posted on October 3, 2000 05:29:29 PM new
I am always prepared! I am suprised at you though losing your buckets! Maybe if you retrace your steps you can find some? Here...you can have some of these.Try not to lose them. We will have to work together I think if things get to a point we need to put them to use. One to do the chopping, one to hold the bucket!
posted on October 3, 2000 05:44:37 PM new
Well, I could point you there but I would have to mention another site. It was posted elsewhere but it is about here. This is where it should be being discussed not there. Does that make sense?
posted on October 3, 2000 05:47:53 PM new
Well, I would confess that I'm clueless, but that would get me in trouble again.
These boards contain more melodrama than the soaps, and probably less reality.
cariad
posted on October 3, 2000 05:54:55 PM new
That's exactly it, Cariad! Who needs "All My Children"? We got villains, evil twins, conspiracys, gossips, heck we even had the town slut for awhile. Who needs the "soaps"?
posted on October 3, 2000 06:03:30 PM new
rawbunzel,
Makes perfect sense.
Thanks for the clarification, I spent about 1/2 hour searching AW for the accusations.
I don't have to tell all of you that this would all be best taken to email since you are excluding a great number of folks that post and lurk at AuctionWatch.
I won't lock this thread unless the CG's are breached.
Maybe someone can e-mail you the url. I think this is hardly the place to advertise the site where these wretched and baseless accusations are being made.
posted on October 3, 2000 06:16:23 PM new
Joice, I disagree about taking it to email. There are a great many people here who are interested in this particular topic and would then be excluded by going to email.
There are always people excluded from every topic. Not everyone has an opinion on everything or wants to be included. Exclusion of other posters is not really a good reason to lock a thread. Violating the CG's would be.
posted on October 3, 2000 06:30:51 PM newThere are a great many people here who are interested in this particular topic and would then be excluded by going to email.
Hello? This isn't a TV series. This isn't a Survivor thread. It's a person's reputation at stake. It shouldn't be a topic open for discussion at all but sadly has become that on account of the malicious actions of one board proprietor and his cronies.
posted on October 3, 2000 06:38:33 PM new
Well Spaz, I partly agree. I agree that it should not be like a TV show or a soap opera [never watched Survivor and hate the Soaps] But there are a quite a few people here who have become involved in this in many ways and really want to see some resoloution. It has gone on for months and months and keeps on rearing its ugly head here and elsewhere. If it is to be discussed I would rather see it discussed here in a more friendly enviornment rather than where it is right now.
Yes it is a persons reputation and it is a person I happen to really like.I want to see this ended once and for all.But again we have accusations and then a manifesto. How can things ever be resolved like this? I do not know. Have you any ideas?
Edited because it isn't really a great many people but some!
posted on October 3, 2000 06:45:25 PM new
You have to read elsewhere to know. Where this started. Shelly stated she has left the boards...Leaves everything in the air again.
Maybe this should be discussed in email..but between who? This is such an underhanded accusation that there is really no one to email about it is there? Maybe it does belong on another board...not up to me this is really up to Pareau and only Pareau.
I will abide by whatever Pareau wishes on this matter. I AM JUST SO ANGRY ABOUT THIS!
posted on October 3, 2000 07:27:12 PM newSpazmodeus,
As I recall, you spouted quite a different set of viewpoints when another poster's reputation was at stake. Yep, you were not far behind the leader of that pack.
Is the difference between your postings now and those in November (was it?) simply because of your well known dislike of the other board proprietor and his cronies? I'll assume that you mean to say that anyone who posts at that site is considered a cronie of the proprietor.
posted on October 3, 2000 07:34:16 PM new
Maybe it's just me, but if I have an issue with another poster on AW, for instance, then that is where I would continue the issue.
To take it to another board where one of the parties is not and, I assume, would not register is just plain dirty pool.
But, it's not the first time that's happened, is it?
Oh, and I would do my manifesto on the originating board, also.
Please state the specific instance you're referring to. November was quite awhile ago. Once I know what you're talking about, I'll give you an answer.
Is the difference between your postings now and those in November (was it?) simply because of your well known dislike of the other board proprietor and his cronies?
Again, I don't know specifically which instance you refer to. But I can assure you that my objections in this here instance have nothing to do with my dislike of that board proprietor. I would condemn anyone who engaged in the deliberate, calculated character assassination I have seen in this case. It's despicable.
As for the second part of your question:
I'll assume that you mean to say that anyone who posts at that site is considered a cronie of the proprietor.
posted on October 3, 2000 07:49:15 PM new
Well Spaz,
I'm not going to go and cut and paste thread info which would be a painful remembrance for the person who at the time felt very much as some do now, so suffice it to say that even though I did not respond to the ridiculous challenges of a very many members of this board, including you, I was reading them. I was heavily chastized, you should recall, for not responding and placing my trust in the PTB in AW to prove that I had not been the guilty party that so very many assumed I was.
I hope that you can remember better now, even in denial, at least sufficiently to go and search your own words if you doubt mine.
Whatever you do, be mindful that my comment upon the difference in your positioning between this here (your phrase, ) and that there (my attempt to find commonality) was a statement and not a question requiring an answer from you.
You have answered the two questions which I did ask.
I appreciate your voicing your displeasure about these events more than I can express. For me, of course, and also for the principle of it all.
I think what'll straighten this out better than anything else is seeing the truth. The claims were finally detailed by the instigator (the one who called in "the international authorities" ) in a post allowed to stand for all of about 30 minutes in the wee hours of the morning a few nights ago. Most of the conclusions she came to were based on posts I made right here in the RT, all of which, I believe, remain here unedited and undeleted. Remember Staysea's claims? Then remember reading her explanation for them? Dejavu all over again, folks.
But there are a couple differences this time. There are several people who'd like to see real harm come to me, and I think it's because I neither like nor respect them and I haven't taken pains to hide it. I have a lot of work to do in the human relations department, but nothing I've done warrants the wholesale character assassination they're attempting.
There's another difference, and I think it's important. I have a healthy respect for fear. It's vital to survival. The person who initiated the complaint (who, for identification purposes, I'll note has not posted in this thread) appeared to have genuine fears, and some cause for them, from what I read. I was not and am not the person behind the things she said happened to her off the AW site, and my AW record is right here for review, but I thought her feelings of fear--albeit not legitimately of me--were understandable. She misread, badly, a number of things I said here and put them together with a couple of things that happened off AW (which had nothing whatsoever to do with me), giving her a skewed perception that was likely fostered and enhanced by witting and malicious counsel given her by others, who seem to be using her for their own agenda.
I first want, selfishly but understandably, my name cleared, but I'd also really like it if that person's fears were allayed. As I said in my first reply on the previous page, I'll deal with this outside the AW site in detail, soon.
I wanted to personally thank you again for saving the thread the other night and sending it to me. I don't have the slightest idea what all this is about and like Granny Fox, I don't need to know. From where I sit though and from what I am reading, I think the character assassination appears to be a horrendous injustice and very painful. I thought the same thing last year when KRS was going through a similar circumstance. I don't know either one of you. I like alot of posters that you seem at odds with but I still think what has happened to you is grossly unfair unless someone has proof. That so far does not appear to be the case.
I wish you the very best outcome with all of this.
~~Redhead~~
\"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider
that the limit of our power of perception is also the
limit of all there is to perceive.\"--C.W.L.
posted on October 3, 2000 08:33:06 PM new
Sure thing, Grannyfox. In a few days. I guess I'll be addressing the unanswered question you so eloquently asked of the the scandal sponsor exactly ten days ago.
It was posted elsewhere but it is about here. This is where it should be being discussed not there. Does that make sense? 
