Who wanted the "Do You Know How to ID a Troll Thread" locked?

And why?

I am going to cut and paste what I said there into this new thread.

I invitee any who have the courage and decency to stand up against Back's evil agenda, and abusive posts, AND the way she is being coddled, to cut and paste their messages from the locked thead here too.

BTW, if you do not agree with my POV, then just ignore this thread (in other words stop 'ABUSING' me with your dissension of MY POV!!!)

OK Back, you either are too stupid and/or too coddled to get it that you are no longer going to get any benefit of the doubt or 'protection' from me. That means I will defend my right to defend myself and others when YOU back post things like: "I think you are sick." AND ANYONE who fails to chastise YOU Back, for posting such things, or who posts anything to 'protect' you from the consequences of YOU posting such insults to me and others will also be confronted.

You foolishly posted the following after I CLEARLY warned you not to persist in posting outside your safe padded cell thread:

"If some of you people didn't create "trolls" in your own imagination, you'd have nowhere to go with the kind of negativity within yourselves that needs an object to obsess about.

I think you are sick."

Well you know what I think Back? I think you are sick and evil. And you are also a con artist who has fooled even some of the posters here that I had held in very high esteem. But before you get an even more inflated ego I don't think you are that good of a con artist really. It's just that because of some previous feuding and grudges, you are enjoying the benefit of some allies who probably don't really believe you either. They are just not sure how to stop coddling you without admitting that certain other posters were right about you all along.

But hey, keep it up Back... just keep bashing me and others here and eventually you will lose all support for YOUR abusive tactics and EVIL adulterous intentions.

Edited by meremortal (12/09/07 05:36 PM)

That would be Justuss MM. She locks pointless threads or threads where it gets outa control.

I locked the thread meremortal. It was getting no where and I have received numerous complaints and alerts. And, JFYI, NOT about YOUR posts.

We have so many posters on MB sincerely needing help with their marriages. And their posts are falling off the board with few responses.

Let's try to return to Marriage Building, PLEASE!!

I believe the POV and purpose of what I and many others posted there is not 'pointless'. I resent the censorship and anyone who does not agree with MY POV should just ignore it instead of trying to 'control' or censor my POV.

BTW, from my perspective as a REAL BW, I think it is POINTLESS to allow somebody who has adultery as their agenda, and who has been given AMPLE time, and WAY TOO MUCH consideration to be reached by people, but persists in that pursuit, AND who is violating the posting rules here to boot, to continue posting here.

My POV, anybody who doesn't agree with me and wants to try to 'control' me into thinking differently can stop 'abusing' me and just ignore me.

"Is this how you treat members of a community?"

Back, as a person who has the agenda of stealing a married man away from his wife, a person who hurls insults at anyone who opposes your evil agenda, a person who is most likely laughing at how much frustration and hurt you cause the people who need to come here for support in STOPPING people like you from detroying marriages and from recovering from the destruction you hope to inflict on the innocent wife of the married man you are after,
YOU DO NOT BELONG IN THIS COMMUNITY!

Go over to TOW. RUN - don't walk!

You have been shown far too much benefit of the doubt, too much of a 'welcome' here, too much coddling and 'protection'. It has given you a false sense of security here that you shall be soon deprived of. Most of you previous defenders have grown silent now that it has been exposed what your true agenda is. It's just a matter of time before you lose the rest of the lingering support and special treatment that has enabled you to abuse regular posters here who really ARE BS's or reformed adulterers. If you can't take the heat now you'd best leave ASAP!

MM - you need to calm down here. Justuss is doing a great job under difficult circumstances.

Justuss - just to make it official:

I find it HIGHLY OFFENSIVE that Back is even allowed to continue to post here.

Please ban her as the best way to solve the problem so that we can all go back to the real purpose of this message board.

BTW - I for one do NOT believe that the purpose of this message board is to allow someone to get help in how to seduce a married man and destroy a REAL marriage OR to defend or coddle such a person in any manner.

MM - we all find it offensive but PLEASE let Justuss deal with it. I have a lot of confidence in Justuss.

Maybe MM you should email Justuss?

Mere, I had started a response to you on another thread and when I hit submit, I discovered that the thread had been locked. I don't think the following I have written in response is lock-worthy, so I think it safe to post it to you here.


Mere, I don't know how other people determine their participation, but mine is extremely limited because I am self-employed. I can't afford to utilize my "employer's" time with my forum participation. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> There are days that I don't read at all, other days where I only have an hour or so for the forums. My reading and participating is often done in spurts - lots of reading and some responding on a single day interspersed with gaps of time where I don't read and respond at all.

I cannot and do not read every thread. I often am unable to read every post in threads that I do read. I have not read the thread you reference above, so it may be that the people who have not commented have also not read it.

I did read yesterday what you wrote about your daughters, what they have gone through, and are still dealing with as a result of the destruction infidelity brought to your family.
I am not familiar with your story, but I cannot begin to imagine how you deal with the horror of seeing your children so devastated. Your mother's heart must be ripped to shreds. Does their father not recognize what his infidelity has done?

I am sorry that your pain has been added to with the recent interactions. I haven't yet read everything what was said to you but I don't condone the purposeful hurt that has evidently been pointed at you. Speaking against one thing, does not mean acceptance of others. If I write "Women should not slap, hit, punch, kick or push their husbands." I am not condoning and excusing husbands who abuse their wives, merely because I have not spoken about them.

I have family that deals with mental disorders. I can't imagine treating or responding to someone who is mentally ill with the same "weapons" they may be using, in order that I might teach them a lesson or get rid of them.

If someone isn't mentally ill and is behaving badly, it makes little sense to me, to return evil for evil, wrong for wrong.

We don't encourage people to fight their spouse's infidelity with infidelity. We don't suggest responding to lovebusters with your own lovebusters as the good path to take.

If you "fight" wrongdoing in the *same* way that those people you think are wrong fight, then *you* have become that which you thought wrong.

I tend to expect a higher standard from those who lead, from those who are more experienced, from those who are more mature. Playing verbal tit for tat and mocking someone who you disagree with or who may be disruptive, may drive them off or shut them up, but at what cost to those who read the exchange as well as those who were utilizing those tools?

For those who are vulnerable and in great pain, I would encourage them to avoid and not participate in threads that add to that pain. It's like that old joke, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." And the doctor replies, "Then, stop doing that!"

You have much on your life's plate right now and expending your emotional energy on a worrisome or obnoxious thread may not be the most productive path for you at this time.

I agree with Justuss. Can everyone please get back to HELPING people save their marriages?

Thanks

graplin, unfortunately, your approach has led to much of the dissension on this board. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> Your misguided support of back and inappropriate condemnation ["abusers"] of those who addressed her has added fuel to the fire as you can see. Because of this, back was emboldened to go "assist" newcomers while you were busy berating and scolding board members for not being "nice" enough to an abusive person.

Your "compassion" never extended, unfortunately, to those she harmed and continued harming here, which tells me that your agenda is not "compassion" at all. It is a sign of emotional immaturity at best, or an agenda at worst. Your compassion is always reserved for those that can be used to berate board members. Perhaps back was used to faciliatate your usual MO of scolding board members for not being "nice" enough. Who knows.

But, I hope that you take some time to reflect on how destructive and disingeniuous your selective brand of "compassion" really is and are open minded enough to learn from your mistakes. Selective "compassion" at the expense of contributing board members is not compassion at all, as you can see. Let's hope you learn something here.

And I still await that apology for your dishonesty on the back thread yesterday. Thanks..

and Graplin...you asked Mel for an example on the other thread...I provided one. You seem to have little compassion for abused and take abusers under your wing. I backed up my comment with an example of when I was dealing with you.

MEDC, she was given 3 such examples and she still ignored the point. She has an agenda here; and it ain't "compassion."

Let's show meremortal your statments from yesterday, when you accused board members of abusing back, shall we, graplin? Let's show her how different your "compassion" looked then:



"Mere and others who felt they were abused didn't have to stay on the threads. Choosing to stay when they felt abused was their choice - that makes them volunteers, not a victims."

Implying it was MEAN to expose that this was Laura_Lee:

MelodyLane: "Wait a minute, it is "MEAN" to expose the truth about WHO back really is? C'mon, people that is just silly. There is nothing mean about revealng the truth. "

Graplin disagreed: "How the truth is revealed can be."

Board members who were abused by back are "destructive to this forum" for responding to back: "I am amazed that you and your fellow "neutralizers" fail to see what a rebuke this was and how your crusades of neutralization are destructive to this forum."

"Yes. Is it another example of your desire to drive off people (or "neutralize" them) who aren't standard issue?" [Mel: I guess by not "standard issue" she means an OW who is attempting to use MB principles to pursue someone elses husband]

"Fighting abuse with abuse makes little sense to me."

"The tongue is a powerful thing, death and life are in it. Do you think it a good thing to return evil for evil and insult for insult? "

"However, the actions of some seem to prove the belief that while she can't be helped here, that there's nothing wrong with harming her as we try to head her on out of the forum."


"So, anything goes in the goal to "neutralize" or are there acceptable methods and unacceptable methods?"

When pointed out to graplin that back was attempting to help newbies with plan A: "Newbies aren't likely to sign up for her Plan A coaching when reasoned people point out why that wouldn't be wise. And members who have been here for a while certainly aren't going to. Members who are still very emotionally vulnerable can stay off those threads. So, what harm are you seeing?"

In response to my posts to back, that were an attempt to tone her down:

"What has been suggested is that the way you have been going about silencing people hasn't been in a particularly helpful or healthy way. And it hasn't just been the backs of the forum that have come under the silencing routine - it has been anyone that had the audacity to question the methods that some are using. "

Pasted from <http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3351673&page=0&fpart=8&vc=1>

Mere, I thought you should see that graplin is not being honest with you; she did much more than NOT CONDONE the abuse of you, she called you, me and others "abusers" who "volunteered" for it.

Medc, you had written in another thread:

"I have an answer for that Graplin...the H of seekingwife was defended by you despite obviously abusive behavior."

A link to my first post on that thread is here.

In which I responded to a quote from you:

Medc wrote:
To which I replied the following which you evidently are declaring is my "defending Seekingwife's abusive husband".

I wrote:
I pointed out that he very well may be abusive, but to call him that based on the scant info received before was a leap to judgment, IMO.

I'll let the gentle readers determine if your assessment of my opinion that there had not been enough information provided to label her husband abusive is the equivalent of defending his abusive behavior

Melody had told SW that her husband reminded her a lot of spouses who had been diagnosed as sociopaths and took SW's quote that she had found porn of "videos of 3 somes and very very young girls" and extrapolated that the man was viewing kiddy porn.

I responded with:

Melody then asks me "WHAT "sexual abuse?" I have no idea what you are talking about. "

Well, the sexual abuse that Medc thought was so obvious. I guess ML didn't see it either.

Medc wrote: "he has used sex as a weapon.... she wanted to feel loved and cared for...his response...you will need to get a whole lot nastier for that to happen!

To which I replied: "Well, sex as a weapon in marriage is very often the first weapon wielded, both withholding and demanding. So, that doesn't automatically lift their relationship into abusive.

He expresses himself crudely, and that is often off-putting. He may not be expressing himself well when he uses the word "nasty". That may be his poor expression for wanting sex with his wife that isn't stilted, stiff, don't touch there, and only in this position.

We don't know enough to say.


Husbands ask for sex, wives say "you're going to have to get a lot more _________ for that to happen!"

When couples are in a withdrawn state, saying harsh things is par for the course. She wants to feel loved and cared for *in her way* and he wants to feel loved and cared for *in his way*."

When SW said that her husband had attempted to choke her during sex and positions that disregarded her physical pain, I wrote to her, "Physical pain and choking definitely consitutes abuse and calls for a different plan of action than does simple sexual incompatibilities."

If you want to continue to assert that my search for clarification from SW is the equivalent of "defending her husband's abusive behavior - then continue on with the attempted lynching.

I wrote:
Which Melody interprets to say:
"Implying it was MEAN to expose that this was Laura_Lee:"

You may need to send back the nifty Cracker Jack decoder ring upon which you managed to reach the above interpretation.

I implied nothing. And nothing you quoted from me above even approaches your "interpretation". I said clearly that BSs who are being hurt by threads started by others can choose to avoid the thread rather than stay and be hurt even more.
If they are angry and want to address the injustice they perceive or they're intellectually inclined to argue a point, then I would encourage them to stay and duke it out.

But, if their participation is causing them great emotional distress that is intolerable, then they can choose to stop being victimized by the disagreeable thread and leave it. To stay when you know you are being hurt is to volunteer for the pain.

Is there some part of of the above that I have actually said with which you specifically disagree?

Not what you have tried to turn my words into, but what I actually wrote?

Do you purposely choose to twist other's words into incomprehensible, indefensible, unrelated gibberish so that you can feel you have won some Pyhrric victory?

Because I am unable to come up with any legitimate justification for the tack that you take repeatedly with those who disagree with you on anything, beyond the above question proposed except perhaps some sort of dyslexia that causes you to be unable to comprehend what someone is actually saying when they don't agree with you.

i think you can probably already answer that question for yourself. don't look for anyone else to answer it for you.

Can everyone please get back to HELPING people save their marriages?

i've not read any of this stuff that has prompted all this but i have been in your shoes graplin. let it go. what i have found to be a good technique is to stick to posting to the person you want to help. just let your words you say, to the person you are talking to, speak for themselves. it's up the the reader to then make up their own mind as to what will be of help and what they should leave behind.

take a deep breath and let it go.

not that i'm telling you what to do <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> just giving you some advice to consider.

Graplin, the reason I posted your quotes here is because you lie and deny as a debate tactic and I didn't want you to be able to deny your comments. I wanted meremortal to see how disingenious you are being to her. You are ALWAYS being "misunderstood" or "mischaracterized" or "misrepresented" when you are losing the debate. That is a cheesy amateur debate ploy [employed by the very most dishonest] when they know they can't defend their point.

I caught onto that little ploy over on the other thread when you lied about your statement about Ace leaving the forum, and, thinking back, see that it characterizes ALL of your debates. The lightbulb went off! And here you are doing it again, of course. LOL Let's look at this exchange from Saturday which typifies how you operate:


graplin: "The concern I expressed was that in the rush to call troll whenever the outside-the-norm story shows up, we have driven off people *who were not trolls*.

Ace pointed out that when she first came on this forum, she was accused of being a troll. She left the forum. She did eventually come back. She was not a troll. "


Melody: She never claimed she left for that reason.


graplin: "And I never said she did! This is another case of you setting up your straw arguments. I was pointing out that she was falsely accused."


http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/sho...part=7&vc=1


Lying and denying ………………..as a debate tactic, graplin. THAT is your MO.

Graplin...clearly you are choosing to lie and wish to continue the charade that you actually care for posters here. The above is a direct quote from that thread. The abuse....yes abuse Graplin (maybe you would consider the stuff foreplay, who knows) was evident....even before the above post. You were either just too immature/inexperienced to recognize it...or too devious to see it for what it really was. Either way your words were harmful to that poster.

Bottom line is, you offered lousy advice in that thread....choosing instead to make the victim out to be the perp.




As I told you on the thread in question.

Anyone can go to the thread linked HERE and will see that the quote with details above came *after* my posts asking for clarification.

Not before, med. After.

Once the above info was out, I encouraged SW to deal with the more dangerous things occurring in her marriage rather than on marriage building.

So, why would you make it out as if I had advised her to submit to sexual abuse when I did nothing of the kind? Why would you twist my questions toward clarification as support for the abuser?

Your employment background has led you to be around rapists, murderers and criminals. My background has led me to be around middle-aged Christian women. That is the simple explanation for our initial different approaches to what SW had presented in regards to the sexual issues initially. You're accustomed, I would assume, to dealing with people who are often guilty of heinous acts. I'm accustomed to dealing with Christian women who have been brought up with the idea that sex is generally something dirty and that men (including their husbands) are out for nothing else. That can leave them with a warped attitude about sex with their husband.

The thing I did that you found so horrible, was ask for clarification.



Well, the thing is, anyone can go and read the thread and see that I offered NO advice, lousy or otherwise because I did not think enough information had been presented.

Anyone can see that I never made SW's husband a victim, nor did I ever condemn or judge her.

Why would you continue to propagate that falsehood about me?

Why would you make such an effort to paint my participation here as a false charade, as a liar? Why would you attack my character because you disagree with me?

People of good character can disagree without turning it into some sort of forum bloodbath.

[***************************edit********************