Nope, I merely read the lawsuit and made logical deductions. I believe I also posted that LK herself had mentioned it in one of the earlier threads and suggested you look it up.
I am positive others read the same response from her, and maybe captured screenshots. I am not going to search for you considering LK apparently had a field day recently sanitizing old posts (I don’t know this for a fact - simply what others indicated).
Ihave no direct contact but I absolutely believe you do, and furthermore, I don’t care if you do! It makes zero difference.
As @Mersidoats, stated, the police can put someone on a temporary psychiatric hold in order to be evaluated by a psychiatrist.
If the police are being blamed for failing to intervene by putting Barisone on s temporary psychiatric hold, I think it’s a legitimate question to ask why one of the other adults, not necessarily Cox, on the farm who cared about him did notice the impending mental breakdown and call his psychiatrist, physician, or 911.
I’ve asked you three times now how publicly posted information plus logic tells you that “Barisone’s lawyers know who called CPS and it wasn’t the police”, and you refuse to explain the “logic”.
You are now claiming that you “know for fact” that it was SS that called CPS because LK said something like that in an earlier thread? Why on earth would you suddenly believe a single statement in post of hers from a year ago when you have repeatedly said that you don’t believe anything she says, she is a liar, etc, etc?
I was the one who said in some of the earlier threads that I thought it was a possibility that her call to SS triggered a call from SS to CPS. I didn’t claim to know that for a fact, either then or now. My speculation to that effect was a minority opinion and met with the usual derision by you.
Who do you think I have “direct contact with”, @eggbutt? If it makes “zero difference” why do you keep making the accusation?
General posting question for all involved - what is the advantage of tagging the same poster several times in the same post? Is it an attempt to get them to have more notifications? Some type of power thing? More fun to tag than just put there name on the rest of the times you say it?
Certain posters totally enjoy asking the very same question over and over and over and over and over again, inclusive of long paragraph filled posts all saying the very same thing.
You just learn to scroll past it all. Give it a try, it will make your days much better.
I do not get this, either. You (g) quote them - so they are tagged/notified. Tagging them again - or more than once in a particular post - is just redundant and serves no actual purpose.
ANY opinion (not just a perceived “minority opinion”) that is repeated ad infinitum and at great length, tends to get reactions and/or dismissals - as it just becomes predictable static/white noise.
Along the same lines - were two threads about the court filings really needed?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but being a Duchess, I simply favor the formal form of address and use the actual screen name. For example, I would refer to you formally by your proper screen name, @trubandloki, rather than presume familiarity by referring to you as “trub” or “loki” or “T&L”.
Is tagging someone in a post against forum rules? I know that personal insults and snide remarks are “not acceptable”, but assumed that tagging a poster by using the formal screen name was permitted. Doesn’t the platform allow anyone to turn off such notifications if they are unwelcome?
But if you added the amendments to the first filing thread, the conversation could have continued instead of being spread out and saying the same things over and over again in two different threads.
If using someone’s actual screen name in a post is used “simply to annoy” the person, pray what is the purpose of referring to them by all manner of supposedly amusing (but not, really) nicknames?
Each poster picked their desired screen name, correct? Each poster can turn off notifications if they choose (universally, or from specific posters), correct?
Yes! I can see it in my mind’s eye—RC handing MB her gun and saying something like, “if you are going up to the house, here, take this for defense against the dog, because his/her bite is vicious”.
While I agree, I think the repeated and aggressive/obsessive postings and taggings are a continuation of the harassment many have been subject to via message.
Again, I would caution anyone about engaging directly with someone not only known to cyber stalk/dox, but also actually already partially banned for that behaviour. The presence of such actors really drags down the respectability of the forum as a whole.
I’m actually surprised the mods didn’t close the 1st one and refer it to the second one. I had asked the mods to move it to the CE forum…obviously they didn’t.
But if he wanted to communicate with LK and was afraid of the dog, why not suggest that he text LK rather than go the the farmhouse with a loaded gun, especially since it was supposedly obvious to everyone that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown?
Perhaps texts had not been a productive form of communication with the parties involved.
I will say that it’s easy enough for us to ask in hindsight why didn’t they calmly and rationally do this or why didn’t they do that? But it does not sound as if anybody on the property was very calm and rational by that stage of the proceedings.
