Barisone/Kanarek Legal Filings (Public Record)

[smoofox]

@YankeeDuchess

It was one of the insane political ones where you claim “anything goes” and “conspiracies are the norm**

Ummmm no. Not one of the political threads here comes even close to what I was referring to - OUT THERE. ~ waves at the interwebz~

Apparently it is not the case that “anything goes”, even in the insane political threads when someone in the minority does something “frowned upon”. On the other hand, even in the dressage forum, a significant gang can lob insults at and disparage a single target with impunity. You’ve pretty much confirmed that the application of the (discretionary) standards depends a lot of whether you’re in the majority (or significant group) or small minority or singleton.

Huh? I “confirmed” nothing - you are always reading things into comments that are not there. There was no “significant gang” no matter how hard you insist that was the case. There were 3 or 4 vociferous posters… hardly a gang… going back and forth with LK. And yet again - you imply otherwise. Your theory about the majority vs the minority conspiracy influencing the “application of standards”… is without substance.

Your last point: just that the moderating is at the moderator’s discretion? Well obviously. I just understand better the application of the discretion.

I disagree. You have made it abundantly clear that you “apply” rules as you see fit (and no one else) and assign motives and agendas where there are none.

I agree that it’s all the moderator’s discretion, and perhaps easier to resolve these conflicts in favor of the majority. This will of course amplify the lopsided nature of these (non) discussions as more of the few people in the minority leave, but perhaps that is what they want.

I never really thought of “majority rules” in a discussion. But now I see it.

Again, you seem to have created an agenda and assigned motives that do not exist to play some sort of victim game… I am rarely in the majority… and I see and have seen… nothing of the sort.

In case it is not obvious… my replies in blue.

And yes, eggbutt… another YD thread. Sometimes you just need to have a chat/discussion as opposed to ignoring.

[FitzE]

100% this. The people who not only go on and on within threads being combative with one poster after the next, but then also do the cyber investigating, stalking, PMing, and mystery quoting of posts over a year old are not behaving normally.

[Scribbler]

General comment.

The civil Court filing upthread states that LK is believed to be or have been a drug user including heroin, to own a gun, to have had prior interactions with LE, etc. That document is public domain. It’s drawn up by folks involved in the actual case.

But my point is also that when LK started posting as herself the quality and content of the posts made all the earlier chitchat about these things appear credible. She is her own worst enemy on these threads.

[BigMama1]

@YankeeDuchess

I shared the educational creds with one poster, but not the identity. A couple others requested the information by PM and I did not respond. I shared none of it publicly.

But you didn’t just quietly do this cyberstalking for your own benefit and just share the info with one person on the downlow. If they had been the case nobody would have known about your creepy behaviour and nobody would have cared.

You publicly posted in a thread, boasting about having uncovered her identity IRL and creeping her various profile pages to confirm her credentials. The fact that you don’t see anything wrong with your actions should be shocking, but given your history I’m guessing nobody here is shocked at all.

[Jealoushe]

Ok but posters in this thread have done exactly the same thing to LK. Not sticking up for YD at all but y’all play the same games.

[trubandloki]

@Jealoushe

Ok but posters in this thread have done exactly the same thing to LK

LK posted her personal information. The person YD researched did not. That is a huge cavernous different between those two situations.

[BigMama1]

@trubandloki

LK posted her personal information. The person YD researched did not. That is a huge cavernous different between those two situations.

Bingo

[YankeeDuchess]

@smoofox

@YankeeDuchess

It was one of the insane political ones where you claim “anything goes” and “conspiracies are the norm**

Ummmm no. Not one of the political threads here comes even close to what I was referring to - OUT THERE. ~ waves at the interwebz~

Apparently it is not the case that “anything goes”, even in the insane political threads when someone in the minority does something “frowned upon”. On the other hand, even in the dressage forum, a significant gang can lob insults at and disparage a single target with impunity. You’ve pretty much confirmed that the application of the (discretionary) standards depends a lot of whether you’re in the majority (or significant group) or small minority or singleton.

Huh? I “confirmed” nothing - you are always reading things into comments that are not there. There was no “significant gang” no matter how hard you insist that was the case. There were 3 or 4 vociferous posters… hardly a gang… going back and forth with LK. And yet again - you imply otherwise. Your theory about the majority vs the minority conspiracy influencing the “application of standards”… is without substance.

Your last point: just that the moderating is at the moderator’s discretion? Well obviously. I just understand better the application of the discretion.

I disagree. You have made it abundantly clear that you “apply” rules as you see fit (and no one else) and assign motives and agendas where there are none.

I agree that it’s all the moderator’s discretion, and perhaps easier to resolve these conflicts in favor of the majority. This will of course amplify the lopsided nature of these (non) discussions as more of the few people in the minority leave, but perhaps that is what they want.

I never really thought of “majority rules” in a discussion. But now I see it.

Again, you seem to have created an agenda and assigned motives that do not exist to play some sort of victim game… I am rarely in the majority… and I see and have seen… nothing of the sort.

In case it is not obvious… my replies in blue.

And yes, eggbutt… another YD thread. Sometimes you just need to have a chat/discussion as opposed to ignoring.

This is our usual disagreement, so I won’t respond to most points (see previous exchanges).

Re insane political topics, it was a Covid thread, but the topic of the moment was: Is considering the Wuhan lab leak scenario a serious possibility, or racist right wing conspiracy crap? Is there something more political than that? No.

I can easily recap how it went;

BigMama1: No intelligent person or reputable scientist gives a shred of credence to lab leak.

YD: There’s some recent reputable information on this and I think lab leak is conceivable, and frankly slightly more plausible than natural origin at this point. Here’s why I take it seriously. But we don’t know for sure.

Poster: You’re wrong, and I’m a professional scientist with a PhD in biology and you’re not; you should not post on this. The lab leak theory is conspiracy theory with zero credence, and [expletive].

So a month later on this topic, which of these opposing positions is looking better?

I think my real offense is daring to state an opinion different from @BigMama1.

What thread or topic is more politically charged than Wuhan lab leak? Whose position looks better informed and better reasoned at this point?

[YankeeDuchess]

@BigMama1

@trubandloki

LK posted her personal information. The person YD researched did not. That is a huge cavernous different between those two situations.

Bingo

The person YD identified (privately, and did not out) voluntarily disclosed, bragged about in fact, enough identifying information that precious little effort was required to connect the dots. Her screen name was hardly consistent with someone who wanted anonymity, either.

Did I post that I was Lauren/Lauren’s mother/her lawyer/her sister? Did I use a screen name like LKmom?

[Angela_Freda]

@YankeeDuchess

I have wanted to maintain my anonymity, and therefore and guarded about what identifying information I disclose. Despite my wanting you remain anonymous, numerous posters publicly attempted to out me, numerous times. It happens they were wrong. To me, it seems the offense lies in the attempt, even if one takes a swing and misses. Sort of like attempted murder - it’s the thought that counts.

@YankeeDuchess

I shared one piece of information on her educational creds with one poster in a private message.

If the offense lies in the attempt to dox, you clearly are guilty of said offense.

Regardless of if its in the rules, pages and pages on every forum on COTH make it pretty clear this is not acceptable.
Like pulling the mane of a horse that’s not yours.
There doesn’t need to be a rule, because we ALL know its not acceptable.

No matter how many times you try to say what you did somehow wasn’t what it clearly was. That your disagreement with another member, over her learned opinions on a matter, which your own credentials clearly are no match for, inspired you to do that, to find her identity and then tell someone, those actions are horrible.

@YankeeDuchess

The person YD identified (privately, and did not out) voluntarily disclosed, bragged about in fact, enough identifying information that previous little effort was required to connect the dots. Her screen name was hardly insistent with someone who wanted anonymity, either.

There was no bragging. Her credentials are clearly earned, and her thoughts during this time have helped many.

You will now be ignored once again. Before I say something I shouldn’t.

[YankeeDuchess]

@BigMama1

@YankeeDuchess

I shared the educational creds with one poster, but not the identity. A couple others requested the information by PM and I did not respond. I shared none of it publicly.

But you didn’t just quietly do this cyberstalking for your own benefit and just share the info with one person on the downlow. If they had been the case nobody would have known about your creepy behaviour and nobody would have cared.

You publicly posted in a thread, boasting about having uncovered her identity IRL and creeping her various profile pages to confirm her credentials. The fact that you don’t see anything wrong with your actions should be shocking, but given your history I’m guessing nobody here is shocked at all.

Again, context. Poster talked mostly about her (vague) but lofty academic credentials in biology in comparison with the lack thereof of other posters and responded to their substantive posts on the topic with “you should not be posting”. She rarely bothered to address the substance of a post. She made it an issue of academic credentials, and then was outraged when I checked out the institutions which granted her bragged about advanced degrees.

[Sdel]

@trubandloki

LK posted her personal information. The person YD researched did not. That is a huge cavernous different between those two situations.

And then LK repeatedly vaguely referenced “things that were posted” to Facebook in her replies to posters on this thread as if she was encouraging them to go search for it.

[YankeeDuchess]

@BigMama1

@YankeeDuchess

I shared the educational creds with one poster, but not the identity. A couple others requested the information by PM and I did not respond. I shared none of it publicly.

But you didn’t just quietly do this cyberstalking for your own benefit and just share the info with one person on the downlow. If they had been the case nobody would have known about your creepy behaviour and nobody would have cared.

You publicly posted in a thread, boasting about having uncovered her identity IRL and creeping her various profile pages to confirm her credentials. The fact that you don’t see anything wrong with your actions should be shocking, but given your history I’m guessing nobody here is shocked at all.

One profile page. Her LinkedIn page. I assume you can opt out of having your professional information posted on LinkedIn if you desire. She wrote the profile and posted it.

I was implicitly threatening to convey some of that information to a view other users (in the end only) one.) Which is hostile. But in comparison with hostility and viciousness directed at LK and at me? Context. Proportionality.

@BigMama1: Have you altered your priors on the possibility of lab leak vs natural origin? Still think that only racist, Trumpist morons are sucked into that conspiracy theory?

[Moderator_1]

I verified that the Chronicle has not been subpoenaed for any user (or other) information related to this case, and has not otherwise disclosed it.

[Angela_Freda]

Yup, super creepy.
And juvenile.

[Sdel]

Thank you for informing us Moderator1.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Sdel

@trubandloki

LK posted her personal information. The person YD researched did not. That is a huge cavernous different between those two situations.

And then LK repeatedly vaguely referenced “things that were posted” to Facebook in her replies to posters on this thread as if she was encouraging them to go search for it.

You mean sort of like poster continuously bragging about her academic creds compared to others’ in a useless field, but not providing specifics?

[Knights_Mom]

QFP

So it is clear that the threats and statements made to me by LK ARE A LIE.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO SUBPOENAS DISCLOSING IDENTITIES

And just so its clear

[ASB_Stars]

@YankeeDuchess

Again, context. Poster talked mostly about her (vague) but lofty academic credentials in biology in comparison with the lack thereof of other posters and responded to their substantive posts on the topic with “you should not be posting”. She rarely bothered to address the substance of a post. She made it an issue of academic credentials, and then was outraged when I checked out the institutions which granted her bragged about advanced degrees.

IMA try to make this simple: NODODY EFFING CARES!

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

[smoofox]

@YankeeDuchess

I think my real offense is daring to state an opinion different from @BigMama1 .

How very daring!

Yeeeeeah no. Many of us have had a different opinion than BigMama1 at times - so that particular victim card is out of play.

Again, context. Poster talked mostly about her (vague) but lofty academic credentials in biology in comparison with the lack thereof of other posters and responded to their substantive posts on the topic with “you should not be posting”.

Ooooh… the irony of the part I bolded. Context indeed. And a heaping dose of potkettleblack (see previous exchanges).

YD - it seems that you feel like you are dumbing it down to have to converse with us… that you will worry at a point/issue like a frenzied terrier until you have shredded it into dust and beaten everyone else over the head with it until they are numb… and yet still keep at it. Sadly, none of that is conducive to the good discussions that you always claim to want. Maybe it is fun for you in some way - as someone suggested upthread… but that is a rather strange idea of “fun”.

I love great discussions - especially with people I disagree with. There have been awesome threads on COTH that got very heated, sorted themselves out and carried on… and no one felt the need to flag anything for the mods and announce that fact, no one got vicious, no one flounced out, no one was bullied… etc. etc. etc.

And I forget who said this earlier - but they are right. LK truly is her own worst enemy here with her posts and PMs. Many of us were concerned starting with her very first posts in those early Barisone threads and advised her not to post, to rant, to rage… not to engage the very few* who sought to get her riled up… that she was only shooting herself in the foot… and yet, here we are.

*as opposed to… well, everyone. As per YD.