Sideshows and Grandstanders

Dick Stodghill wrote:

I didn't see your deleted posts, DK, but from the one that remains I believe you were saying the people who come here lecturing us and making claims they refuse to back up should be treated kindly because they may be having mental problems. You may recall we tried that on another board. It didn't work because it eventually grew heated and the board was destroyed. We just won't allow them to do that here.
I agree that they are having problems. In face to face encounters with such people it pays to be cautious but it may be possible to see that they get help. On a messageboard that is impossible. The best - and even kindest - action to take is to drive them away. We can't cure their problem.
If people like KDU would admit they lied, tell us who they are and ask to be allowed to remain I am sure they would be treated with respect and kindness up to the time the lecturing began again.

He always said it best.

Sure did.

Earlier today, I moved this thread to the Information board. It was only there briefly before I moved it back again. However, it did the job it was supposed to do. The title of the latest blog post "She speaketh, I respondeth" confirms that a member here is reading threads on the Chatter Box and sending information to the blogger. In his haste to add the posts from this thread, he has attributed a quote to Merri (This thread got poofed while I was writing this post but Meri wrote a response which I am reposting here:), which was, in fact, written by Marie:

http://a305w.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/saturday-music-club-mc-hammer/#comments

It seems pretty clear that, as long as Merri is allowed to read the private boards, she will send information to either the blogger or Marie or both.

There are two solutions: I can deactivate Merri's account or I can make all the boards private. Your call. Which should it be?

Deactivate Merri. She has been duplicitous before. Trust of her is gone.
After she copied from the AW board we let it go--now it is time to let her go.

Merri who?

Ann

Another solution: don't worry about it. Stop reading that blog and it will go away. Who else is it written for but you, and for what other reason than to make you nuts?

Why let them force your hand in any way whatsover? It just gives them power.

alice wrote:

alj wrote:

Merri who?


She is now Runs with Scissors
Ann

I knew that.

I have no preference either way Shelagh. If you ban her what's to stop her joining under a sock puppet ID? You need to do what is best for this wonderful forum.
I know you a are wise lady.

I don't think the fact that Merri feeds information to the blogger is news to anyone but you. I don't know why you didn't ban the slob a long time ago.

She likes to copy and paste and run from forum to forum.

Lin, They won't go away. This forum will become a replacement for the PAMB. Marie has nowhere else to go.

I put a planted comment on the Homes and Gardens board to see if they were monitoring it -- and they were! Homes and Gardens for goodness sake!

You are right about them becoming bored. We have to bore them silly. It really is that simple. I have been using bait threads and I'm still not 100% sure that I have pinpointed all the members who are passing on information from the forum. However, I am close. Soon, everything will revert to normal and they will lose interest through boredom.

LC wrote:

I don't think the fact that Merri feeds information to the blogger is news to anyone but you. I don't know why you didn't ban the slob a long time ago.

LC,

There's no need to be rude about Merri. She has health issues and doesn't see the world the way the rest of us do. Whether I knew or not about Merri's feeds, I was prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Shelagh wrote:

She likes to copy and paste and run from forum to forum.

I think you mean wheeze and waddle.

eta -no need to be rude? She is the most passive-aggressive rude thing around. Her health problems are irrelevant.

eta2 -oh, and they're not "monitoring" homes and gardens, they're just reading it like they read everything else. Why wouldn't they?

Shelagh, if it can become a replacement, nothing you do here will have any effect.

I don't understand why somebody with the scope and breadth of network you have created would pay any attention whatsoever to one little snit blog.

They're jerking your chain and making you dance. And all you have to do is ignore them.

How many people on this forum would even be aware of them if you hadn't posted links to them?

Well, clearly it DOES bother Shelagh, she went on record long ago as saying she thought c/ping was disrespectful, and initially didn't allow it here. I also understand not wanting the forum to be heavily documented in/ linked with the blog on the net. So she's doing what she can to deal with it.

How would making the forum private and still allowing Merri to be a member solve things, though? All it will do is ensure nobody new ever joins.

There is no way you can keep information from leaking off a forum.

Displaying information is what forums are FOR!!!! What are you going to do, make it invislble except to members and not allow new members without investigations?

It has nothing to live on but the attention you're feeding to it.

Maybe. The bitterness displayed by Marie is of concern. She clearly wants to damage me in some way. It isn't my personality to want to carry that around.

If reposting is a big deal (I have no idea why it would be--it's like the New York Times getting upset because some guy is xeroxing their articles and passing them out on the street) then go to the host for their blog and complain.
Threaten a lawsuit.

Having run a forum that was highly attacked for economic reasons by some very corrupt and dangerious people, I'll tell you that free forums can get removed. Very easily. I had two disappeared for no other reason than people contacting Bravenet and 50megs and threatening.

Here's the deal. A free host has no relationship with a user. They have no contract (except for rules, which generally have a clause against anything that's actually bad) and get no money from them. They will ditch them in a New York second if they see any possible downside to having them because they don't really have much upside.

But this business of reading them (driving up their hit count) and posting their address in the only place anybody gives a damn, then worrying that they are doing a scuzzy repro of posts here is doing nothing but playing into their hand.

This isn't like dealing with a dog barking at you on the street. It's more like dealing with a kid who just repeats everything you say to annoy you. Don't say anything and he's got nothing going on.

You ARE carrying it around. All you have to do is set it down and walk off.

LC wrote:

Well, clearly it DOES bother Shelagh, she went on record long ago as saying she thought c/ping was disrespectful, and initially didn't allow it here. I also understand not wanting the forum to be heavily documented in/ linked with the blog on the net. So she's doing what she can to deal with it.

How would making the forum private and still allowing Merri to be a member solve things, though? All it will do is ensure nobody new ever joins.

So far, I have managed to weed out the lurkers who joined to spy, while allowing new members onto the forum.

lin wrote:

You ARE carrying it around. All you have to do is set it down and walk off.

I am about to do that. It isn't your forum or your responsibility. I run the networks and groups. I have to do what is right for me, not what is right for you.

Shelagh wrote:

So far, I have managed to weed out the lurkers who joined to spy, while allowing new members onto the forum.

The whole forum wasn't private though, right? How are you going to attrct new members with a completely private forum?

Of course, Shelagh. Give me a break. I'm not trying you to do anything, just giving you friendly advice, which you might take as support.

The one's who are trying to get you do something they want are the people you're obsessing over, and they're suceeding. And, I gotta say, making you a little paranoid. Taking my suggestions that you'd do yourself better by forgetting this crap as a hostile command, for instance.

This is how terrorism works, it makes the target people afraid of each other.

I'll say one more thing here.
You asked for input on two options. I suggested a third option. And you act like I'm trying to boss you around.

I also offered a very possible solution to the whole mess, based on my experience at a MUCH higher level of embattled forums than this little spat.

I don't understand why you would interpret my remarks as unfriendly. I think you'd have to say, upon reflection, that I've been as much or more a friend to you and your networks than anybody here. You are prominently praised in my much-posted, and reposted primer to self-publshing. Also in two ebooks I have prepared and am moving towards selling, either myself or on Writers Digest Books if they can get their act together. I've already distributed over a hundred of them.

I haven't tried to run you (that's already being done by people who are NOT your friends--they've already forced you into a tough decision you don't have to make) but have continued to counsel you towards not pouring gasoline on a fire that is no hazard. More in the spirit of trying to get friend not to drive then they're drunk and likely to harm themselves and others. (For which I once got punched in the eye by my brother, so, what the hell.)

You might consider taking a calmer measure of your friends. And downgrading the importance you grant to your enemies.