Cyber Stalking

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

That's not true. I asked you several times, but you kept doing it. I finally had Jill delete the link (and asked Russ to remove my "testimony", such as it was), so that no one else would decide it was "okay" to use my real name, on random boards. I have never used it here, Billy, so I don't know why you would think it was okay.

Libby what you said is false. You name along with your testimony coming out of Mormonism was on Russ' site and Russ is the one who originally started a new thread with your testimony not me. I quoted sections of your testimony along with the link several times because it was already discussed on this board and it was relavant to our discussion about mormonism and your criticism about mormonism and then your change of heart. You asked me not to use your name and after that point I did not use your name. In fact other than the original link I recall only using your first name once and I went back within several minutes and editted it myself prior to you even asking me to do so. When Russ originally put up the thread and you were critical of Mormonism you didn't seem to mind it but when you changed your position you were obviously not OK with what you said and that is obvious by the fact that you had Jill erase all posts with your testimony in them and you had Russ erase your testimony on his site as well. Your views have obviously changed again and that is fine but your statements critical of Mormonism were certainly relevant on the mormon board especially since they were already discussed here on Russ' thread started specifically about you and your testimony.

[Apologette]

edited for style

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Get the word right, it's "stalking" not "stocking." Geesh!

This is how a person in a supervisory position in social work helping abused women by men acts towards other christians, of all people.

Imagine that.

*shudder*

Maybe she is in that position to make women realize that maybe they didn't have it as bad with their abused men. LOL

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Maybe because your pals, the Mormons here, have been doing so, or har***ing Christians about what names they use on other sites. This has nothing to do with apologetics and is simply a moronic ploy by Mormons to NOT answer questions about their pedophile, sexal-stalker prophet by diverting attention to something dumb and dumber.

Futhermore, so what if your name was posted on the bottom of your "testimony?" Whose name should have been posted? It's all a dream anyway so don't worry about it.

I have never done so...and you know it.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

I have never done so...and you know it.

She is confused, Papa.

She made the first comment about "How many different username accounts do you have" and then James banta began saying that using a fake name means you have a fake jesus.

But when we simply point out their various name son boards they get all upset and claim we are attacking them for their names.

*shrug*

Misguided they are.

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Maybe because your pals, the Mormons here, have been doing so, or har***ing Christians about what names they use on other sites. This has nothing to do with apologetics and is simply a moronic ploy by Mormons to NOT answer questions about their pedophile, sexal-stalker prophet by diverting attention to something dumb and dumber.

Futhermore, so what if your name was posted on the bottom of your "testimony?" Whose name should have been posted? It's all a dream anyway so don't worry about it.

Leave Libby alone she is to good for you to run down...stick with me.

[John T]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I just wish all you guys would make more free use of the different IGNORE settings on the different forums you are members of.

Trust me, is ends a lot of problems...


I had an issue with a guy here on this forum that followed me to another website and started to do things i thought to be 'stocking"

I simply placed his name on IGNORE and that was the end of that.

Ah, if simple answers were indeed simple solutions!

In vain, I urged some Christian posters to do that, and the reasons for the refusals range from the "romantic" view that "I can make a difference in these case-hardened TBMs" to the "vengeful" "I will demonstrate the soft underbelly of Mormons".

The reality is that NEITHER extreme works here, and there is no middle ground whereby rational discussion can rule.

Two things are simultaneously at work here:

1) The mormons here are posting evil things. One went so far as to call another poster "***..." and other sordid things: Another accused a female poster of wanting to be a man.

2) The other thing going on is that there is a "benign neglect" of the moderation on this particular forum, and I do not know if that is a universal over the entire site.

The reasons for these conditions existing simultaneously are known to the administrators, and perhaps to close friends. None of the posters fit into either category. However the decision to let the forum slide due to "benign neglect" must not have been done on a whim.

With the legacy of her father's great work in apologetics riding on her shoulders Jill HAD to make decisions that required a greater degree of effort in certain other places.

That is the only logical explanation we can come to, other than the absurd one that she is now wearing garments.

Until Jill reveals the underlying reason for her decision, we must honor that, and take appropriate actions that meet our needs without having to commit "blogicide" and be banned for posting retaliatory or objecting posts to the pervasive evil of the TBM mormons who post here.

My way of handling the situation is to AGAIN take my leave willingly. I have exhausted PMs and pointing out the evil of the mormon posters because I came to the conclusion that nothing mattes, EVEN THE PROVED AND ILLEGAL CYBER STALKING OF ANOTHER.

For me, that is the best solution; for others it is a different solution. Top paraphrase Burke: "Evil flourishes on WM because those the good people who objected to it are not taken seriously by others."

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by John T

Ah, if simple answers were indeed simple solutions!

In vain, I urged some Christian posters to do that, and the reasons for the refusals range from the "romantic" view that "I can make a difference in these case-hardened TBMs" to the "vengeful" "I will demonstrate the soft underbelly of Mormons".

The reality is that NEITHER extreme works here, and there is no middle ground whereby rational discussion can rule.

Two things are simultaneously at work here:

1) The mormons here are posting evil things. One went so far as to call another poster "***..." and other sordid things: Another accused a female poster of wanting to be a man.

2) The other thing going on is that there is a "benign neglect" of the moderation on this particular forum, and I do not know if that is a universal over the entire site.

The reasons for these conditions existing simultaneously are known to the administrators, and perhaps to close friends. None of the posters fit into either category. However the decision to let the forum slide due to "benign neglect" must not have been done on a whim.

With the legacy of her father's great work in apologetics riding on her shoulders Jill HAD to make decisions that required a greater degree of effort in certain other places.

That is the only logical explanation we can come to, other than the absurd one that she is now wearing garments.

Until Jill reveals the underlying reason for her decision, we must honor that, and take appropriate actions that meet our needs without having to commit "blogicide" and be banned for posting retaliatory or objecting posts to the pervasive evil of the TBM mormons who post here.

My way of handling the situation is to AGAIN take my leave willingly. I have exhausted PMs and pointing out the evil of the mormon posters because I came to the conclusion that nothing mattes, EVEN THE PROVED AND ILLEGAL CYBER STALKING OF ANOTHER.

For me, that is the best solution; for others it is a different solution. Top paraphrase Burke: "Evil flourishes on WM because those the good people who objected to it are not taken seriously by others."

John...seriously when have you ever advocated kindness to anyone other than a Christian; and seldom to them.

[John T]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

Leave Libby alone she is to good for you to run down...stick with me.

Your promise to ignore Apologette did not last 24 hours.

Yep, you are a man of your word.

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by John T

Your promise to ignore Apologette did not last 24 hours.

Yep, you are a man of your word.

It was not a promise, just something I did. Where did I give my word I would not respond to her...and how is this an answer to what I wrote concerning you? At least she answers question or charges...maybe you could learn something from her.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by John T

Until Jill reveals ....

It's none of your business what Jill does with her website.

You are not expected to understand what she does, and you are not expected to judge what she does.

she has the right to run her website any way she wants....case-closed!

You.......You on the other hand gave your word that you would follow her rules about how to post on her site.

You didnt have to agree to this, and you dont have to come to this site at all.
But if you do come to her site and post here, you better keep your word that you gave her and everyone else here.


I may disagree with guys like Papa, but i watch my posts to make sure that every word i write is in keeping with the rules that both Papa and I have agreed to be held under.


You want to follow different rules?...fine, go start your own website and you can make up your own rules too!


but here, here you better keep your word and follow the rules because to do different is to show yourself to be a very poor reflection of the faith you so highly claim.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

It's none of your business what Jill does with her website.

You are not expected to understand what she does, and you are not expected to judge what she does.

she has the right to run her website any way she wants....case-closed!

You.......You on the other hand gave your word that you would follow her rules about how to post on her site.

You didnt have to agree to this, and you dont have to come to this site at all.
But if you do come to her site and post here, you better keep your word that you gave her and everyone else here.


I may disagree with guys like Papa, but i watch my posts to make sure that every word i write is in keeping with the rules that both Papa and I have agreed to be held under.


You want to follow different rules?...fine, go start your own website and you can make up your own rules too!


but here, here you better keep your word and follow the rules because to do different is to show yourself to be a very poor reflection of the faith you so highly claim.

I disagree. If this site is no longer being monitored (and it appears it is not) then we should be told that. Something is amiss here, and you know it, I'm sure.

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by Apologette

I disagree. If this site is no longer being monitored (and it appears it is not) then we should be told that. Something is amiss here, and you know it, I'm sure.

I like mods...they help keep me under control. She was online two days ago.

[alanmolstad]

a owner of a forum like this does not need to tell us squat.

The owner can set up all kinds of rules for people to follow, yet the owner does not have to follow any rules at all.

the owner has the right to highlight posts for any reason,
or clear posts for any reason,
or ban people for any reason.

The owner has no obligation to inform guests of anything.

The flip-side is that no guest 'has" to be here.
We are all here only because we want to be here.
I dont have to post here, but when I do I have to follow the given rules that cover such things.....EVEN IF OTHERS DO NOT FOLLOW THE SAME RULES!



I am responsible only for my own posts, they are the only posts i can actually control, thus I am to blame if my wording bends or breaks the rules...

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

a owner of a forum like this does not need to tell us squat.

The owner can set up all kinds of rules for people to follow, yet the owner does not have to follow any rules at all.

the owner has the right to highlight posts for any reason,
or clear posts for any reason,
or ban people for any reason.

The owner has no obligation to inform guests of anything.

The flip-side is that no guest 'has" to be here.
We are all here only because we want to be here.
I dont have to post here, but when I do I have to follow the given rules that cover such things.....EVEN IF OTHERS DO NOT FOLLOW THE SAME RULES!



I am responsible only for my own posts, they are the only posts i can actually control, thus I am to blame if my wording bends or breaks the rules...

Yes they do. If they make rules then they should be enforced. John is right.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Yes they do. If they make rules then they should be enforced. John is right.

John......can go make his own website where he can follow whatever rules he wants.

at John's website John can do whatever John wants to do.

If I were to become a guest at john's website, then John can make up rules for me to follow, and i have to follow them....

But along the way, John can do whatever he wants on his own website.
No one can force by rule or by moral imperative that john do squat.

if John wants to ban everyone just for the heck of it...guess what?..he gets to it's his site!


the flip side of this is that if I dont like the way John runs his site guess what?, he cant make me go there......

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

John......can go make his own website where he can follow whatever rules he wants.

at John's website John can do whatever John wants to do.

If I were to become a guest at john's website, then John can make up rules for me to follow, and i have to follow them....

But along the way, John can do whatever he wants on his own website.
No one can force by rule or by moral imperative that john do squat.

if John wants to ban everyone just for the heck of it...guess what?..he gets to it's his site!


the flip side of this is that if I dont like the way John runs his site guess what?, he cant make me go there......

You have my opinion. Now "don't mess things up."

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Apologette

You have my opinion. Now "don't mess things up."

See, this sounds like Alan is taking ownership of this site? I want to know.. Does he now rule WM? If so there will be major changes at least for me.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by James Banta

See, this sounds like Alan is taking ownership of this site? I want to know.. Does he now rule WM? If so there will be major changes at least for me.. IHS jim

Well, I think Jill needs to address the issue. You can always come back to CARM - we ALL know who's in charge there, and we don't have to think twice about it (ha!). Diane is a good person, I've learned over the years. She does a really tough *** well. She is really fair and level-headed. I've been suspended multiple times from CARM for being a brat, and I deserved it!

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Libby what you said is false. You name along with your testimony coming out of Mormonism was on Russ' site and Russ is the one who originally started a new thread with your testimony not me. I quoted sections of your testimony along with the link several times because it was already discussed on this board and it was relavant to our discussion about mormonism and your criticism about mormonism and then your change of heart. You asked me not to use your name and after that point I did not use your name. In fact other than the original link I recall only using your first name once and I went back within several minutes and editted it myself prior to you even asking me to do so. When Russ originally put up the thread and you were critical of Mormonism you didn't seem to mind it but when you changed your position you were obviously not OK with what you said and that is obvious by the fact that you had Jill erase all posts with your testimony in them and you had Russ erase your testimony on his site as well. Your views have obviously changed again and that is fine but your statements critical of Mormonism were certainly relevant on the mormon board especially since they were already discussed here on Russ' thread started specifically about you and your testimony.

What I said was not "false", Billy. I had to ask you two or three times to stop using my first name, when you addressed me in posts, on this forum. I did use my real name on Russ' forum, but I certainly, now, regret doing that, thanks to you.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Apologette View Post

Maybe because your pals, the Mormons here, have been doing so, or har***ing Christians about what names they use on other sites. This has nothing to do with apologetics and is simply a moronic ploy by Mormons to NOT answer questions about their pedophile, sexal-stalker prophet by diverting attention to something dumb and dumber.

Futhermore, so what if your name was posted on the bottom of your "testimony?" Whose name should have been posted? It's all a dream anyway so don't worry about it.

I think you must have deleted this post. Looks like you are deleting all of your posts on this thread. What's up with that?

So, apparently, using someone's real name is only a problem, if it happens to you.

[alanmolstad]

Let it go ...

Its of little value here to drag in issues from other sites.

[John T]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I just wish all you guys would make more free use of the different IGNORE settings on the different forums you are members of.

Trust me, is ends a lot of problems...


I had an issue with a guy here on this forum that followed me to another website and started to do things i thought to be 'stocking"

I simply placed his name on IGNORE and that was the end of that.

Some may be gluttons for punishment.

Seriously, if the problem were limited to one poster, your advice would be spot-on. However, because the problem is rampant on the mormon board ( am not sure about elsewhere), then different tactics are in order.

Your opinion is noted. We thank you for it, but if some choose not to follow it, then that is their choice, OK?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Well, I think Jill needs to address the issue. You can always come back to CARM - we ALL know who's in charge there, and we don't have to think twice about it (ha!). Diane is a good person, I've learned over the years. She does a really tough *** well. She is really fair and level-headed. I've been suspended multiple times from CARM for being a brat, and I deserved it!

Diane's insults over political matter were hard to take.. I don't like Glen Beck no matter what his political views are.. He ties all his politics to the Elders of mormonism saving the cons***ution.. He is disgusting!! To come back to CARM I have to kowtow to that kind of thinking.. I am very conservative politically, to be branded as a liberal because I reject one leader of the mormon right was serious name calling.. Name calling to the point that I would have been banned for life if I had said such things about her. I love her as my sister in Christ and don't question her place in the Kingdom.., I believe we both yearn for Jesus to be Ruler and King over all of us. Until He comes and sets up that Kingdom I am free to reject any or all men that wish political power over me.. I can't be a Republican because they have failed to do what they know has to be done.. They tax and spend as much as any Democrat. I am a Cons***utionalists, even though no one will listen to them they are far more concerned with our freedom under law than any man now running for high office.. This is my one and only political statement and my last word on rejoining CARM.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I did use my real name on Russ' forum, but I certainly, now, regret doing that, thanks to you.

And that is the point Libby. The only possible way that I would know who you are was the fact that your real name was already linked to "Libby" in some way on this site.

1. You gave your testimony about the false teachings of Mormonism and your real name to Russ who published that on his website.

2. Russ then started a thread that included your testimony linking "Libby" to your real name by including both your testimony and his website link at the bottom of his post.