", etc.. An entire short story had been submitted and removed (without saving a back-up) because she didn't approve of the morals of one of the characters. To make a long story shorter :-) ... I relieved her of her responsibility when we couldn't reach any kind of compromise. Then, (whadda shock) this person who wore her religion like a halo, cursed me from one end of cyber space to the other ... crying in her beer about how mistreated she'd been. moral: Working with a wide assortment of very different people is one of the hardest jobs in the world. Appreciate Chris and try to work with her. Just a suggestion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Gemini" Posted by Chris on 16:11:46 8/24/2000 I appreciate and agree with all of your points. One question, how can you be sure that those posts you speak of were seen by me or another moderator? Did you use the Alert feature? Because I honestly don't remember this exchange. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Chris" Posted by fly on 15:11:39 8/24/2000 Sorry about all the tragedies in your circle of friends. No, I think you have me confused with another poster. I don't recall ever having posted that you should have been more heavy handed in removing MW-related posts. I've always taken a position that deletions should be kept for only the more egregious posts, and that if anything, you've been a bit too trigger happy at times. You can't expect to please everybody. There is too wide a variety of what people see as justified or appropriate. All you can do is get some idea in your mind as to how far people can go without getting slapped, and then implement that policy as objectively and consistently as you can. Anybody who expects more of you than that must be living in a dream world. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Fly" Posted by Chris on 15:32:17 8/24/2000 I must have been confused about what I read. Here's a question for anyone who can help me (and, yes, I'm serious). Does it bother anyone else that all of these people who are screaming about censorship and having their first amendment rights taken away are the same people who complained that the MW/FW issue was allowed to be discussed? Oh, and just to be clear. If Ron S. And BobC would quit whining long enough, maybe they would admit that they left the forum on their own. Nobody chased them off. They got mad because they couldn't censor posters and control the discussion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Chris" Posted by mary99 on 15:05:26 8/24/2000 You have really had your share of grief this week and don't need to be hassled any more at the moment. If I've caused posters to send you nasty e-mails, I apologize to you for the aggravation and to the poster(s) for any perceived injury to the forum. I accept that my comments in the past have been taken to be pronouncements of fact where opinion was my intention. Chris, you do a great job and I will refrain from fueling any flames by responding to negative posts about me or my ideas, as expressed in the past. as far as the present and future, I've vowed to 'stick to case' and aviod hypothetical scenarios which apparently cause no small amount of grief for you and BayBB. So, thank you! and again, I'm sorry to hear of all your RL sadnesses. Now, blast away at me, folks, if you must. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Yes Chris" Posted by Gemini on 17:32:18 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:32:18, 8/24/2000 I did hit the button about those posts ... the first time I'd ever done that and the last time I ever intend to. Most of the time, I'm real easy going about alladat. Here's a question for anyone who can help me (and, yes, I'm serious). Does it bother anyone else that all of these people who are screaming about censorship and having their first amendment rights taken away are the same people who complained that the MW/FW issue was allowed to be discussed? Well sure ... it's always been that way on these boards. Forgive me for mentioning the evil dead, but this is, IMO, Curious's Law (kind of like Murphy's Law, only different). "Freedom of speach as long as the speakers agree with me". When the situation comes from a thread (or two or, even *gasp* more) that addresses a minority POV, I have a lot of trouble understanding why those who are in deep disagreement don't just by-pass those discussions. If need be (for self-satisfaction) STATE their opposition, then move on. Paraphrasing Bill Hicks here: these forums don't have a pedestrian right-of-way law. There is no reason whatsoever to stop and park in an area that makes us uncomfortable ... step on the gas!!!! There's another thing it wouldn't hurt to consider ... much as it seems to irk a few ... and that's the style or attitude of posts. I can be very sarcastic, and it's sometimes hard to tell whether that's meant as a jab or a jest ... so, I've really made an effort to tone it down (how'm I doin'? :-) ). As well, Fly and I both have a tendency to stick pins in balloons (Fly is the best and always has good reason). Seems harmless to me, but isn't always well received. Others (Mary99, you, Morgan and Ginja come to mind ... also Lacey), sometimes give the impression they're charging through a crowded street with a Louisville Slugger and a crow-bar ... just damned determined to blaze a trail, no matter how many broken noses and bruised ribs they leave in their wake. Actually, Lacey kind of flies overhead and drops water balloons, but sometimes the water is acid rain. Then, there are the diplomats: Darby, Holly, Fiddler, FrankG are good examples ... and there are several others. These are posts I take the time to read and pay attention to. Most of the forum members' posts are somewhere in-between, in varying degrees of intensity. Each and every JWer has a special place in the overall content. Each and every post is a brick that makes the JW wall strong. and, btw, I sure do miss Nikki and hope she comes back soon. p.s. I got very steamed a few minutes ago by a couple of posts I read, elsewhere, by a certain former JW guy. Had to leave before I posted something that would have kept it going and up-top. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Well Gem" Posted by Chris on 19:53:55 8/24/2000 Ouch! I don't remember seeing the alerts and I apologize to you that it wasn't addressed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "I'll try to explain..." Posted by Florida on 16:38:11 8/24/2000 "Here's a question for anyone who can help me (and, yes, I'm serious). Does it bother anyone else that all of these people who are screaming about censorship and having their first amendment rights taken away are the same people who complained that the MW/FW issue was allowed to be discussed? " I'll try to explain how I feel about this. If the posts that were offensive were based on fact I don't think there would be any argument whatsoever. If they were based on fact I don't think anyone would have called for censorship. But, they weren't. When some posters decided (ON THE WORD OF ONE WOMAN AND WITH NO OTHER PROOF OR VERIFICATION OF HER CHARGES - including AFTER the BPD said there was NOTHING TO HER CHARGES) to call Fleet White, Sr. and Fleet White, Jr. pedophiles, child sexual abuse ring members, perverts, child molesters, accessories to murder, etc, etc, it seemed like a good time to stand up and say STOP - THIS IS WRONG - there is NO PROOF. No one stepped in to censor or even ask these posters to tone it down a bit. In turn, those of us who didn't go along with this were vilified and called all kinds of names - and told were were insensitive to abuse victims, etc. Again, no one stepped in to censor these posts. But today, when the White's ask the BPD to investigate the BDC for criminal libel - we have a warning about not going after the poor posters who had been vilifing Fleet White, his entire family and some of us!! That is the problem Chris. They own their words - why can't those posters be called to task for them?? We were certainly taken on by these posters when we tried to stop what many of thought was a cyber-lynching. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Consider this" Posted by fly on 16:17:13 8/24/2000 Gemini - You made some very good observations, as usual. Chris - If people are truly being inconsistent about this, then yes, it would bother me. There might be an important difference or two in the two situations, however. Consider whether either of these apply here (they might not): (1)FW was being crucified on the basis of a single person's word, and that person was quickly shown to have credibility problems. Demanding that such unjustified labeling (with few if any qualifiers) of FW as a murdering pedophile cease recognizes that 1st Amendment rights have limitations and is not necessarily fairly called a cry for censorship. Unless the deleted posts contained something that also went beyond those limitations, yelling about censorship is justified. (2) There would also be a difference if the folks you feel are being disingenuous about censorship had not demanded threads/posts be deleted. (I have no idea who demanded what concerning post deletions in the past. I fight my battles myself and in public, as you know.) I see a difference in asking/demanding in posts that people cease and desist posting and in asking the moderator to prevent or delete such posting. Also, the principle in #1 (if applicable) would take precedence and at least partially excuse any difference in attitudes toward deletions. So, although in some ways there might be a discrepancy in some people's actions, a closer look might show those discrepancies to be less significant that they appear at first glance. Then again, consistency is not one of the most common attributes of a lot of people's thinking around here. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Good Points" Posted by Chris on 18:43:11 8/24/2000 But, I would ask you, Florida, who are we to judge? The posters have taken off and run with things before that had no basis in fact. In this case, there was information reported by sources that we have trusted in the past. Just because you, Florida don't believe something as "fact" doesn't mean that others have the same experiences and belief systems in place you have. Or, the same measuring stick. That's why this is an opinion forum and there is language at the bottom of each and every page that says: "The opinions expressed are those of the author of those opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Web Host, Webmaster or any Justice Watch member. The opinions and analysis included herein are based from sources believed to be reliable and in good faith but no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to their accuracy, completeness or correctness." This has been the mantra from almost the very beginning when people (well, one poster in particular) were posting things that everyone knew weren't true. It's the best solution the community could come up with at that time. The same problem exists when someone comes along and claims a particular expertise and then posts information that doesn't "fit" with their claims. People are welcome to challenge their assertions (and have) but it as a problem then and I suspect would be a problem now if those posts were removed. This is a discussion forum and as things come up related to the case, they'll be discussed. It's not up to me to decide what posters are allowed to discuss and what they aren't allowed to discuss. Heck, to this day, people talk about Burke as the killer. It's going to happen. People will continue to debate and hash and rehash the news. If there is no news at a particular time (like when the MW news came out) posters who are bored or might otherwise be distracted by other matters latch on to that particular topic and run it into the ground. Yes, Florida, my/our attempts to try to keep the MW issue on an even keel failed miserably this round. Hopefully posters who are part of this community will provide the feedback and offer solutions rather than simply bitching about what they don't like. Complaining is easy...what to do about it isn't so easy. Perhaps I'll go re-read your post to see if there were constructive suggestions offered about how to resolve these huge differences of opinions amongst the forum members. Fly, as for posters saying what posts should or should not have been deleted, I'm not sure which ones they are. As I said, nobody hit the Alert and nobody emailed to say, "this is offensive" - they just go other places to talk about it. It's very frustrating. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Gemini & Chris" Posted by fly on 19:11:18 8/24/2000 Gemini - You've been a posterchild of moderation and non-sarcastic posts for the most part recently. Chris - When I mentioned deleted posts, I was primarily speaking of today's deleted posts. My comments could be applied to past posts, too, but I wouldn't necessarily expect you to know which ones others were talking about. I'm getting a bit confused now, Chris. You posted to Florida This is a discussion forum and as things come up related to the case, they'll be discussed. It's not up to me to decide what posters are allowed to discuss and what they aren't allowed to discuss. I don't disagree with that position, but given that, why were the posts deleted today? (Darn, I sure wish I'd seen those posts.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Fly" Posted by Chris on 19:45:20 8/24/2000 Posts were deleted because, in the opinion of not just me but others who help moderate, they violated the request to discuss the news and avoid discussing other posters. There are some who are trying to spin this into an information control issue and that's simply not true. No information about this news or speculation has been deleted unless information was included in the post specifically went against the request that I made when the news first broke. The posts that have been deleted were deleted because they said stuff like, "I hope you all apologize to BobC and RonS for running them off" or "I hope Fleet White sues all of those posters who said shit about him" etc. My impression is that people are mad because they want to tit-for-tat. They want to bash the posters who, in their opinion, bashed Fleet White. And, I guess they want to call that censorship. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "FWIW" Posted by rico on 20:34:07 8/24/2000 I admit my posts were exceptional, (LOL) right up to the end and then I had to get in an upper-cut. Chris is right about the tit-for-tat and that I'm sure is why my posts were deleted. I apologize for the personal attacks. As far as the debate on what is acceptable or not in posting to this forum, I can only hope that whatever discussions, opinions or issues posters wish to contribute, they might consider that common decency goes a long way in preserving the good will and respect of all forum participants. What happened here with the MW/FW bash was unworthy of this forum JMO. As Chris has pointed out, two wrongs don't make a right and with that in mind I sally forth to slay another dragon! JfJBR rico [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "uh" Posted by Gemini on 19:53:52 8/24/2000 I was in a hurry earlier and was pretty sure i hadn't been real clear in the above post. To clarify: Chris, I didn't mean to add you to the bat wielders ... you're definitely part of the diplomatic corp. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "A final note for today" Posted by Chris on 19:56:14 8/24/2000 I do want to thank everyone who has offered their thoughts on this issue. I really appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion. It has been helpful to me in a lot of ways. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Florida and fly and friends" Posted by darby on 23:53:22 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:53:22, 8/24/2000 Okay, I'm going to ask. You don't have to come up with specific posts to prove your points. But where are you getting this stuff? Florida: When some posters decided to call Fleet White, Sr. and Fleet White, Jr. pedophiles, child sexual abuse ring members, perverts, child molesters, accessories to murder, etc, etc, it seemed like a good time to stand up and say STOP - THIS IS WRONG - there is NO PROOF. No one stepped in to censor or even ask these posters to tone it down a bit. Who are the posters who called the Whites these names? I agree that a handful of times, things got heated and posters on BOTH sides of this issue got out of hand. But for the most part, I'd say that the main difference in the two views on MW are those who unequivocally think Fleet White is blameless regarding MW vs. those who simply haven't decided. What has really happened, I think, is that a woman has alluded to something about her experiences with the Whites, and some of us didn't immediately say we KNOW she's not speaking the truth--and it seems that other posters are exasperated about this. In turn, those of us who didn't go along with this were vilified and called all kinds of names - and told were were insensitive to abuse victims, etc. Again, no one stepped in to censor these posts. I did see people saying that you all were insensitive to abuse victims (and in most cases I don't agree with this view), but you say you were called all kinds of names? Who called you names and what names did they call you? That is the problem Chris. They own their words - why can't those posters be called to task for them?? We were certainly taken on by these posters when we tried to stop what many of thought was a cyber-lynching. Florida, I don't think it really was ever a cyber lynching. There were a couple of posters who did get out of hand, but the rest of us were very careful. Even if you feel certain that a couple of the posters DO feel there's no question that FW is a bad guy, calling this a lynching makes it sound as if ALL of us who simply have made no definite conclusions yet are part of a lynch mob. fly-- FW was being crucified on the basis of a single person's word, and that person was quickly shown to have credibility problems. Demanding that such unjustified labeling (with few if any qualifiers) of FW as a murdering pedophile cease recognizes that 1st Amendment rights have limitations and is not necessarily fairly called a cry for censorship. Unless the deleted posts contained something that also went beyond those limitations, yelling about censorship is justified. Crucified? Who on this forum crucified Fleet White? Who labeled him a murdering pedophile? There's a big difference between saying that we ought to wait and see whether this story has legs vs. concluding that since one woman made a claim, then Fleet White is definitely a murdering pedophile. Nobody that I know of has decided such a thing! *** This whole thing has NEVER been as black and white as you guys are saying. Again, posters didn't just decide out of the blue one day to bring FW's character into question. We were just responding to the news we heard about a woman who MAY have been abused as a minor by the guy who hosted JBR's last meal--a woman who some people claim has documented the abuse, and done so prior to JBR's murder. You always cite the BPD as saying MW is not credible, but then we have Alex Hunter, Bill Wise, Lee Hill, Mary Suma, Carol McKinley, and Mary Bienkowski saying she is. It's absolutely true that if MW is lying then FW is being put through the ringer. But don't you also see the flip side of this? If MW is telling the truth, then SHE is being put through the ringer. For every argument you give, there's a counter argument on the other side. Again, you have the right to your opinion that MW probably isn't telling the truth--absolutely! But please don't make claims that everyone who hasn't formed an opinion yet is out to crucify Fleet White. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Chris..." Posted by A.K. on 04:44:24 8/25/2000 I'm going on record to applaud your efforts to make tough decisions about cleaning up other people's messes. You're always thoughtful and gracious of posters' feelings and do a terrific job in giving so many intelligent and opinionated people a place to exchange ideas. This episode has been a learning experience, and I'm confident that things like this will flare up again. I trust your ability to handle things the way you need to. My wrath is directed at those who made your job so difficult. There was an utter lack of self-discipline. Where is our common sense as a forum community? LOL. Next time I hope people who have potentially harmful hot potatoes will sleuth them out in private email. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "wrath?" Posted by darby on 06:52:07 8/25/2000 She who is without sin may cast that first stone. ;-) (notice it won't be me) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Point of Order" Posted by marral on 07:08:03 8/25/2000 Hi, folks - I don't post much, but have been around from the beginning. I'm not going to comment on the decisions of Chris or others, past or present, but I did want to make one thing clear: This isn't a First Amendment/Free Speech issue at all. The First Amendment guarantees that the *government* can't restrict your speech. Chris ain't the government, any more than a newpaper or radio is. As forum owner - like a newspaper owner - Chris has the sole discretion to delete posts without any infringement on rights. If I were Chris, I'd delete posts that are possibly defamatory. Merely taggin a post "this is my personal opinion" does not protect the poster - or the owner of the forum - from liability if the statement is made with "actual malice" or a "reckless disregard for truth" (in the matter of a public figure) or not based on any reasonable fact (if a private figure). In other words, hypothetically only, I cannot state that Jane Doe is a pedophole if I have no ground to state it. Not even as an opinion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Chirs" Posted by starry on 08:04:43 8/25/2000 FWIW, this is my opinion. You expect too much from yourself. Take it easier on you. I think you do the very best job anyone could ask from you. After all, this is a free forum and we're not paying your bills, are we? I didn't think so. keep on keeping on! huggs, starry [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Friday" Posted by Chris on 08:47:35 8/25/2000 Starry, Thanks! You're such a doll. Darby, okay, so it isn't just me. I think that some would give the impression there have been multiple posts and threads outright calling Fleet White all of these horrible things. My memory is not of that - but, as I said, I have been really busy/distracted and haven't really had the time to read everything. Gemini, it made me sick to my stomach to read the suggestion that this site has anything to do with pornography. You'd think that statements like that would make people rethink their impressions of their "heros"... Mostly...TGIF!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Well Darby," Posted by Florida on 11:00:30 8/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:00:30, 8/25/2000 I guess the only way to prove these posts exist is if Chris were to repost all of the old MW threads. Chris?? Darby, from your own "Alleged Abuser" thread: "I'll tell you what. How about we all agree that from now on we will refrain from naming the person that MW alleges abused her? How about we now call him "Alleged Abuser" ("AA" for short)? Would that make everyone happier?" And a few posts later (#7) you agree to call FW an "alleged pedophile" or "AP". 7. "Lurker, v_p, short timer" Posted by darby on 09:26:15 8/05/2000 Lurker--"The Creep" really isn't fair in the event that there is nothing to MW's claims--though if her claims are correct, The Creep may not even begin to describe the creep. I adore Alcoholics Anonymous myself. Maybe AA is a bad choice if some folks think of Alcoholics Anonymous every time they see AA. Let's see...how about Alleged Pedophile? AP? Any objections from anyone? Please speak now or forever hold your peace. Going once..... Twice..... OKAY! AP it is! Later on you seem to agree that Fleet has been demonized and we should probably wait for further evidence. 84. "fly & A.K." Posted by darby on 17:30:11 8/07/2000 fly: darby - There is a difference in being in favor of an investigation and believing what MW has said is true. Agreed. I don't necessarily believe what she said is true. But this doesn't mean I believe what she said is false. I simply don't know. I believe that there has not been a complete investigagion at this point. 1) whether FW should be branded a pedophile BEFORE that investigation reveals decent evidence against him, not whether the authorities should investigate; He shouldn't. I AGREE! (2) whether MW story should be given credence (prior to production of evidence) given that there is pretty clear evidence of her "inaccuracy" (at least) concerning certain past abuse and BPD's failure to find any evidence concerning a link to JBR and that part of her story. No, she shouldn't be believed without more investigation. I don't know how clear the evidence of past inaccuracy is, however. The information LP scanned is "Page 10". That tells me that there are at least nine earlier pages missing and possibly more thereafter. mame seems to think that there are much bigger files involved, and in another county. The most ardent MW believers dismiss the investigations that did take place. Really? Not me. I think an investigation took place. Just not a complete one. Some voice no doubt whatsoever concerning any aspect of MW's tale, Really? Who might they be? and some (e.g., Trixie) label skeptics "pathetic" and imply they are in denial about other sexual issues. Are you saying Trixie is just one example of such people ("some (e.g., Trixie)")? Gee, I think this is about the first time I've ever seen someone post with that particular point of view. At any rate, obviously, we are not all Trixie. In fact, I think Trixie is the only one who has ever said you are in denial of your sexuality (sex, yes, but not sexuality) :-) I agree that few, if any, men here are in the MW-believer camp...some are the most ardent opponents, without question. That's because you men are all alike. Others, however, are skeptics who are not against an investigation, but who see reason to mistrust MW's tale and/or to refrain from demonizing FW at this time. I agree with the decision to refrain from demonizing FW at this time. Honestly, that's why I'm proposing "ASP" in lieu of his or any other name. And I agree with those who are all for a complete investigation. This is Trixie's post #100 on the same thread - "senseless idiots" "a reason pedophiles can function" just because we don't take MW's word at face value. I personally found DIRECT EVIDENCE SHE LIED. She lied about the nunber of charges in her case against Boykin in 1979-80 and she lied about Mackie Boykin breaking in and raping her in San Luis Obispo. That did not happen. Suddenly, MW was a blasphemous LIAR! MW may not have squat to do with JBR but this woman has suffered enough without senseless idiots like you adding fuel to the fire by calling her a liar. You and those like you are the exact reason why many women usually don't come forward in sexual assaults. You and those like you are the reason while pedophiles can function under the veil of secrecy because you are offended by the thought and would prefer to just overlook their indiscretions then deal with the ugliness of it. The point I am (tediously) trying to make is that you apparently thought that some of the posts had gone too far in what they were calling or saying about FW too. Otherwise, why start the "Alleged Abuser" thread? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Florida" Posted by darby on 12:19:54 8/25/2000 I had gone back and edited, but you already grabbed my original post. That's okay, but I'm honestly wanting to diffuse this situation rather than make it worse. My original post might have made it worse. Okay, maybe a few went too far--you are right. But not must of us, and certainly not all of us. All *I* want to say is that *I* don't know the truth behind MW or FW--and I don't pretend to know. FW's post-murder behavior, up to and including the latest criminal libel complaint, has seemed peculiar to me--and I'm not even thinking of MW. The murder itself is so bizarre that it has confounded everyone for almost four years. MW may or may not be telling the truth. Either way, I think that it would be wise to look into exactly why she emerged and exactly who is behind this emergence (if anyone). Bring everything to light. The whole truth is what I think this case needs, wherever it may lead. I'm sorry too if I have ever offended you. You do write a nice limerick line. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Florida" Posted by darby on 12:05:08 8/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:05:08, 8/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:57:22, 8/25/2000 Don't forget I used the word alleged. HUGE difference between using that word and not--like night and day. I'm just trying to say that I only have wanted the whole thing to be looked at before I wanted to make a judgment. I never have made a conclusion about the Whites. And I have never called anybody names. I was trying to make things better with the alleged abuser idea--so that the actual name would never have to be brought up again. But you seem to have totally misunderstood this. And Trixie's posts really don't reflect the feelings of anyone else on the MW issue. Trixie is Trixie. edited for brevity [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Chris" Posted by Gemini on 12:03:25 8/25/2000 As you p[robably know, I usually keep a thin but distinct line between RT and online ... compartmentalizing, I guess ... it's what keeps me sane and cheerful ... most of the time :-) . However, that comment about JW and a couple of others from the same poster reallllly got to me ... to the point I had tears in my eyes (probably from smacking my fingers so hard to keep from replying. Florida, I often agree with your posts, but in this case, it doesn't seem Trixie is an appropriate example. Fly, LOL! ... "poster child", eh? Thanks you sweetly, but I guess that means there's nowhere to go but down ... . . down . d o w n . . Well, oh my mercy me, A.K.! I wish you'd stop moving those goal posts. I have been working on a plan to "sicken" you and you've uped the objective. Now I have to find some cool ways to incur your wrath. Back to the drawing board ... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Gemini" Posted by Chris on 12:28:14 8/25/2000 That's my new goal - learn to compartmentalize better. It's funny because up until I read that statement I was feeling really bad about this whole mess. Then, I read that statement. Suddenly it was very, very clear to me that "man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Darby" Posted by Florida on 11:58:48 8/25/2000 "Don't forget I used the word alleged. HUGE difference between using that word and not--like night and day." Darby - I thought you were using this thread to ask posters to START using ALLEGED ABUSER OR ALLEGED PEDOPHILE - did I get that wrong? You are right it is a HUGE DIFFERENCE and this is the first time I have seen that acknowledged. "Why do you choose to use Trixie as the poster child for people who want to look further into the claims of MW? Trixie posts like five or six times with some totally off-the-wall things that have nothing to do with anything I have ever remotely thought of, and suddenly she is the primary example who gets brought up? Would you like it if I repeatedly mentioned the fellow on your side of this issue who said he'd like to abuse MW himself? " Since all of the MW threads are not accessible it is the best I could do in resonse to your question. If the other threads were up I could give you many more examples. "Also, I noticed that you didn't feature some of the horrible things that were said to me on that thread. I became angry and hurt when I posted some of the things I said on that thread. Even so, he worst I think I got was very sarcastic. " Darby, your post implied that FW had never been called names (pedophile, sex ring member, etc.) by posters on the JBR forum (Mary99, and Morgan immediately come to mind) and that people who questioned MW's veracity were never called names (Once again Mary99 and Morgan come to mind) The "Alleged Abuser" thread is the only MW thread still standing at this point. I was answering some of the points you had specifically posted to me. If we had the other threads I could quote chapter and verse but this is the best I could do on such short notice and without the. This didn't really have anything to do with you - I used your responses as an example of what I thought was acknowledgement that FW had been demonized. If I am wrong in that I apologize. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "oops" Posted by darby on 12:20:57 8/25/2000 posted in the wrong spot. See #42. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Florida" Posted by Chris on 12:26:14 8/25/2000 Somehow I don't think the reposting all of the old MW-related threads would solve any problems. I am, however, going to put together a zip file of those posts and make it available upon request so that you and anyone who would like can haver their very own personal copy. Look for something on this early next week. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Chris & darby" Posted by fly on 13:46:04 8/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:46:04, 8/25/2000 darby - Oooooo, better watch those titles: Florida, fly and friends Not the nicest way to start. ;-) If you don't like crucify, try vilify. Please give me a little more credit than you have in your post. Only a complete idiot would fail to recognize that there are variations in belief and that not everybody outside the "vocal skeptic" end of the population is a rabid member of the "FW's a pedophile" group. An I am not a complete idiot. My comments haven't concerned those more moderate souls. If you want an example of somebody proclaiming FW a pedophile and Florida's stuff doesn't satisfy you, try going through the threads for the past week or so. I've seen it said recently, and somebody even pointed it out, I think. Even if nobody ever, even once, said, "FW is a pedophile," only an idiot (and you are not one) would honestly deny that that viewpoint is exactly what drove much of the discussion. About credibility: MW made false rape accusations. That damages her credibility. Does it make her a liar in all regards? No, but it does call for great caution before believing even more bizarre charges. Chris - So those posts that were deleted didn't really contain anything horrendously offensive, they just violated your rule that we are supposed to discuss the news, and not other posters - especially if not praising those other posters. I don't have any problem with that rule, and except for a few hard-core "free speech" folks, I suspect most of us don't. The problem you ran into was one of expectations. That rule just hasn't been enforced very often, so nobody expected it would be this time. As Gemini said, as long as rules are consistently and objectively enforced, there will be few problems. I assume I am correct in thinking this rule applies generally, and not just to MW issues? So the next time somebody wants to lob some poorly conceived insults at me, or say "I told you so," those posts will be deleted quickly? You're going to be mighty busy from now on if you really are serious about enforcing that rule fairly and consistently. You must have more stamina than I do. I agree with you that: "man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." That has been at the heart of most disputes here. People tend to see what supports their position and to ignore what doesn't. So darby and you don't remember seeing FW cruelly vilified, whereas we "skeptics" do. :-) Hang in there, Chris. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Fly" Posted by Chris on 14:10:31 8/25/2000 So those posts that were deleted didn't really contain anything horrendously offensive, they just violated your rule that we are supposed to discuss the news, and not other posters - especially if not praising those other posters. I don't have any problem with that rule, and except for a few hard-core "free speech" folks, I suspect most of us don't. The problem you ran into was one of expectations. That rule just hasn't been enforced very often, so nobody expected it would be this time. As Gemini said, as long as rules are consistently and objectively enforced, there will be few problems. Well, Fly, when this latest news hit I was sitting here at my computer and immediately tried something that was intended to diffuse a potentially volatile situation. So it failed, so shoot me. I figure my good intentions should count for something here, fly. I assume I am correct in thinking this rule applies generally, and not just to MW issues? So the next time somebody wants to lob some poorly conceived insults at me, or say "I told you so," those posts will be deleted quickly? Generally, that would certainly be nice. Actually, it would be nice if I didn't have to deal with personal attacks at all. If I were you I wouldn't sit here all day watching to see if poorly conceived insults or nasty posts are deleted quickly. I have a life, Fly. When the MW issue came to light I was preparing for a trade show out of state and hardly had time to read the forum let alone attempt to moderate it. That's life. I suppose I could shut down the forum everytime RL intrudes so that I can always be here to babysit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Chris, Darby" Posted by Florida on 12:58:10 8/25/2000 Chris - I don't think the MW posts are needed either. It would just make an explosive situation worse. I responded when I really shouldn't have - I know what I read and really have no reason to prove it. I don't think anyone wants to let this subject deteriorate this forum any more than it already has. You have a tough enough job and really don't need to be the referee in this X-Treme WWF match! Darby, I have a lot of respect for your posts and sense of humor. I think it is best to end this now - I, like you, don't need to go any further. See you at the limerick threads - better to use our daggers there where they are appreciated!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "just one last thing" Posted by darby on 15:00:13 8/25/2000 I made a sloppily-titled post. I didn't mean to imply that fly and Florida were (necessarily :-)) excluded from my friends. I just liked the alliteration. And thanks, Florida. fly--really, most of us think MW probably believes she's telling the truth, but we just don't know how much is really the actual truth. We know what her implications are, but we actually remain uncertain on their veracity. And speaking for myself--I am fully aware that people lie all the time and also that a victim of horrendous abuse might get all kinds of facts mixed up. The one and ONLY thing that has caused me to keep wondering about this are the references to prior-to-the-murder documentation. I'll shut up now (for the time being). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Chris" Posted by Longhorn on 14:42:47 8/25/2000 I am most beholding to you for this forum. I cannot begin to imagine all that you deal with. All I can say is this is your place, and you should always do as you see fit. There probably are no two people who feel the same on any issue, on every point with regards to this case. I spoke when this issue broke in Feb that I wished it would be fully investigated and that we all be careful about what we say about individuals involved. To some, that appeared that I was supporting FW, "the hero"; to others, it meant I thought MW was a nut. Neither was the case, so I said I would not post to this issue until it was resolved. So, I haven't posted about this or much of anything recently as there hasn't been news. I still check the forum periodically, and I always will. Everyone must do what they think is right and what works for them.It seems, now, there is agreement that things got out of hand for a while concerning FW and MW. It's too easy to say that because things got out of hand, you should let them get out of hand again to "balance" the situation. It's true, what was said earlier by another poster, two wrongs do not make a right(gawd, I wll hear my mother till my last breath with that one). We cannot expect you to police these boards, and we certainly cannot run to you when our "feelers" get hurt.That said,trying to appease all of us would be futile. It is yourself that you must answer to, and only yourself. The old cliche is true about some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but never all the people all the time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Chris..." Posted by Pedro on 20:54:03 8/25/2000 .....I have no doubt you try your best, you do a great job here and at some point you have to stop things to don't let them get out of hand, then no matter what you do, some will bitch... ....reason why I hate all the posters much and equally....except my wife, Of Course( she's next to me now, heh) :-). Now I seen many attacks to posters who didn't agree with the MW *believers*, these posters did attack MW and not her supporters until they were attacked, I think your decissions are always right and seek only the best for you and this forum, just try to ban Sparky (she eat chicken heart), Watching You ( she ain't talking to me anymore, she prefer the Sailer), Sailer (not enough girls for both of us), Jonesy (she's too smart and has a much smart mouth), Lacy (she won't dress leather for me).....and as a personal favor, Would you Ban China??? ( the ladies don't pay attention to me anymore!!!) :-)....I think you should ban everyone but me....I'll have then the whole forum to BITCH myself :-)..with BAYBB, Of Course, I always enjoy her much, that will be great, only Baybb and Me, anyway all you are sleeping when I get here :-). Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Gemini..." Posted by A.K. on 03:49:17 8/26/2000 Don't worry. You've dodged the bullet...this time. ;-) Besides I just spewed my vile on another forum, and now I can go back to being my normal Perry Como-like self. Ahhh. Forum life goes on. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "fyi, A.K." Posted by darby on 08:30:23 8/26/2000 The word vile is an adjective. Are you really a reporter? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "FYI, AK" Posted by Holly on 11:00:50 8/26/2000 Long before MW came to town, I was on Fleet's case (WHITE KNIGHTS?). I drove mame and Morgan nuts suggesting FW might not be heroic. My post when the CAMERA article came out "Why am I not surprised?" While your amazingly stupid CS post may amuse some, to people who still urge a complete investigation of MW's claims, it troubles. The Fleet "questioners" question, because a woman has come forward with serious claims and therapist confirmation of some of that information, that pre-dates the JB murder. A video of "evidence" has impressed excellent journalists. So that is our basis for our White inquiries, speculations, theories, hammering etc. Exactly what is the basis for your unconditional support of Fleet White? If you know something and can assure us we're wrong, please enlighten. You claim "Lying Nancy" is bogus, a has been actress conspires, White is involved in delicate media negotiations, a media hungry team pushes a Satan agenda. Really? Why not share the names and details? Fleet's 600 page rant is what is bogus. Of course I've not read a single page, but I wouldn't be surprised if Fleet (I don't own a computer) White downloaded pages and pages of forum posts, to convince he has been maligned. Or perhaps his forum fan club helped with the time consuming busy work. Maybe Bailin will decide the mother of all complaints is w/o merit. That's my guess. Maybe she will think an SP is a good move. Maybe Carol McKinley and Bruce Plasket will be reduced to sobs on the stand, as they are grilled for hours about their malicious motives in reporting someone's claims. Maybe they will cry out, "Help us Jesus! Why, oh why didn't we clear this with A(ll)K(nowing) first? One thing is for sure, I eagerly await the AK spin if the motherlode is tossed out. And if you ask me, Fleet White is a taco short of a combination platter -- and that's the kindest opinion I have of him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Holly..." Posted by v_p on 12:30:59 8/26/2000 >The Fleet "questioners" question, because a woman >has come forward with serious claims >and therapist confirmation of some of >that information, that pre-dates the JB >murder. A video of "evidence" has >impressed excellent journalists. So that is >our basis for our White inquiries, >speculations, theories, hammering etc. What do you mean "video of evidence?" >Exactly what is the basis for your >unconditional support of Fleet White? >If you know something and can >assure us we're wrong, please enlighten. The following is from an article on SRA. "The satanic ritual abuse (SRA) hoax has ruined many innocent people's lives and forced some to spend years in prison. Several are still in prison or have trials pending. Power hungry district attorneys, sloppy and unscientific psychotherapists, ignorance and hysteria drive these prosecutions. Even when the charges are dropped, the falsely accused teacher suffers a shattered reputation, ruined career, and financial ruin. The child victims end up convinced that they were sexually abused in satanic rituals. The trials feature junk science and outrageous legal antics that could be worthy of a Monty Python skit or Kafka novel." Holly, I have the utmost respect for you and, with the exception of the MW related posts, thoroughly enjoy your posts. However, spreading innuendo and rumor about a man who has been totally cleared of any involvement in this crime is just unfair to him and disrespectful of his family. Until a lot more investigation is done, I feel his name should not be brought up again if associated with MW. Some posters rail against anyone who doesn't believe MW's story in it's entirety and blasts them...even for word useage, yet at the same time want respect for their opinions. Makes it hard to have a fair debate. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "v_p." Posted by Holly on 21:54:21 8/26/2000 Hi. I think the original CAMERA article discussed Lee Hill making a video of evidence while in CA. Afterwards it was mentioned by, I think, mame, that some respected journalists had viewed all or parts of the tape and came away impressed. I haven't a clue what is shown. To my knowledge, and I inquired, MW has never been involved in Satanic ritual abuse. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Vile" Posted by Isabella on 10:11:55 8/26/2000 She probably meant bile. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. ":-) A.K." Posted by Gemini on 12:36:13 8/26/2000 Yeah, I saw your CS posts ... and was absolutely enthralled with your comments about the ego problems of others, while, at the same time, deciding to leave a rude post (your term) up because it attracted a cheering section ... then went on to type a ruder post. :heh: Talk about yer misplaced ego. :-) Funny thing is, while i think FW is a pompous ass, I don't think he's guilty of all these sexual abuse suggestions ... at least i'd need major, solid proof to form that conclusion ... so I'm probably not your target. I'm just sitting in the peanut gallery ... throwing tomatoes. Because, blatant name dropping, smug suggestions of 'inside' information - that often doesn't pan out - and an apparent need for a worshipful audience (art thou Goddess?) leave me with a diabolical need to curdle your blood. Don't take it personally. That's my reaction toward anyone who runs with the wolves and suckles the lambs on the side. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Isabella" Posted by Gemini on 12:40:24 8/26/2000 i'll bet you're right ... could have been a fraudian slip, tho. After all, bile IS pretty vile, eh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Gemini" Posted by Isabella on 16:05:36 8/26/2000 Yes, bile is pretty vile. LOL. Your post #57 is superb. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "rather disappointed, Chris" Posted by fly on 13:41:40 8/26/2000 My last post was not a criticism of you (nor have the others been, either) or your policies. I was explaining why I thought they got some people upset. I was rather disappointed in your reply concerning what will happen to flame posts directed at me in the future (e.g., probably nothing). Not because I want flame posts about me to be deleted, but because your response suggests to me that the rules only matter in certain circumstances, and that is very likely to lead to future conflicts. Don't bother deleting inappropriate flame posts shot my way. As I said before, I fight my own fights, have never used the Alert button, and have never emailed you to complain or ask you to intervene. I don't plan to change that. That's because I agree that you shouldn't have to babysit the forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "I'm disappointed too, Fly" Posted by Chris on 06:08:39 8/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:08:39, 8/27/2000 Judging from your replies to me and comments on this issue, I don't think you've read half of what I've said. Edited to add: Fly, I never said that we were going to stop deleting inapporpriate posts except where special circumstances warranted. You're twisting my words, Fly. I was responding to your overexaggeration of the issue. FWIW, we've removed many many posts about the leader of the Little Heads for two years, under the same type of criteria. So, it really is nothing new. The bottom line is, people are mad that they aren't being allowed to start a tit-for-tat flame war about the MW/FW issue. If they'd stop and think for just a minute, they might realize that the posts on this forum probably do more to support Fleet White's claim than not. So, in effect, by letting those posts about Fleet White that so many find so objectionable stand (as moderators) we've probably actually provided more assistance to Fleet White than his ardant defenders. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE