Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

IM’s posts are still there. The mods worked on them a bit.

The post of lies is not there. Well, the part that was full of lies is not. That does not mean it did not happen, that does not mean that Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) did not lie.

[BigMama1]

Reposting this crazy rant just confirms how ignorant LK was of real world costs, or how delusional she was. The reference to paying top dollar and being the #1 money source are hilarious and sad. They show just how out of depth she was. Imagine thinking $5k/month was top dollar in that situation.

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

Everyone mentioned seemed well into adulthood so I never understood the panic over SafeSport since never a whisper has been mentioned about minors.

Well, until LK filed the SS report and checked the box that stated that the situation involved physical/sexual abuse of minors.

She was on the early threads crowing about it. LK is the one who created that “panic”

There was not a way to check a box that said bullying only a box that was inclusive of all sub categories.

Then an honest person would not check the box that says physical or sexual abuse, since bullying is neither of those things.

There may have been a subcategory below but my point was the box she checked did not differentiate. The prosecutor said and the DCCP person testified that no sexual abuse was reported.

How would there be a sub category about bullying under the category of physical or sexual abuse since bullying (which did not happen to the kids either, but going along with your insistence that is what Lauren meant, though I am not sure how you would know what Lauren meant) is not physical or sexual abuse?

That is not even logical. Not even slightly logical.

[Sdel]

@hut-ho78

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

Everyone mentioned seemed well into adulthood so I never understood the panic over SafeSport since never a whisper has been mentioned about minors.

Well, until LK filed the SS report and checked the box that stated that the situation involved physical/sexual abuse of minors.

She was on the early threads crowing about it. LK is the one who created that “panic”

There was not a way to check a box that said bullying only a box that was inclusive of all sub categories.

Then an honest person would not check the box that says physical or sexual abuse, since bullying is neither of those things.

There may have been a subcategory below but my point was the box she checked did not differentiate. The prosecutor said and the DCCP person testified that no sexual abuse was reported.

It’s interesting how the nobody who doesn’t know LK somehow knows the details of how LK checked the boxes. The only thing we saw was a tiny snippet of the report with no commentary on who (LK or an SS employee) actually filled out the box we saw….

Maybe someone is getting nervous about KK’s subpoena responses.

[Angela_Freda]

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

Everyone mentioned seemed well into adulthood so I never understood the panic over SafeSport since never a whisper has been mentioned about minors.

Well, until LK filed the SS report and checked the box that stated that the situation involved physical/sexual abuse of minors.

Probably because she knew that was how to get traction

[Angela_Freda]

@MHM

@Knights_Mom

Yes maybe she was stressed because several years prior she was divorced.

Was it LK’s ex-husband who filed a restraining order against her? Maybe that’s stressful

Actually her ex was probably stressed by her antics. It might be interesting to hear from him

[BrownDerby]

Agree. She had no idea of how much she presented herself as a backyarder. Halt, halt.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

That is a personal attack. If you disagree with her or anyone, you can ignore them or respond with why. You an even provide links for where you found information. Just a one line insult continues to distract from the conversation about the subject.

Your loyalty to CH is admirable, but I really don’t see this as a personal attack. In a previous thread I certainly did provide CH with multiple screenshots to counter her point of “IM has not said untrue things” and her reaction was “he was being sarcastic” or “I don’t believe” what IM posted.

So yes, her refusal to admit that IM has outright lied and bluffed on these boards has weakened her credibility to me.

1. What I said is that I find IM very credible and have relied on his posts to understand the tragedy. On his statement that MB never asked LK to leave, I think that that may be true, given that MB was acting irrationally. I have no way of knowing for a fact that MB never asked them to leave, but it definitely seems possible to me.
2. As evidence of IM supposedly lying, there were two screenshots. In one, IM said something like ‘Clearly I have no inside information.” Since the preceding sentences could only have been made based on inside information, the disavowal was clearly said sarcastically. It was not a lie. On the other hand, posters who dishonestly pretended that they did not see the sarcasm so that they could call it a lie, were the dishonest ones.
3. The other statement made by IM was that USEF knew the identities of “all” the discussion participants. I don’t believe that statement to be true. I think it is an exaggeration or a bluff.
4. Despite interpreting that particular statement to be an exaggeration, bluff, or untruth, I generally still view IM as very credible.
5. You are perfectly within your rights to view me as having “weakened credibility”.

[Sdel]

@BrownDerby

Agree. She had no idea of how much she presented herself as a backyarder. Halt, halt.

Maybe that is why MB was so nice to work out “alternative” agreements with her at the beginning so that she could even get in the door.

[Knights_Mom]

There are people in this world who live by always pushing the envelope. They’ve been taught that pushing the envelope usually has no consequences. In this case LK filed the false report but nothing has happened to her because of it. There has been no penalty from the organization.

These types of people might not end up benefitting from the false report. This particular report undoubtedly led to a series of shocking events though.

Taking such a risk by filing a fake report might not bear any fruit but given it seems to be without risk of penalty its a calculated risk and worth a shot. That’s how they think.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

That is a personal attack. If you disagree with her or anyone, you can ignore them or respond with why. You an even provide links for where you found information. Just a one line insult continues to distract from the conversation about the subject.

Your loyalty to CH is admirable, but I really don’t see this as a personal attack. In a previous thread I certainly did provide CH with multiple screenshots to counter her point of “IM has not said untrue things” and her reaction was “he was being sarcastic” or “I don’t believe” what IM posted.

So yes, her refusal to admit that IM has outright lied and bluffed on these boards has weakened her credibility to me.

1. What I said is that I find IM very credible and have relied on his posts to understand the tragedy. On his statement that MB never asked LK to leave, I think that that may be true, given that MB was acting irrationally. I have no way of knowing for a fact that MB never asked them to leave, but it definitely seems possible to me.
2. As evidence of IM supposedly lying, there were two screenshots. In one, IM said something like ‘Clearly I have no inside information.” Since the preceding sentences could only have been made based on inside information, the disavowal was clearly said sarcastically. It was not a lie. On the other hand, posters who dishonestly pretended that they did not see the sarcasm so that they could call it a lie, were the dishonest ones.
3. The other statement made by IM was that USEF knew the identities of “all” the discussion participants. I don’t believe that statement to be true. I think it is an exaggeration or a bluff.
4. Despite interpreting that particular statement to be an exaggeration, bluff, or untruth, I generally still view IM as very credible.
5. You are perfectly within your rights to view me as having “weakened credibility”.

Generally speaking you are the only person who felt Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) was being sarcastic in that post. Everyone else read it as him attempting to threaten people. It fits the style of threats that Lauren Kanarek uses and we all know that she has learned her trade from her father.

But that aside, wondering how the police report thing is going? Ya know, the one you posted that you had read but we all know you did not read… I am sure your above post is just as accurate as that post was, right?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@hut-ho78

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

Everyone mentioned seemed well into adulthood so I never understood the panic over SafeSport since never a whisper has been mentioned about minors.

Well, until LK filed the SS report and checked the box that stated that the situation involved physical/sexual abuse of minors.

She was on the early threads crowing about it. LK is the one who created that “panic”

There was not a way to check a box that said bullying only a box that was inclusive of all sub categories.

Then an honest person would not check the box that says physical or sexual abuse, since bullying is neither of those things.

There may have been a subcategory below but my point was the box she checked did not differentiate. The prosecutor said and the DCCP person testified that no sexual abuse was reported.

It’s interesting how the nobody who doesn’t know LK somehow knows the details of how LK checked the boxes. The only thing we saw was a tiny snippet of the report with no commentary on who (LK or an SS employee) actually filled out the box we saw….

Maybe someone is getting nervous about KK’s subpoena responses.

Oh, so it might have been a SS employee who completed the form based on a phone conversation with LK?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

Generally speaking you are the only person who felt Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) was being sarcastic in that post. Everyone else read it as him attempting to threaten people. It fits the style of threats that Lauren Kanarek uses and we all know that she has learned her trade from her father.

But that aside, wondering how the police report thing is going? Ya know, the one you posted that you had read but we all know you did not read… I am sure your above post is just as accurate as that post was, right?

Really? No one else thought it was sarcasm? Even after I pointed out how it obviously was? I just don’t find it “credible” that most of the posters here failed to recognize the sarcasm.

ETA Why do you think you can characterize the interpretation of all readers by saying “Generally speaking, you are the only person …”. Sounds like a bluff to me.

[Sdel]

Just as a review. Clearly the lie was that SS was monitoring us all and knew who we all were.

[Unfforgettable]

There is an address, yes. If you need it, PM me.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

Generally speaking you are the only person who felt Jonathan Kanarek (@Inigo-montoya) was being sarcastic in that post. Everyone else read it as him attempting to threaten people. It fits the style of threats that Lauren Kanarek uses and we all know that she has learned her trade from her father.

But that aside, wondering how the police report thing is going? Ya know, the one you posted that you had read but we all know you did not read… I am sure your above post is just as accurate as that post was, right?

Really? No one else thought it was sarcasm? Even after I pointed out how it obviously was? I just don’t find it “credible” that most of the posters here failed to recognize the sarcasm.

Well, since you do not KNOW it is sarcasm, you are assuming it is sarcasm, and Jonathan Kanarek did not say it was sarcasm I do not find it weird that most people do not read it as sarcasm.

I find your sarcasm insistence to make it not a lie as believable as your police report comment.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@hut-ho78

@trubandloki

@hut-ho78

@BatCoach

@hut-ho78

Everyone mentioned seemed well into adulthood so I never understood the panic over SafeSport since never a whisper has been mentioned about minors.

Well, until LK filed the SS report and checked the box that stated that the situation involved physical/sexual abuse of minors.

She was on the early threads crowing about it. LK is the one who created that “panic”

There was not a way to check a box that said bullying only a box that was inclusive of all sub categories.

Then an honest person would not check the box that says physical or sexual abuse, since bullying is neither of those things.

There may have been a subcategory below but my point was the box she checked did not differentiate. The prosecutor said and the DCCP person testified that no sexual abuse was reported.

It’s interesting how the nobody who doesn’t know LK somehow knows the details of how LK checked the boxes. The only thing we saw was a tiny snippet of the report with no commentary on who (LK or an SS employee) actually filled out the box we saw….

Maybe someone is getting nervous about KK’s subpoena responses.

Oh, so it might have been a SS employee who completed the form based on a phone conversation with LK?

She said her conversation with the SS investigator was recorded and it was her follow up when she told them “about the kids”.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

Just as a review. Clearly the lie was that SS was monitoring us all and knew who we all were.

Thanks for posting that. He refers to “frequent contributors”, so perhaps the reference to “everyone’s identities” just refers to the “frequent contributors”, perhaps 4 or 5 people.

It’s not as far fetched as I’d thought.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

Just as a review. Clearly the lie was that SS was monitoring us all and knew who we all were.

Thanks for posting that. He refers to “frequent contributors”, so perhaps the reference to “everyone’s identities” just refers to the “frequent contributors”, perhaps 4 or 5 people.

It’s not as far fetched as I’d thought.

I have this bridge for sale. It’s a famous bridge. An awesome bridge.

[Sdel]

Perhaps @Moderator_1 would be willing to settle the issue? The only way for SS to know the identities of the posters is for SS to have subpoenaed CotH to provide the user information. Since IM/JK asserted that SS knew the identities, then if there was no subpoena then that would clearly be a lie. If SS did subpoena the user information, perhaps Mod1 would be kind enough to let us know who was being watched by SS.