2 Likes
It was a highlight of my year, I’ll tell you that. I felt like I had really made it. The first hit was the NY Times article and my non horsey boss was AGHAST.
6 Likes
And if she saw those posts, were they in any way fat shaming, as she was “speculating”? No. Did she say “I saw her in the OT thread pushing nutrition?”
I am in the ER, and will be for hours.
2 Likes
I can’t see YD’s posts so have no idea what she’s saying to make me look bad lol. Surely she has better things to do with her time?
11 Likes
Yeah. And @Sdel literally named you by screen name in his/her last (??) post on the other thread- informing you that your posts “made the cut,” into “legal arguments.” Is Sdel lying?
If I recall, your response was “Yeah, I’m not so happy about that. Getting dragged into this mess wasn’t in my list of things to do.”
To be clear- any person to whom I’ve sent a pm, whether through flagging & “requesting to speak to user privately,” or otherwise, is welcome to respond, “please don’t contact me personally on pm.” That instruction would be followed. I’ve asked this of certain users & they continued…… THAT is harassment. However, engaging in the pm discussion- then cherry picking only pieces to display is the opposite of making the aforementioned “no pm contact,” statement. Just as engaging in a multi page “back n forth,” (on ANY SM platform-) then crying “Harassment,” (legally speaking) would be considered “frivolous.”
According to COTH rules, there are 2 things one can do to cease pm contact with a user here: 1.) Block/ignore
2.) state in your reply that you do not wish to be contacted, personally, again.
According to the LAW - anyone who states they do not wish to be contacted - but continue to make libelous, fictitious, damaging and/or harmful statements (like, “LK has photos of her ‘matching Ruger’ on Fb,” - an egregious lie - or “LK is responsible for ALL the blame in the shooting, she threatened & harassed the shooter,” - ALSO an egregious lie - etc) can be served a “C & D,” followed by summons or suit if the behavior continues.
This is NOT a “threatening,” statement. It is literally how criminal & civil law work. Feel free to google it- it’s public information.
3 Likes
Yawn.
24 Likes
If you have me blocked (not sure I believe that), why speculate where I might or might not be? Just another reason to throw in a “she’s probably off somewhere fat shaming?”
You are doing a fabulous job illustrating that, no matter what I say or don’t say, you’re going to attribute to me a narrative of fat shaming.
As you know, it takes a millisecond to unhide a post if you want to peek.
4 Likes
how is it ok that YD is allowed to post and insight inflammatory posts on this thread- yet I got posts removed and was told by moderator1 that my posts were flagged and removed for posting my opinion ? which were milld, all things considered…
24 Likes
I’ve wondered the same thing.
14 Likes
“Yawn,” was as about as opposite a reply could be from you, when @Sdel informed you your posts had “made the cut,” into “legal arguments justifying the request.”
FTR- I am not Sdel. I do not know who Sdel is. I have some good guesses- but, that’s all they’d be. Guesses.
And, FWIW- I have not yet been deposed. Therefore, it’s very likely that subpoenas following last month’s hearing have not yet been dispensed/served. It’s also equally unlikely they will not be. Just going by Sdel’s remarks - one can judge for him/herself whether this poster is telling the truth wrt “things to come,” …… or not. If at 2 am I used the word “was,” rather than “will,” or the phrase, “will likely be,” - I think we can call that a truthful, perhaps, sleep depraved mistake. But definitely NOT “dishonest.” CERTAINLY not purposefully “dishonest.” You (g) run with information handed to you by possibly, THE most dishonest posters- with very obvious agendas and virtually ZERO factual information. But uh…… you label statements made by @Sdel - “lies,” suddenly, Bc I (more or less) agreed with it? If I called Sdel’s previously quoted statement “lies,” - would Sdel’s remarks then be “true,” Bc I disagreed with it? Can’t have it both ways.
Lemme give you some info. Any documents which “make the cut,” to be used in court (as Sdel mentioned) lead to …. Ugh. Never mind. Someone else can explain “the scope,” and it’s legal definitions/ramifications/justifications, etc.
1 Like
Because the posts were flagged by “someone” and the moderators had to make decisions based on the policies. Others’ posts weren’t flagged apparently. The Chronicle has a small staff and doesn’t monitor the forum 24/7 so they aren’t monitoring hundreds of posts a day. Someone went back through many of the old threads and flagged many posts. Some were edited, some removed and some left alone. We all can do the same thing to police the threads and flag them for the mods to review.
9 Likes
Let’s put this thread back on pause until there’s some further concrete developments in the case.
10 Likes
