You seem to think you know how everyone thinks of her, but you don’t even know the details of what you so easily dismiss that you can list them.
You don’t get to put words like dislike or hate in my mouth, tyvm.
I’ve said what words and actions the parties have expressed/did that show where the conflict likely hatched.
its not about me, or any of us.
It’s not about who I/we/you like or dislike. How juvenile, to even suggest that.
If a person did the things the parties did, any normal person would be under stress.
That’s not a reason to shoot someone.
It is, however, a fact in the demise of their relationship.
“Obnoxious” doesn’t begin to describe it.
My advice is that if you lose your self composure when you are stressed, then don’t ever get into the rental, house sharing, or barn business. Actually, go to work for somebody else and let somebody else worry about the details.
Boo hoo. Ban someone for speculating who a poster might be? LOL!
We have people who are long-time members, who have contributed to countless HORSE or RIDER or BARN MANAGEMENT related threads, who are paid members of COTH, and someone who ONLY posts on two inflammatory threads wants to complain to the Mods about them speculating who the newbie is?
Yes, LT law is a sticky wicket in the best of times. This particular housing situation seems to have been a complete cluster on both sides.
I wonder how the virus situation will change all of this, with hearings, etc. And MB in jail - jail is supposed to be a ticking time bomb wrt viral spread. He’s really exposed himself to so much.
I recall a post in one of the threads stating LK’s ex-inlaws had restraining orders against her. Does anyone know the reason for those orders? It is easy for people to forget how manipulative, harassing and threatening LK has been in the past (proven by others with current outstanding warrants against her for various things). Yet, a poster here is insinuating none of her behavior will be admitted in a trial and heck, just take the word of two co-conspirators against the alleged shooter. Can we say “naive”?
I’ve repeatedly asked two questions - why illegally bug the property and why stay if there is such danger and fear? I think there is opportunity for reasonable doubt once everything is told.
Jeez, I dunno, cause they’re details that could have contributed.
You can say no matter how obnoxious… It’s irrelevant. Good for you.
Back in reality…
That’s not how human nature works.
Drop, drip, drip on your forehead WILL make ya mad.
It doesn’t excuse your actions, but it explains the circumstances around your actions.
No one lives in a vacuum. So no, the specifics of situations like this one can’t get evaluated as if they did.
I asked the mod what the overall policy on speculating on the identity of posters was. I did not ask for anyone to be banned.
I assumed it would be the same regardless of who the target was. You seem to be saying that because I’m a newbie, I’m fair game for identity speculation. If I’m fair game for identity speculation, I assumed others are fair game as well. I’m good with whatever the policy is, just wish for clarification.
My complaint is that people got on my case for hinting that I might speculate on the identity of Eggbutt, while a number of people continued to speculate about me.
If it’s so LOL that someone would be banned for speculating on who a poster is, why were several people so quick to criticize me for hinting that I might know Eggbutt’s identity?
If it’s OK to speculate on the identity of a newbie but not an oldie, is it also OK to speculate on the identity of someone you, GrandPrix, disagree with, but not speculate on the identity of someone you, GrandPrix, agree with? Rhetorical.
I have submitted the question to the mods, and am happy to wait for their reply.
From the written forum rules, I did not see a rule against speculating on the identity of posters.
Note: indignantly pooh-poohing the fact that one has been called out in endless inconsistencies, obfuscations and prevarications and then triumphantly declaring “a null set”… does not, in fact, make it so. No one cares to repeat themselves and go back through over 900 posts to once again point out issues/concerns that were addressed at that time.
Not all of us delight in wallowing in ever-widening circles of verbiage.
And very few of us have Alexander Hamilton’s obsessive degree of note-taking…
[I]A. Ham to A. Burr:
Even if I said what you think I said
You would need to cite a more specific grievance
Here’s an itemized list of thirty years of disagreements…[/I]
I suspect that many of us offering support to MB were raised by WwIi era parents or their children. If we complained about the consequences of some dumb thing we did we generally not offered much in the line of sympathy. We were usually told " what were you thinking?that was really stupid. You’re lucky you weren’t killed".
As I said to FitzE, you accuse me of inconsistencies, obfuscations, and prevarications, but decline to bring up one specific example of such. You don’t need to go through all 900 posts, if I’m committing one of those misdeeds in pretty much every one! Pick a random page on this thread and find the multiple examples of “inconsistencies, obfuscation, and prevarications”.
But it’s much easier to throw out accusations than to document them, isn’t it.
If you don’t want to engage in ever widening circles of verbiage, why don’t you decline to respond?
ETA. You refer to “ issues/concerns that were addressed at the time”. So if I write something you disagree with, that’s what you object to?
So true. It’s the other tactic of the belligerent martyr: go back and collect all the relevant posts for me or it didn’t happen. Not going to play your gal Friday, esp for someone who obsessively responded to all such call outs in real time. Declaring it, indeed, does not make it real.
But you can’t do that because no crime happens in a perfect vacuum.
You might not be “abstracting away the objective facts of the case”, but you do abstract in opinions and versions as facts, which is just as bad. The only thing we know for a fact is that a person was shot. That is the only objective fact. Everything else is opinion and conjecture and versions of events.
By deciding to believe or put more weight into LK’s version of events, you are taking that one objective fact and layering over it your opinion and how you subjectively view LK’s version.
Sheilah
This is one example of how she twists things. I never said anything about her speculating on any identities, but
“is it also OK to speculate on the identity of someone you, GrandPrix, disagree with, but not speculate on the identity of someone you, GrandPrix, agree with? Rhetorical.”
But I can anticipate her answer so she doesn’t have to think about it. It will be “but, but, but I didn’t accuse YOU.”
She carefully words things and leaves things open-ended so that her arguments can go on FOREVER. She carefully words things so that the average reader would assume [edit] that isn’t real. [edit]
Boy, y’all have been busy. I read about 5% of what was actually said and I feel like I’m on a broken merry-go-round. The ride that never ends.
I chose not to be anonymous from my first post on this thread (though YD said I “outed” myself) and somehow that has led to an incredibly frustrating attempt at Guess Who? (Who else remembers playing that?)
I was responding to this post of yours, GrandPrix, in which you clearly state that you think it is fine to speculate on my identity, apparently because I am a Newbie. Else why is my newbie status relevant?
You are completely silent on whether it is similarly fine for me to speculate on the identity of others. But that was the issue I raised.
Since you took care to identify my newbie status as somehow relevant for me being fair game, that suggested that possibly oldies or people with other desirable attributes are not fair game. Was that inference incorrect?
If the same rule applies to all, say so.
If I can be speculated about but may not speculate, say so.
