My last say on the subject unless I am goaded to violate that statement!

[nosonew]

Okay IM, you're being too tough on someone that I truly believe is having some emotional problems here!  Let's wait to see what the doc has to say, ok?

[Brent]

>Okay IM, you're being too tough on someone that I truly
>believe is having some emotional problems here!

I personally don't doubt she has emotional problems, along with a bunch of other problems that all have really long names. :)

Nonetheless, she came here, got the help and assistance she needed, and then proceeded to trash the very place that helped her. "Ungrateful" is the first word that comes to mind.




I took this last part out. I don't want to be accused of pushing her over the edge.

[1angrystepmom]

Let's wait to
>see what the doc has to say, ok?

Let's hope it's Dr. Kevorkian.


I am ROTFLMAOPMP!!!!!!!!!!!

:7

[nosonew]

she really is having a breakdown.  I'm really worried about her.  This seems totally out of character on what I know of her.  Nerd, if you read this, go talk to your doctor.  You are under alot of stress, you need help, help you can't give yourself.  

---Nosonew

[oneandonly]

>
>I suggest you research the meaning of "veiled threat" for
>starters.  I don't need to rehash this; everyone on this board
>can read; Ditto concerning examples.  I have no doubt that you
>have read every single one of them since you are the subject
>of the thread.    No thank you on the e-mails either I have
>taken care of that myself.

>*I believe you've been asked to provide proof of this*

>Thanks but no thanks on being your victim; I have a headache.

>*Getting a headache myself trying to see your reasoning*

>The only thing that I am afraid of is that this board will
>lose its credibility or any resemblance of a charitable
>"business" set up to be a "helpful" social influence to all
>citizens of America.
 
*No need to fear, this site will be here long after you leave*
>
>Fortunately, and I will state this again, since SPARC is a
>non-profit organization receiving help from the United States
>Government in the form of Tax Free Status, looking up IP
>address to prevent "trolling" is a moot point.   Any citizen
>in this fine country has a right to come here if they obey
>SPARC's AUP.  You cannot keep them out simply because they are
>someone's ex.
 
*I don't recall that ever happening as my husband's ex frequents this site*

 And I don't think SPARC can create a rule that
>says, "if you are an ex of a member of this Board, then you
>are not allowed here, and if we find out, we'll kick you off.
 
*That has never happened-only when said ex's cause trouble-and make it known that is what they are here for*

> Let's all look up the meaning and repercussions of
>"discrimination" because of marital status, age, gender, race,
>religion, etc.  by a 501 C (3)  business.  And I would suggest
>anyone who is being led to believe that this board is not an
>integral part of SPARC as a "business", read the boards home
>page where it clearly states that this site, meaning the site
>in its entirety and that includes the board, is under the
>rules and regulation of a 501 c(3) business.
>
>To suggest that SPARC can refuse to allow members of the
>public, who do not violate the AUP, to come onto this board or
>set the tone that no ex is allowed simply because they are
>someone's ex,

*again, my husbands ex was allowed to be here until she caused trouble*

 is simply not based in the reality and laws
>governing your 501 status.  Sorry to burst your bubble.  
>
>If your "investigations" into someone's status as to their
>being an ex of a current member of this board (who happen to
>become a member before the ex did) rooted out a "troll,"  what
>are your options?  The only thing you CAN do, and would be of
>great help, would be to educate and moderate, to the best that
>your honorable position allows you, to both parties.
 
>*the moderators of this site do a terrific job and in my situation, after husbands ex came on here pretending to be me, after she followed me into chat and copied my "conversation" (posted for her benefit, btw-knew it was her), after she then came into chat and created a disturbance--then she was banned. However, she has since created several more "persona's" and has been back. The banning occured after many warnings for her to stop-she was told she could post and come into chat, provided there were NO problems. I believe this was exactly what the moderators job is...*

> One of the options is to harass them off the board.

*again, where is your proof?*

  Which I
>am sure is a big no no governing businesses receiving
>government benefits, especially if they are not violating the
>AUP.    If you have created the illusion that this is proper
>under the legal codes governing your organization, you have
>done SPARC and the many people who come here for help a great
>disservice!  People come here for help based in reality, not
>illusions, they get enough of that elsewhere.   I was under
>the assumption that one of the primary reasons for this board
>is to "help" parents, and that includes exes, communicate and
>know their rights for the benefit of the children.
 
*again, from personal experience, the ex we deal with has been in here on more than one occasion--no banning occured until she started trouble*
>
>It appears that secrecy is your (I am not sure it is the stand
>that SPARC originally took) main defense for your actions
>concerning my home IP address.  Secrecy from exes who may find
>out what the other party is doing and I can see how in certain
>circumstances this would be a good thing, however,  SPARC
>cannot prevent that with paranoid tactics or indeed take steps
>themselves to prevent it!  SPARC is not allowed to operate as
>a secret organization nor purposefully obstruct the access of
>the public to this board because they are someone's ex.

*again, see my statements above--I know of several other "ex's" that have posted from time to time...and until trouble is caused, (ie, attacking the other parent/poster, stalking them in this forum, etc.....,) they can post here*
  Is
>that what you are alluding to Brent; that SPARC is a secret
>organization operating on taxpayer dollars and government
>relief?
 
*this is just assinine*
>
>Are you upset with my telling you my rights because you don't
>want anyone else knowing the truth?  Again, might I remind you
>that we do have all the rights that are protected by the laws
>of SPARC's 501 C(3),  as long as I observe the AUP.  You
>cannot remove those rights from me or anyone else who posts
>here.  

*ah, but they can*
>
>I understand that there is no guarantee that the site will be
>up and running and accessible, because even a physical site
>can be closed due to unforeseeable events.  That is what you
>are referring to, as "You have no right to guaranteed access."
> Most businesses post that kind of disclaimer.   Why would you
>want to create the illusion or even attempt to convince
>members that they have no rights to access a not for profit
>public board here?

*you're really stretching things here*

 That is very disturbing.  Your statement
>is one that would apply to a private site, not a public site
>such as SPARC.  Maybe SPARC started out in someone's garage as
>a private site and could deny access to anyone they wanted to,
>but SPARC has moved beyond that now of its own choosing and
>has grown into something wonderful because of that decision.
>
>
>I guess if SPARC really feels like it wants to be a secret
>men's organization,

*umm....lots of women on here*

 and I guess if SPARC really feels like it
>needs the power to discriminate, bar access of people not
>violating AUP, harass, bash, etc,

*again, proof?*

 then it could always give up
>its 501C(3) and start paying taxes on any and all donations it
>receives as well as any and all monies that it makes selling
>those cute Tee Shirts I intend to purchase.   But why would
>SPARC want to do that because one moderator is not following
>the edicts of his own job description.

*who, Brent?*
  Which, by the way is
>posted publicly.  
>


Okay, I agree with the others now, you are angry and need to take a few steps back and re-group. BTW, Brent aint goin no where and has been through this before.

[StPaulieGirl]

Shhhh!  Just stop that and leave her alone.

[StPaulieGirl]

Something is wrong.  The holidays can bring out all the damn baggage for a lot of us.

[Indigo Mom]

IF something is wrong with her, she's doing herself NO good by attacking an entire website because she doesn't like one person.  IF something is wrong with her, she wouldn't be following Mr. B all over the boards with snide comments no matter WHAT the content of his postings.  IF something is wrong with her, not only is she abusing herself by not getting help, but she's abusing others...that which I won't feel "sorry" for.

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with her.  I have been extremely depressed, suicidal, and I've never attacked others for no reason.  During the lowest of my lows, I haven't done what she's doing.  I think she's full of it, was full of it when she came here, and had an agenda...get all the help she could, then turn on those she despises most.  You don't attack those who give you help, unless you are a user and abuser.  

I'm sorry, but this is pure crap.  Yes, Holidays can be tough.  Mine were tough.  Not only was I told the worst possible "news" right before Christmas, but I was also in the ER with my daughter.  I don't feel the need to shred or threaten a website because of this.  

nerd needs help...because she's CLEARLY a planet mommyite.  I thought she was a wonderful person when she came here...but a wonderful person wouldn't turn into a rabid beast so suddenly.  My daughter was bitten in the face by a "nice" dog a few months back...one that turned quickly like nerd did.  Mr. B can be a right pain in the behind, but he doesn't deserve these attacks.  And don't get me started on the unneccessary attacks on the sites owner........

If nerd "truly" does need help, if she's "truly" in trouble, she's doing herself wrong and those around her wrong by making herself feel "better" by lashing out at those who don't deserve it.