Typing someone’s name does not alert them to anything. They get notified when someone TAGS them in a post by using the @ in front of their name, like @CurrentlyHorseless. That’s why people have asked you to stop tagging them repeatedly - all the notifications get annoying. And when people ignore such requests and continue tagging rather than simply typing someone’s name (a favourite Yankee Duchess move), it starts to look like a deliberate attempt to irritate them.
18 Likes
Is that a standard timeframe for another evaluation to happen or just an example?
I was the one who pointed out the scenario to FitzE, because I was trying to remember if it was you or someone else who had accused Fitz of going after me. So no, it doesn’t appear to me that FitzE is following you or your activities. So, if you’d like to be upset with anyone, I suppose you can be mad at me, but I inquired because unlike others, I don’t lob accusations without corroborating and finding evidence first.
I also haven’t seen “daily” “jabs” in any way, shape, or form by FitzE towards you. Today appears to be a reaction to the similarities between today’s incident and that one from a few months back - for which I don’t believe you ever provided evidence of, nor apologized for, by the way.
And, surely you don’t mean “daily” “jabs”? That sounds like a gross exaggeration. Do you have evidence of daily jabs?
16 Likes
I have been careful not to tag you, since you mentioned that.
On the other hand Eggbutt at first missed my apology to her because I was responding to the poster who provided the quote, and I hadn’t tagged Eggbutt. In retrospect, she probably would have liked to be alerted.
I would prefer to be tagged when someone is “talking about” me, so that I’m aware of what they’re saying. Also, I’m not sure I have the bandwidth to remember exactly which posters prefer not to be tagged and which prefer to be tagged, but have noted your preference.
On the post you are referring to, even though neither I nor Cutter tagged anyone, if a poster who has me on ignore happens to read Cutter’s response mentioning her name, without tagging, she’ll know she is being discussed. That was Cutter’s point and what I meant by “alerted”. I know she wouldn’t receive a system alert.
I receive tons of notifications, partly because of trubandloki’s QFPing of everything I post. I find it annoying for several reasons. Should I request she not do it? I have a feeling she would ignore the request.
1 Like
Some time ago, I reported that in my reading of the exchange between FitzE and you, my perception was that she was vicious. It was a report of my perception of the exchange. Sort of similar to your perception of how RND attacked others.
You came on and said you had not felt attacked. Great. You have a thicker skin than I. Are you doubting that I, in my perception, found the exchange cringeworthy? I never said you complained. Indeed, you later said it hadn’t bothered you at all.
I’m not compiling the latest set of jabs. I’m just saying that her claim of “non engagement” rings pretty hollow.
1 Like
I still to this day do not know which “exhange” you found vicious. You never quoted it, screenshot it, or pointed to a post # in a thread. So, I have no clue why your perception would be what it is/was. With regards to RND, it was not simply my perception of posts towards others, as much of that poster’s vitriol was directed at ME, nor was it my perception alone, clearly, as the repeated behavior demonstrated by that user got them banned. So I do not see a parallel.
12 Likes
Not sure who you are asking.
If you’re asking me, feel free to tag me!
Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye!!!
8 Likes
I replied to your post.
2 Likes
Correct. Much like you reported your reaction today to a post that was not made by the person you claimed it was… now are the dots all connecting?
14 Likes
@CurrentlyHorseless (tagging as requested) I’m not sure what it is you want on this thread. What do you want everyone on this thread to do for or too you because it seems no one can do much to your liking. Honestly, I’m not trying to antagonize or frustrate you but very specifically what is it you want from any or all posters here? Tag, hide, ignore, respond, QFP, what? Please lay out your rules of engagement and everyone can decide if they want to follow them. Okay please?
9 Likes
I had a discussion recently with a friend about the trial, specifically regarding the 911 call and the 1st officer arrival on the scene.
She said that most police are trained when approaching a suspect who may have a gun to say “police, don’t move” and then they proceed to talk them through the procedure of what they want them to do as far as getting the suspect handcuffed, etc. She said that police used to say “show your hands” but then the suspect might shoot them or police would think they were being shot at when the person did move their hands. She does not think police should threaten to kill someone if they move as was done on the 911 call as it may cause a suspect to panic and escalate the danger rather than to diffuse it. She also mentioned that a suspect could be deaf, could be injured and not be able to follow commands and that there may also be a language barrier. She said police are supposed to train in these situations so when faced with a real life dangerous situation they can fall back on their training.
I was wondering what others thought especially anyone with a LE background.
**forgot to mention friend is an attorney and is very pro defendant rights
14 Likes
I’ve said that I’d appreciate FitzE genuinely declining to engage with, or “comment about” me, even when making comments without using my name.
I’d like trubandloki, and others to drop the incessant QFPing. It’s pointless and annoying.
2 Likes
@CurrentlyHorseless and if they don’t chose to do what you want? The need for control is an interesting trait.
May I suggest that you take a break from this thread since it seems it is frustrating to you and you contribute little to the conversation of the hearing or upcoming civil trials? Clearly you are aggravated with several posters.
What may be pointless and annoying to you is beneficial and important to them. Can’t you simply ignore what bothers you?
21 Likes
That’s the longest a civil commitment can be without a second hearing to show the commitment needs to be prolonged. But it can’t be longer than a year no matter what.
I expect the criminal side will be on either a 3 month or 6 month “cycle,” simply based on the pressure the facility is probably under to have beds, and the fact that many legal time-frames seem to be divisible by 3.
8 Likes
My need for control? You asked me what my preferences were. You asked me to enumerate “very specifically”. Why did you come on and address this question to me?
I have no illusion that anyone will be inclined to “do what I want”.
My bad for not catching on that you were just baiting me.
I would think that others are similarly annoyed with the QFPing, but having the quotes clutter up the threads is just as annoying to others as it is to the targets.
4 Likes
From what I’ve found in my digging, in NJ, starting from date of initial commitment hearing, it’s 3 months post hearing, 6 months post hearing, then jumps to a year, and is annual after that. Hearings can be requested more frequently. And hearings are far less frequent once they’re out and under just community supervision.
12 Likes
That sounds reasonable, so there are three hearings the first year, and probably there is a good sense whether the person is going to make progress, and if so, what kind. After that first year, the progress arc is better known, and there’s stability of a sort so more frequent hearing are only as needed.
8 Likes
It does seem like a good balance. Plus, they have that option to request a hearing in the in-between times.
6 Likes
