I don't understand the meaning of your post, Fay. Could you clarify or expand upon it?

I think, Suela, that the problem is mostly that I admitted that I was, in fact, being malicious, and while I am very sorry that folks other than Zoe were hurt by my words, I am not sorry that Zoe was hurt, because my intent was to smack the crap out of her, and make her feel as bad as she made my friends feel.

It was vigilante justice, and I think that is what makes people really uncomfy. That I still believe that not only what I said was right, but that it made me feel good to do it to her. I knew when I was posting it that I would have to apologize to the board. I weighed the posts against the fallout, and thought that possibly chasing Zoe out was worth whatever happened to me, including a spaking or banning.

And I still think it is unfortunate that it didn't work. I would have gladly taken a three month walk for it. I'll do my time for the crime.

I apologize for being unclear. By 'spanking' I meant that Allyson should have been reprimanded in-thread, which apparently happened. I didn't read that far.

As for the whole mental illness thing, at no point did I mean that we should just ignore her behavior. IF it were true (setting aside for the moment whether or not speculation on that matter is appropriate), it might suggest that a bit of extra patience and a couple of inventive strategies might yield more fruit than excessive discipline. Please note that I have already expressed my approval for an official warning.

To wit: unless you understand how to communicate with him, the deaf blind guy pissing on your shoe in the urinal is going to continue pissing on your shoe. Clumsy metaphor, I know.

I don't see much difference between me speculating that she has problems and others speculating that she is a vicious troll. Since she won't defend herself (I speculate that she's scared shitless of what's going on and is therefore sort of ignoring it), it's all just f-ing speculation. And I agree that that is a major part of the problem.

And with that I'm going dark for a while. Good luck to everyone. If anyone wants to continue discussing with me, profile addy is good.

Thanks for the backing, Fay Jay, it's a bit lonely over here.

t takes a look around, shuts off light and leaves, hugging 1st amendment to her chest.

edited b/c I just can't stop reading. Allyson, what you did seems to me to be harassment by your own definition. That you are proud of it makes me sad.

I had just decided to clarify this with Allyson by private email, but since people are talking about it now, I'll just add that what set me off wasn't so much the truthfulness of her apology, but her later bragging about it in this and other threads.

Let me put an example: if I insult someone else on this board, then apologize, and then, a few days later, I make another post about how much of a badass I am and how witty my comebacks are, am I off the hook?

hugging 1st amendment to her chest.

Whoa. Not ALL speech is protected speech. Lets please remember that.

I'd also like to suggest that telling people what they should or shouldn't find offensive is a bit...irrelevant.

If the "gay sex is icky" comment didn't push any of your buttons, well, lucky you, you had a much better afternoon that day than the rest of us did. Ditto to anyone who wasn't offended by the Christianity rant.

The salient point is, other people were offended, and instead of backing down and saying "I didn't realize people would take it that way, sorry, didn't mean to offend," Zoe just got more and more obnoxious, on both occasions. It's a pattern of behavior that has repeatedly caused problems, and she's made no effort to change it.

It's a pattern of behavior that has repeatedly caused problems, and she's made no effort to change it.

Also? The fact that more than one person e-mailed her alerting her to this discussion -- in addition to the people who mentioned it in-thread -- and she neither responded to the e-mails nor joined this discussion tells me that she does not care about the community's response to her behavior.

So why are we so concerned with accomodating her when she doesn't care about us?

hugging 1st amendment to her chest.

Whoa. Not ALL speech is protected speech. Lets please remember that.

"I don't find male to male sex a turn-on" is hate speech, then? Intended to intimidate? Are you trying to dictate that people have to find homosexual sex attractive? To me that is no better than straight people assuming that everyone is turned on by hetero stuff.

Really, really honest-to-goodness leaving this time because (regrettably) building plans don't review themselves.

I don't understand the meaning of your post, Fay. Could you clarify or expand upon it?

Bwah! Well, I certainly had that coming. Sorry - I so haven't mastered brevity.

Smonster, I'm really sorry you're going. Hope to see you again soon.

I don't see much difference between me speculating that she has problems and others speculating that she is a vicious troll.

From my point of view, wrod. Also she did say she was on medication (just checked upthread), so it's not like it was a totally random deduction.

"I don't find male to male sex a turn-on" is hate speech, then? Intended to intimidate? Are you trying to dictate that people have to find homosexual sex attractive? To me that is no better than straight people assuming that everyone is turned on by hetero stuff.

smonster, I meant my statement to be a general statement w/r/t the First Amendment. It was not a reply to any specific cited incident.

A privately run BBS is not bound by the First Amendment.

I think that's what needs to be kept in mind, not "was that hate speech" or "is that harassment".

Anyhow, poster-in-question's in Scotland. Just sayin'.