After examining what I wrote to you in the pm in question, I realized I did suggest creating a fake ed con account, complete with email address for parents to contact (and be given a lecture on how stupid they are). I was clearly talking about a parody one... something akin to Dr. Fucktard or SIBS, which already exists. I don't see a problem with this. if parents don't read the parody fine print, they deserve a lecture on how easy is to get conned, and it keeps kids out of programs. That being said, when I realized the afore-mentioned problem with the sock-puppetry rules I decided against sending that suggestion and thought i had deleted the sentence. As a result I accused you hastily of making that up. I apologize for that, and parts of what i wrote earlier. I don't believe, however, for a second, that you even considered that i would intentionally decieve a parent and what? refer them to a program? What exactly were you going to accuse me of to get your way?
I’m very busy this week with FDA hearings and I’d like to respond more fully, but time allows only simple brevity.
First, thank you for your apology. I appreciate it. Of course I never have and never would think you would deceive a parent in order to have a child placed in a program. I never thought that and never said that. Let me first give you a ditrect quote of what you said to me and I will explain why I took the measures I did.
Who else will represent his viewpoint. It will become necessary to invent him and for that purpose you have to promise you will make up a sock-puppet... Maybe a fake ed-con, complete with email address for parents to contact you.
This is the exact verbiage you used. Obviously, to any observer, this is an offer of
quid pro quo, and this is precisely what set me off. Now you are saying this isn’t what you meant, and I accept that explanation, but at the time, the above was the operating premise. Esentially,
”I will ban Whooter if and only if you promise to deceive the public intentionally and violate the stated rules of the site.” As you can imagine, this disturbed me deeply.
You know or should know me better than that. I went through a lawsuit rather than simply take a website down and kicked a program in the teeth in the process. I went through a successful domain dispute with Sue Scheff and embarrassed her publicly all over the internet with the truth of her deceptions. That website is still #2 when you google her name. In response she has put up false and misleading statements about me on the internet which most likely affected my ability to get a job, and would continue to do so if I ever changed jobs. That could easily be solved by a quick phone call to Sue Scheff. I would take the website down, I would work for her (we'd work up a story). I could blame my behavior on a fake drug problem. I could probably take Fornits with me in the process. And I would probably make all sorts of money like that cu*t from PV probably did when she went to the dark side. And I could "apologize" to Benchmark and hook up some sort of referral deal. And I could speak at NATSAP... Yet none of this has happened. And you accuse me of taking Whooter's side? As if I like the guy? As if he's cute or something? He defends child abusers and in my view is fully cognizant of what goes on in programs.
Let me flip this on you. Your story above is very similar to how I and other posters here successfully shut down HLA and won a class action lawsuit to make HLA pay back their victims. I was SLAPPed, I was threatened with violence and HLA did their dead-level best to destroy my character with lies. But I never gave up and I never do.
You threatened me to get your way and to back up your threat I believe you misrepresented your personal opinions of me and The Gatekeeper... just because you weren't getting you're way with Whooter.
That’s not how it went down at all. Only after you made me a
quid pro quo offer that would require me to sell out my own principles and to degrade the credibility of all Fornits users, did I respond at this level. Here is what I said to you:
I am simply telling you that I will continue to be honest with other posters here if you intend to continue to rig the game. I still believe you don't mean what you said, but actions speak louder than words. Banning Whooter cannot be contingent upon my agreement to create sockpuppets to replace him. I won't do that. If my not doing that becomes your vis compulsiva for not finding in my favor, then the chips will fall where they may.
And…
How would you feel if the judge in your case with Sue Scheff simply disregarded your evidence and testimony and openly communicated to you that, in order for you to prevail, even though the evidence weighs fully in your favor, that you had to make moral concessions in order to be adjudicated the victor? Think about that.
What I said, very clearly, is that if you rule against me with the
stated reason being that I would not create sockpuppets to replace Whooter’s POV (“vis compulsiva”), then I would be forced to make that public as a pure PSA so that posters would know the game was rigged. I am glad that you now have publicly retracted that statement and it is no longer an issue, so you may now stop asking exactly what I was “going to accuse” you of, because it was quite clear in my private response, and now my public response. This issue may be closed.
I am writing a ruling now. You may still get your way, but this obsession with getting Whooter banned at any costs (see attached) is insane. The forum is not taking sides on matters of truth or falsity. i have explained this to you before, and you should use the warning feature rather than PM. I don't have as much time as you might prefer to read through pages and pages of junk.
Based on simple contract law, your decision is also simple. It’s really not my fault that you are putting so much effort into what amounts to a
prima facie case of basic contract law. According to our contract, between you, me and Whooter, Whooter must be banned for life. It’s cut and dried, psy.
I used Whooter’s mental illness against him, maneuvered him into a contract I knew, you knew and he knew he would violate due to his obsessive/compulsive disorder. He violated it immediately and was banned for a week. He came right back and violated it again and when the rubber met the road, you made all sorts of excuses on his behalf and kicked the can down the road for a couple of months which appeared to me that since I would not proceed
quid pro quo that you would not act on what is a very basic matter.
Any judge would have made a summary judgment in my favor in this case. You chose to make it very complicated and waste your own time. I can’t be held to account for that.
Also. The reason I chose The Gatekeeper is because I wanted somebody who had the time and I felt could be objective.
Well, you blew that one. You took a flame troll and made him a moderator. You did the same with Che Gookin and realized your error only after he damaged the database beyond repair. Joel has less power than Che did, but he does start flame wars via PM and on the board and when people respond in kind he deletes their posts and issues bogus board warnings or bannings, each time being overturned by you.
Joel will skip over ten Whooter posts that say “DJ is a convicted child molester and sells drugs to kids” to get to one post that says “Whooter is a jerk for saying that” and deleting the post and warning the second poster while taking no action against Whooter, even leaving the “child molester” posts. Again, just a bad personnel choice. People do see this behavior and wonder why Whooter receives preferential treatment.
You seem to really be the only one with a huge problem with him. (and nun-ya). But how many of you guys have, I dunno, bothered to maybe PM and ask why a certian moderation decision was made. You can appeal it to me, but most of the time, if an error was made, it can be resolved by the moderator. There is no need to demand heads on a platter.
I have received many complaints about Joel via PM and many more have been made on the board. You might be a bit out of touch with the pulse of the public on this one. And we shouldn’t have to “prove our innocence” in order to have warnings or bannings lifted, Joel should have to prove “our guilt” first. Every time I have had a warning or attempted banning from Joel, it was immediately reversed upon appeal and my posts restored, but the damage was done already. That’s not the way it should work.
Also, I don't discuss user's warning statuses with anybody but the user. For all you know Whooter might be banned tomorrow for exceeding his maximum warnings.
If only…
Here are a couple of message excerpts I have received in just the last day pertaining to Whooter and to Joel:
“I've lost all respect for this forum. If traffic sucks now, what's the harm in banning Whooter?"
“Whooter does not encourage successful dialogue. He is a big deterrent from this site and has already caused irreparable harm.”
“Whooter must pay all the hosting fees for this site because he’s allowed to do whatever he wants without consequence while non-payers get their posts deleted or get banned.”
“What’s the deal with the double standard here?”
“It's not his opinion, it’s his pervasiveness - and insidious perfidy.”
“Whooter came and sank the ship. It was a slow leak at first, and then the Titanic.”
“This site is all Whooter, all the time. I'd rather it be dead traffic than Whooterville.”
“I do think Gatekeeper is well intentioned, just over his head.”
“I don't know what the f Psy is thinking.”That’s just from
yesterday, psy.
In any case, many people here correctly perceive the unfairness and most agree that Fornits has been largely destroyed by Whooter whom they view as “above the rules” because of “double standards” or “monetary donations.”
Why do they believe this way? Because of the way you run the forums, psy. It’s your behaviour that gives rise to the wonderment about “corruption.” I understand you don’t view it that way, but many people do and I think they have good reason to see it that way. Even if you never intended to give those impressions, that is what is being seen by the public.
Most long-time posters have simply left. New posters get chased off by Whooter’s incessant vapid trolling and derailing. This is the “New Fornits,” like it or not.
Lastly, I am constantly encouraged to “keep it up.” And I will. Why? Like I said to you:
So, I hope this has clarified some things for you and has given you at least a small window into my makeup and into my thought processes. We're on the same team - the team that helps kids who were or may become victims of the TTI. Accordingly, I apologize once more if you view me as untoward. But you must understand that Whooter is here to put heads in beds and asses in chairs either directly or indirectly and I will do whatever it is I believe I must do to disallow that from bearing fruit, no holds barred.
Good day, good tidings, good luck and very best regards,
DJ
Thank you for reading this missive. I’m finished with the public side of this matter. Any further commentary should be directed to me via PM.
EDIT: When my Inbox looks like this, it's obvious why yours looks the way it does.
