MB CIVIL SUIT UPDATE #10 K’s Request to Adjourn (delay) DENIED 11/01/22

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

No. But the 48 Hours presenter stated it as fact after interviewing him, and apparently is not worried about getting sued for libel.

Has Michael even been in a position to watch the 48 hours episode? Not everyone is as sue happy over libel/defamation as the Ks. Also, it hasn’t been that long. It can take a while to get a lawsuit started. Maybe you just need to give it some time. Not everyone is in a rush. Some might decide to take their time to get their ducks in a row so the can avoid making a mis-step.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@BigMama1

@SierraMist

No matter what LK did to cause CPS to investigate, or fire marshals to investigate, and all the other BS that went on, he was wrong to even drive down to that house to confront LK.

One MAJOR flaw in this line of reasoning; he couldn’t have been driving to the house to confront LK. As far as Michael knew LK and RG had been ordered to vacate by the fire marshall and had left the premises. He had no reason to believe they would be at the house that morning.

He drove to the house in the early afternoon, about 2:00. LK and RG had probably been seen around the barns by then that day.

Why did he get in the truck and drive to the house other than to confront them?

So then you’re calling LK and the RG liars? Because they both testified under oath in open court in front of the jury that MB was contrite and quiet when he pulled up.

[ekat]

@trubandloki

You make a very good point.

It was the responsible thing to do, actually, to go to the house and assess the amount necessary to meet the requirements of the fire marshal.

Especially since the Fire Marshall said they were going to go back that day to inspect what they got the video of from LK.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

So what? Whatever his motivation, the prosecutor proved his case to a higher standard of proof than Nagel will be required to meet.

The prosecutor LOST his case so he didn’t prove anything.

That’s that whole NG NGRI verdict thing.

[cutter99]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

Didn’t Lauren’s father, Jonathan Kanarek (look, I am intentionally not tagging him just for you, CH), say that was the main problem right in his 48 hours interview?

No, I don’t remember JK saying in the 48 Hours interview that LK was jealous of MHG.

The interviewer stated as background that MB had two women competing for his time and attention, LK and MHG.

He was without doubt a gifted rider and instructor. If MHG begrudged the time he was devoting to teaching LK, that was stress that MHG was putting on him. Has anyone claimed LK was trying to prevent him from coaching MHG?

Why would MHG begrudge him the time he was NOT devoting to teach LK, BECAUSE LK DID NOT SHOW UP FOR LESSONS MORE TIMES THAN NOT???

Both MK and MHG should have been more than upset for LK wasting their time by scheduling lessons and not showing up, not being a dedicated student who was conscious of wasting other people’s time and efforts!

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

It’s not much of an ignore feature if tag notifications come through (even if it is working properly).

Duh.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Jealoushe

Did not know that!

I did not know that either, and am not sure it’s true. I think the system says that the ignore feature blocks all notifications from the ignored poster, including tags.

Contrary to what Sdel asserted, I’ve been assuming that someone who actually has me on ignore will not be notified of responses, quoting, or tagging.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

I was aware that posts that should be hidden sometimes are not hidden.

If you’re now saying that even if it is working properly, tagging still sends a notification, that’s news to me. The system claims that it suppresses tagging notifications.

Are you certain that notifications of tagging are not suppressed (even when it is working properly)?

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Contrary to what Sdel asserted, I’ve been assuming that someone who actually has me on ignore will not be notified of responses, quoting, or tagging.

I’ve gotten your tags, even when you were on ignore. Direct evidence.

See the difference?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Contrary to what Sdel asserted, I’ve been assuming that someone who actually has me on ignore will not be notified of responses, quoting, or tagging.

I’ve gotten your tags, even when you were on ignore. Direct evidence.

Not necessarily.

You may have received them in the occasional lapses, but not regularly. I understood your claim to be that tags produced notifications even if the system was working properly.

In and case, if I tag a poster who has stated they have me on ignore, I’ve been assuming that they will not be notified.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

You may have received them in the occasional lapses, but not regularly. I understood your claim to be that tags produced notifications even if the system was working properly.

They do.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Contrary to what Sdel asserted, I’ve been assuming that someone who actually has me on ignore will not be notified of responses, quoting, or tagging.

I’ve gotten your tags, even when you were on ignore. Direct evidence.

See the difference?

No, that’s my point. It says that “ignore” is supposed to suppress all posts, notifications and PMs. Tagging is a notification which is supposed to be suppressed.

[Sdel]

I don’t expect you to believe me.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Contrary to what Sdel asserted, I’ve been assuming that someone who actually has me on ignore will not be notified of responses, quoting, or tagging.

I’ve gotten your tags, even when you were on ignore. Direct evidence.

Not necessarily.

You may have received them in the occasional lapses, but not regularly. I understood your claim to be that tags produced notifications even if the system was working properly.

In and case, if I tag a poster who has stated they have me on ignore, I’ve been assuming that they will not be notified.

Why would you tag someone who has stated they have you on ignore if you are assuming they will not be notified? There seems to be no reason to tag them if you are assuming they will not receive the notification. Strange for someone who is upset that I tag users who actively sign on and do not have people on ignore.

[MHM]

@trubandloki

@CanteringCarrot

Also, did someone really say that they know people who have been through more, worse, or worse for longer and coped better so MB had no excuse?

Yes they did! Yes really! They said that. Can you believe it?

And did not respond to questions on that subject.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

I don’t expect you to believe me.

Can we agree that based on the screenshot you provided, a user of the system would be led to believe that all posts, notifications including tagging and quoting, and PMs were suppressed?

That’s what it says, and that’s what I believed.

I understand the ignore function has glitches in which posts that should be hidden sometimes appear. I can believe that that glitch also appears occasionally in letting tags go through as notifications.

If tags always go through, despite that screen, that’s something I did not know. How would I?

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Can we agree that based on the screenshot you provided, a user of the system would be led to believe that all posts, notifications including tagging and quoting, and PMs were suppressed?

Well, I wish I had the screenshots to prove it, however Mod 1 edited/deleted them out and so the notification is gone.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Contrary to what Sdel asserted, I’ve been assuming that someone who actually has me on ignore will not be notified of responses, quoting, or tagging.

I’ve gotten your tags, even when you were on ignore. Direct evidence.

Not necessarily.

You may have received them in the occasional lapses, but not regularly. I understood your claim to be that tags produced notifications even if the system was working properly.

In and case, if I tag a poster who has stated they have me on ignore, I’ve been assuming that they will not be notified.

Why would you tag someone who has stated they have you on ignore if you are assuming they will not be notified? There seems to be no reason to tag them if you are assuming they will not receive the notification. Strange for someone who is upset that I tag users who actively sign on and do not have people on ignore.

Because repeatedly stating you have someone on ignore is different from putting someone on ignore.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Can we agree that based on the screenshot you provided, a user of the system would be led to believe that all posts, notifications including tagging and quoting, and PMs were suppressed?

Well, I wish I had the screenshots to prove it, however Mod 1 edited/deleted them out and so the notification is gone.

What?

We can all look at what the system says will happen when a user is on ignore. It says all posts, notifications, and PMs from an ignored user will be suppressed.

We can agree that a user would be led to believe that tagging did not produce a notification.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Contrary to what Sdel asserted, I’ve been assuming that someone who actually has me on ignore will not be notified of responses, quoting, or tagging.

I’ve gotten your tags, even when you were on ignore. Direct evidence.

Not necessarily.

You may have received them in the occasional lapses, but not regularly. I understood your claim to be that tags produced notifications even if the system was working properly.

In and case, if I tag a poster who has stated they have me on ignore, I’ve been assuming that they will not be notified.

Why would you tag someone who has stated they have you on ignore if you are assuming they will not be notified? There seems to be no reason to tag them if you are assuming they will not receive the notification. Strange for someone who is upset that I tag users who actively sign on and do not have people on ignore.

Because repeatedly stating you have someone on ignore is different from putting someone on ignore.

You know all too well about this little fact.

But it still makes no sense why someone would repeatedly tag someone who has them on ignore, unless the point is to annoy that person.