A GC Hypothetical

[decadence]

BobbyTheDon would make a great PledgeMaster.

ETA: Nothing I could have said in this post could have equalled, bettered or been worthy of following James' previous post.
ETA 2: Removed subject line.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by James
Well thats a good question and deserves a serious answer.

The short version is that the entire matter is unimportant to the boards.

If XYZcutie had "outed" mullet I would probably have just asked for the thread to be deleted and a caution sent to her about bringing up non-GC stuff or posting people's personal data on the net.

This is the way the original IHE case was handled and caused a host of problems:

1) multiple threads popping up about "What happened to IHE? She was so great."
2) the vast majority of people had no clue what was going on -- and most of them still don't (it appears, you included), which leads to incorrect assumptions about what all is going on.

Or censored creating a situation where mullet is being smeared for no discenerable reason. ITs a character attack that mullet couldn't fight against even if it wasn't true. How can you prove a negative?

I could smear any of the people on GC just by making sinister comments.

If the mods or John had a problem with the contents of this thread, it could have easily been locked. Apparently they disagree because it's still open, and John even passed on information to be added to it (that mullet's IP is the same as IHE's).

Or even as a stretch, if Mullet were harrassing GC'ers off the site but because of GC. And maybe this is more like this? But I would have wanted to handle most of that stuff privately because that is he said she said.

As stated by both me and Jules, THIS is exactly what's happening. IHE has harassed GCers IN REAL LIFE in both incarnations (mullet and IHE). We brought this to the board's attention because we think it's important that anybody who has interacted with mullet be aware of who she really is and the potential that they could be the victim of such behavior. As I pointed out above, IHE is no run-of-the-mill troll -- she has made GCers the victims of behaviors that could qualify her for a restraining order, more than once.

Harem Stuff.

<snip>

I've addressed all this before and I don't feel it relates to the situation at hand. As I've stated, I don't give a flying f&%$ what somebody does or says on GC or the internet. What I do care about is when that crosses the boundaries of the internet and goes into real life. I have had three GCers that I know of that have honestly feared for their safety -- and had reason to! --because of IHE and her behavior.

As for us being the "mean girls" of GC -- if that's how people see us, I can't say I'm going to spend much time crying about it. But the thing I think is absolutely hilarious is that we all catch flak for saying the exact same thing that Rob/Rudey/Blaine/you said in another thread and were worshipped for. The whole "strong woman=bitch but the men are untouchable" stereotype is in full effect on GC . . . but that's a topic for another thread.

[mu_agd]

Originally posted by James
Also didn't you guys post Rudey's pics as well as his personal information online? I seem to recall that from a while ago.

well, you know James, if you are going to call out people and say they posted personal information of Rudey online, why aren't you calling Rudey out for posting phone numbers and email addresses of other GC'ers online? is this that double standard coming back here??

[Lindz928]

Originally posted by decadence
ETA: Nothing I could have said in this post could have equalled, bettered or been worthy of following James' previous post.

I agree. James, you have such a way with words.

This may qualify as one of the most pointless threads on the entire site. Soap opera is an understatement.

[HotDamnImAPhiMu]

it probably says a lot that I'm too scared to actually post anything of substance because I know I'll be flamed silly by one of about five girls.

[erniegurl00]

This is how I'm taking this matter.

1. What has or has not happened in the past concerning the harlem is not the matter here.
2. The matter has to do with Jules and this other woman.

I've been stalked and threatened over the net, and it's not fun at all. It's scary when a random person you've never met knows your personal info.

I'm sorry this matter has risen again.

[James]

Actually I have done so personally with Rudey.

Originally posted by mu_agd
well, you know James, if you are going to call out people and say they posted personal information of Rudey online, why aren't you calling Rudey out for posting phone numbers and email addresses of other GC'ers online? is this that double standard coming back here??

[navane]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
As stated by both me and Jules, THIS is exactly what's happening. IHE has harassed GCers IN REAL LIFE in both incarnations (mullet and IHE). We brought this to the board's attention because we think it's important that anybody who has interacted with mullet be aware of who she really is and the potential that they could be the victim of such behavior. As I pointed out above, IHE is no run-of-the-mill troll -- she has made GCers the victims of behaviors that could qualify her for a restraining order, more than once.

Hi there,

With all gentleness and sincerity, may I ask you to please give us a little more information about what you specifically mean when you say that this person has "harassed" people in real life? Behaviours which would result in a restraining order?

I understand that this is a sore point for you and/or the others who are affected by this person; it must be unsettling to be duped by someone you trusted. However, can you see why some people may be having a hard time accepting [your] postings? You are issuing warnings about someone who, as far as I can tell, hasn't done anything negative to anyone here on GC. It's like asking us to stay away from the nice girl. If this poster has exhibited inappropriate behaviours which endanger the physical safety of others on this board, then I believe you need to come right out and say "We met her for coffee a few months ago and she waved a knife around at us" or, "she sent us some very bizarre e-mails which said things like _______" or whatever.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a fan on this type of "fake internet person" junk. Just this year my family and friends had to deal with a faker who was, in reality, someone who had been an old member of our group who had left under strained conditions and was now stalking us by e-mail and by phone. We caught him out big time using a fake online persona so that he could "be friends" with us - we have the hard evidence to prove his real identity. At one point, this guy outright told my father that he'd create as many fake e-mail accounts as needed to get around my dad's spam blocker software. Then this guy's behaviour got really bizarre and irrational to the point where several of us started to feel that our physical safety was in question. Four of us had to get together to discuss going to court to get an actual restraining order.

We originally didn't want to air the dirty laundry to the rest of the members of the club; but it came to a point where we felt obligated to cite specific examples to the others in the group so that they knew how and why to stay away from Mr. Stalker Guy. After all, he "seemed ok" to them.

I can see if you truly don't want to give away any future strategy, but it does make it hard for us to understand. In my opinion, taking one post off of someone else's LJ and using it as yours is lame, but it's not really identity theft and it's not something you can get a restraining order for. That's why we're confused about this. If you want to clear it up a bit, that would help. I suppose you can PM me if you'd rather respond there.

.....Kelly

[DolphinChicaDDD]

Originally posted by BobbyTheDon
Omega,

please make a montage of this soap opera...and make me the pimp of all the girls

thank you

LMAO!!!!

I love you BobbyTheDon.

[Lindz928]

I am thinking about this, and I am trying to figure out exactly why you felt the need to post this situation on GC. There is only a small group of you who has been adversely affected by this person. As you said, she has now become close to your clique twice now under two different identities. I would worry that making such a big deal about this on GC would only provoke her more. Especially if you say that this has extended beyond the internet. If you are really worried that this person might be a stalker or a serial killer and that you are in danger, wouldn't you expect posting this just to upset her more and put you in more danger?

If you are just posting this here to warn the rest of us about her, then I would say thank you, but she does not seem concerned with us, nor the rest of us with her. It sounds to me like your small group is the only one who is worried much about her.

Originally posted by Lindz928
I am thinking about this, and I am trying to figure out exactly why you felt the need to post this situation on GC. There is only a small group of you who has been adversely affected by this person.

She posed as a MODERATOR and member of DELTA ZETA from the University of Iowa and then masqueraded around as an ALPHA XI DELTA sister from Indiana University.

I know many DZs who were extremely upset about the situation the first time. The second time around she pretty much kept it on the DL that she was an Alpha Xi, but she did make references to that affiliation.

I hardly think that these are "small groups" that have been adversely affected. From what I understood, nobody likes 'perps.

I don't know what kind of online relationships she had with those "not in my small group" and the extent of info exchanged, but posting about this psycho's actions alerts those of us who are "not in the small group". It was never a "Hey, everybody join on the public flogging!" campaign. It was more of a "Watch out because she'll screw you over too!"

You made it clear that it doesn't affect you. So fine, shut up, move on to the next thread, and just respect the fact that it's a bigger issue than "just a small group" and it affects more people than you think.

KTHXBI.

[Senusret I]

I don't know what kind of online relationships she had with those "not in my small group" and the extent of info exchanged, but posting about this psycho's actions alerts those of us who are "not in the small group". It was never a "Hey, everybody join on the public flogging!" campaign. It was more of a "Watch out because she'll screw you over too!"

Which is exactly what happened when we outed the pathological liar I mentioned before. I ended up making two new friends out of people she had lied to.

Sad, sad story.

[HotDamnImAPhiMu]

You know what, Sandy? That was a really mean response to Kelly's perfectly polite and understandable post.

Kelly basically said (as I understand it, Kelly, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong,) that it's difficult for other GCers to join the anti-whoever campaign in light of the relative lack of information you ladies have posted.

She didn't challenge the statements made so far.

She didn't make reference to the H&A.

She didn't suggest that you were telling anything else other than the absolute truth.

She simply stated -- very diplomatically, I might add, I think I would have had trouble wording things quite so nicely -- that if you want more support and understanding from the GC community at large, it's reasonable to expect to have to provide more specifics.

[Allmixedup311]

dude this is nuts.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by navane

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a fan on this type of "fake internet person" junk. Just this year my family and friends had to deal with a faker who was, in reality, someone who had been an old member of our group who had left under strained conditions and was now stalking us by e-mail and by phone. We caught him out big time using a fake online persona so that he could "be friends" with us - we have the hard evidence to prove his real identity. At one point, this guy outright told my father that he'd create as many fake e-mail accounts as needed to get around my dad's spam blocker software. Then this guy's behaviour got really bizarre and irrational to the point where several of us started to feel that our physical safety was in question. Four of us had to get together to discuss going to court to get an actual restraining order.

Hm, weird - this sort of behavior is disarming and potentially dangerous? There you have it.

Originally posted by navane
We originally didn't want to air the dirty laundry to the rest of the members of the club; but it came to a point where we felt obligated to cite specific examples to the others in the group so that they knew how and why to stay away from Mr. Stalker Guy. After all, he "seemed ok" to them.
.....Kelly

Kelly -

This is the point. Right here. This is why this was posted, I'd assume.