Actually, sexually harrassing someone is not considered a 'fond' expression anymore.

Anyone not associated with neanderthals knows this.

I really don't want to keep looking back, I'm sorry I brought it up yesterday and sorry that I commented on it here. I've been making honest attempts to be real with you and he, to help move past that event.


but you just made another point that I was trying to make....

SHE HAS DONE THINGS IN THE PAST WITH HOSTILE INTENT. The recent PM to Iowian had a threat in it, and I don't care if "WE" think it's a futile threat, you know she's capable and willing to follow through, so why is that crap tollerated?

I did it in response to a post in which people knew. I have not seen the 'Dirty Laundry' thread...

you mean there is a third thread on this board about me or my continued presence here?

OMFG. ROFL

Ya know, it's been awhile since the last "should memyselfi be banned" thread. The added public warning to her is a nice touch. When is the next "should gochiefs be banned" thread scheduled to appear?

Whether a legal threat is viable or not, it would still likely cost someone thousands to defend themselves against it. It shouldn't even be an issue if it's something that makes any sense or not.

If I were running the show here a legal threat would = ban, first offense, no exceptions.

I don't think there was a threat in that PM. I think it was just a user who likes to run her mouth...

Run her mouth. I have never agreed with the word threat used to describe that. Besides I have never gotten contacted by the user who received this PM as it being a problem.

Sorry if we don't jump through hoops for a PM (which we can't read) that the receiver who you are being offended for hasn't reported.

I thought that maybe you needed the dust knocked off your "sexy drawer" and those rusty hinges you call legs could probably use a little lube so they don't squeek when you open them.

I guess I'm not supposed to think you're calling me a neanderthal, just like I wasn't supposed to think you were calling me a KKK member last week, right? Apparently that careful wording you so artfully employ makes all the difference. :rolleyes:

Whatever CC is spouting off has nothing to do with me.

Whether a legal threat is viable or not, it would still likely cost someone thousands to defend themselves against it. It shouldn't even be an issue if it's something that makes any sense or not.

If I were running the show here a legal threat would = ban, first offense, no exceptions, I wouldn't allow people to be intimidated or allow belligerent members to expose the site's proprietor to potential liability.

It matters little if the claim could ever succeed.

I keep hearing about this...but only from people referring to it...never seen anything from the source on this happening. :hmmm:

Sorry, Mr. penchief. I'll try and do better.

1. Mr. crazycoffee posts some rude, insensitive, out-of-context nonsense.

2. Ms. memyselfI responds by saying that Mr. crazycoffee is "representative" of the "'ban' side".

3. Ergo, "'ban' siders" agree with Mr. crazycoffee's posts. In other words, she is "lumping" all the "'ban' siders" in with Mr. crazycoffee and vice versa. It's specific-to-general pattern logic that is very unhelpful in any intelligent discussion and, had I voted to ban her, I would be pissed that she associated me with that post.

Posts like hers are what make people like me wonder about Ms. memyselfI's motivations, Mr. penchief. Personally, I don't think all "'ban' siders" voted that way because they agree with Mr. crazycoffee's posts or that they hold a similar level of animosity. They may, in fact, have had many different reasons. Hope that helps.

FAX

If you are laughing and posting kudos to him for those types of sexual attacks on THE BOARD (as we ALL see it) then you can consider yourself a said neanderthal. If not, then don't own it. Unless of course you are getting the warm fuzzies and just not making them public.

I apologize if he didn't actually cast a vote FOR. His posts have been continually arguing FOR thus my assumption that he was actually one of them. Still, he's arguing their position so while there isn't outright guilt by association you don't see anyone from the AGAINST side posting kudos to him, do we?

If you don't think she was trying to intimidate him with the threat of legal action in the PM that he posted, I think you're crazy.

The intent is clear, even if there was waffle room left for just this sort of a situation.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, mememe made a threat against a member via PM?