| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/24/2009 03:46:01 PM · #126 |
Simms, I have to run out for a bit, so I won't be able to get right back with you if the situation warrants, but why would someone who agrees with the SC that a rule-breaker should be booted is a "sheep" and on the "bandwagon."
This woman was asked, then told, not to come back to dpc. She did anyway, several times, essentially lying each time to do so. I also know, based on her comments at other sites, the only reason she wanted to come back here was to "compete" against the lowlifes here. She had no respect for dpc, its membership, or its purpose.
Whether her "nose was clean" or not, and whether or not she was causing an upheaval is, frankly, irrelevant. She was banned. Period. She "cheated" to get back in. End of story.
If you disagree with it, fine, but don't call those that agree with it sheep. That is arrogance at it's largest.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2009 03:47:44 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Bebe:
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
I think it's a shame. The woman is obviously not well and shouldn't be allowed to continue here but I hope she can keep up with the photography that she obviously enjoys as it may give her an outlet from whatever ails her. |
LOL - as far as I can tell she pretty much kept her nose clean this time. Anyway, I wont keep you, theres a bandwagon I think you need to hop onto. |
Given her history & propensity for lying, I suspect that her recent thread talking about having to sell her equipment to have all her teeth pulled was false. She enticed generous members to offer free items, including a free camera, under what was a false identity & possibly false pretenses. I have no sympathy for her, and am glad that SC was on it. |
Which is not only immoral and unethical, but could potentially be seen as Internet fraud -- a federal offense. The ONLY thing that kept it from being fraud, IMO, was that she didn't outright ask for it. But, she knew the population here and how they responded to such situations. Half through her post, I knew someone would offer her a camera. She had to know as well. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 03:52:35 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Simms:
its seems something of a witch-hunt going on... |
Maybe a more accurate denotation than connotation.
Originally posted by Simms:
And the sheep, as always, are bleating behind them. |
When a wolf in sheep's clothing is outed, it's OK for the flock to approve, even if the wolf was behaving to that point. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 03:58:24 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Bebe:
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
I think it's a shame. The woman is obviously not well and shouldn't be allowed to continue here but I hope she can keep up with the photography that she obviously enjoys as it may give her an outlet from whatever ails her. |
LOL - as far as I can tell she pretty much kept her nose clean this time. Anyway, I wont keep you, theres a bandwagon I think you need to hop onto. |
Given her history & propensity for lying, I suspect that her recent thread talking about having to sell her equipment to have all her teeth pulled was false. She enticed generous members to offer free items, including a free camera, under what was a false identity & possibly false pretenses. I have no sympathy for her, and am glad that SC was on it. |
Which is not only immoral and unethical, but could potentially be seen as Internet fraud -- a federal offense. The ONLY thing that kept it from being fraud, IMO, was that she didn't outright ask for it. But, she knew the population here and how they responded to such situations. Half through her post, I knew someone would offer her a camera. She had to know as well. |
I dont think it would be "internet fraud" at all. - immoral yes, unethical - maybe. But she never strong armed anyone into handing anything over. Granted she milked peoples generosity and kind nature - but surely a few words from SC would of put her in her place - I can almost imagine the excitement in the SC lounge as they realised it was her. Personally if I had known it was her I would of made it public and then let the public make up their minds instead of the kangaroo court we have seen in session. I'm just thinking that if she was behaving herself better this time around then maybe SC could of had a quiet word in her shell-like, let her know that they knew and tip off a few of those she was asking for help - who knows, maybe this time she was genuinely in need of some help. Maybe I am just mellowing as I am getting older.
I remember a few months back there was an individual on here who was begging for someone to buy her a membership, although in a previous post she was raving about her new mega-expensive lens and the amount of paying work she was putting through the books, and she DID outright ask for it. Still, she was far younger and prettier than Rose so straightaway the person who got ripped off with that "internet fraud" was justifying (quite laughably) why they did it. Surely that's exactly the same circumstances.
Message edited by author 2009-04-24 16:05:44. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 04:18:34 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Personally if I had known it was her I would of made it public and then let the public make up their minds instead of the kangaroo court we have seen in session. |
Kangaroo court? She was already banned (effectively "sentenced" to life without parole) years ago after multiple suspensions and admonishments to behave. Sneaking back in quietly does not make it all better, and besides, her last note shortly before signing up as limerick suggested she didn't want to be hereΓΆ€“
"...keep me OUT OF YOUR MOUTHS and OFF YOUR BOARDS. AND that is MY admonishment to you, and your crew, AND your "God". Why? Because I have made a very good and respectful name for myself in the world of photography since I left your sorry site. ...You guys are too wrapped up in yourselves and outside of photography to have me want to be mentioned ANY WHERE on or near your site again. I'm too grown up for you or DPC"
Ironically, each time she signs up and gets caught only adds to the dubious Google history associated with her name. :-/ |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 04:23:55 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Simms:
Personally if I had known it was her I would of made it public and then let the public make up their minds instead of the kangaroo court we have seen in session. |
Kangaroo court? She was already banned (effectively "sentenced" to life without parole) years ago after multiple suspensions and admonishments to behave. Sneaking back in quietly does not make it all better, and besides, her last note shortly before signing up as limerick suggested she didn't want to be hereΓΆ€“
"...keep me OUT OF YOUR MOUTHS and OFF YOUR BOARDS. AND that is MY admonishment to you, and your crew, AND your "God". Why? Because I have made a very good and respectful name for myself in the world of photography since I left your sorry site. ...You guys are too wrapped up in yourselves and outside of photography to have me want to be mentioned ANY WHERE on or near your site again. I'm too grown up for you or DPC"
Ironically, each time she signs up and gets caught only adds to the dubious Google history associated with her name. :-/ |
They are just words though Shannon. Maybe she has some kind of bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, tourettes or something along those lines and has good days and bad days, maybe she can have a few good weeks or months then slowly move into the less pleasant times of her life which culminates in her, shall we say, offensive behaviour. Who knows. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 04:29:02 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Simms:
They are just words though Shannon. |
It really hasn't been a "witch hunt" by any stretch. The fact that she has started pandering for equipment again proves that she was crossing a disturbing line, yet again. I hear what you're saying about people changing, etc., etc., and I can appreciate that sentiment. But by your logic, we'd feel compelled to let convicted murderers out of prison because they started reading the Bible after a few years in jail, or some such thing.
She was banned, permanently. It's not fair to anyone here for her to try to sneak back in and be caught without consequences.
Message edited by author 2009-04-24 16:29:55. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 04:35:12 PM · #133 |
Can I ask was that thread that was linked to typical of her behaviour?
I only read 2/3 of the way through but I didn't see anything that warranted a ban, but I assume there are worse threads, more aggressive behaviour or possibly lots of deleted / edited posts?
There's a person on these boards lately whose posts are VERY similar in the manner at which that thread ran and whilst irritating at times, said person does get peoples backs up and then has the masses jump on them in much the same way Rose seemed to suffer quite a bit of in that one thread (admittedly I didn't get to the end).
Whatever, I do believe that a ban is a ban and there may well have been an ulterior motive to this latest membership, she obviously managed to pull off a free membership from someone so that's at least one person that has been affected by her actions. DPC is a great place but there are occassions when there is almost a gang mentality, especially true when someone posts a question that has been done many times before, the popcorn comes out and comments like here comes another train wreck etc, maybe it would be nice just to point that person to the previous discussion and lock the latest thread? Not everyone is an old hand at forums or the general unwritten rules like searching before making a new post etc...
Hoping I won't get bitten in the bum for this post but we will see ;) |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 04:36:59 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by Simms:
They are just words though Shannon. |
But by your logic, we'd feel compelled to let convicted murderers out of prison because they started reading the Bible after a few years in jail, or some such thing. |
We do that all the time in England and they don't even need to convert! ;) |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 04:39:44 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by Simms:
They are just words though Shannon. |
It really hasn't been a "witch hunt" by any stretch. The fact that she has started pandering for equipment again proves that she was crossing a disturbing line, yet again. I hear what you're saying about people changing, etc., etc., and I can appreciate that sentiment. But by your logic, we'd feel compelled to let convicted murderers out of prison because they started reading the Bible after a few years in jail, or some such thing.
She was banned, permanently. It's not fair to anyone here for her to try to sneak back in and be caught without consequences. |
Fair enough.
I take it you keep an eye on those begging for memberships under false pretences as well, I'd hate to think one rule would apply to one person and another to someone else. I mean, if that wasn't the case then surely that would be, well, a witch-hunt.
Look, I am not after having her `sentence` lifted, but if you had suspicions early on then surely the best thing would of been to crack down on her earlier. I assume you sussed it was her either by her IP address or ISP, or even the serial number of her camera in the RAW files she would of sent to you for her ribbon winning shots. But lets face it, alot of people here conversed with her and didnt know who she was - as for hiding her identity, well lets just say convicted murderers who are let out (to use your example) dont come back into society and saying to their new neighbours "Hi I'm Dave, I have just got out of prison for murder but dont worry, I've changed now". they wouldn't be trusted, so they too would lie about their past even if they HAD changed.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2009 04:46:47 PM · #136 |
If she had wanted to reconcile with DPC and owners and make a plea to be reinstated she SHOULD have contacted langdon and SC by way of help> Contact Us.
IMO, if she had done that, stated her case, the admins and SC would have taken a look at reinstating her. I don't know if they would have but that was her best way if she wanted to be allowed back at DPC.
Creating a ghost account (again), winning ribbons and being nice, is not the way to be exonerated of past wrong doings. You have to do things the correct way.
Message edited by author 2009-04-24 16:49:55. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 04:49:31 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by SDW:
If she had wanted to reconcile with DPC and owners and make a plea to be reinstated she SHOULD have contacted langdon and SC by way of help> Contact Us.
IMO, if she had done that, stated her case, the admins and SC would have taken a look at reinstating her. I don't know if they would havebut that was her best way if she wanted to be allowed back at DPC.
Creating a ghost account (again), winning ribbons and being nice, is not the way to be exonerated of past wrong doings. You have to do things the correct way. |
Well stated...
|
|
|
|
04/24/2009 06:07:39 PM · #138 |
Simms -- we do watch who asks and who offers free memberships. If we have reason to believe (with substantiating evidence) that someone is misrepresenting their situation, we do intervene, normally via a private message.
You comment only on what you saw here in her latest incarnation as limerick. You haven't been subject to her threats and vitriol and destructive internet behaviour not just here, but all over the photoweb.
This site has an obligation to its members who are in good standing to keep this a safe place. I feel we have discharged that duty here very well. Its not our job or moral obligation to figure out what may be her mental problem and then give her a safe haven to practice her photography. She was never candid with us about any illness she might have. She has always insisted it was us who has the problem and not her. To say she might be bi-polar or have some other mental illness is pure speculation and quite frankly, we owe her nothing. Had she actually been upfront with us, apologised for her past behaviour and told us what was ailing her, we might have compassion, but all she did was spew venom at us and threaten to take Langdon to court and shut down this site simply because we didn't find her behaviour here acceptable.
Please feel free to take her under your wing and show her the compassion that SC obviously lacks. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 06:13:30 PM · #139 |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 06:36:29 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by frisca:
but all she did was spew venom at us and threaten to take Langdon to court and shut down this site simply because we didn't find her behaviour here acceptable.
Please feel free to take her under your wing and show her the compassion that SC obviously lacks. |
Just words, she wouldn't of been able to get the site shut down, Langdon and hopefully most of the SC are intelligent enough to be aware of that. Lets face it, the woman is obviously completely barking mad, that much is obvious. Maybe she is hate-filled for some other reason, but hate-filled she sure is, or was.
I agree that we on the site owe her nothing, but as human beings we maybe owe her compassion & sympathy. Maybe she just cant help being the way she is. Who knows? Who cares eh? Obviously some people don't.
For the record - whilst I have followed her conversations in threads before (believe it or not I have been here a while) I have never actually locked horns with her or engaged her in conversation, befriended, dated or otherwise had any contact with her.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2009 06:37:40 PM · #141 |
| Maybe it was Simms that was the Rikki ghost account and not Nikonjeb... |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 06:39:27 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Simms:
For the record - whilst I have followed her conversations in threads before (believe it or not I have been here a while) I have never actually locked horns with her or engaged her in conversation, befriended, dated or otherwise had any contact with her. |
Well, I've been here a while, and I almost gave her a camera...
R. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 06:46:08 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Simms:
For the record - whilst I have followed her conversations in threads before (believe it or not I have been here a while) I have never actually locked horns with her or engaged her in conversation, befriended, dated or otherwise had any contact with her. |
Well, I've been here a while, and I almost gave her a camera...
R. |
Pfft! Only for 5 years, you're still a newbie dahling! ;P |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 06:49:45 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
I'll probably get stoned in the market place for admitting this, but I miss Rose! |
Clearly you've already been to the marketplace. :P |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 07:00:09 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by SDW:
If she had wanted to reconcile with DPC and owners and make a plea to be reinstated she SHOULD have contacted langdon and SC by way of help> Contact Us.
IMO, if she had done that, stated her case, the admins and SC would have taken a look at reinstating her. I don't know if they would have but that was her best way if she wanted to be allowed back at DPC.
Creating a ghost account (again), winning ribbons and being nice, is not the way to be exonerated of past wrong doings. You have to do things the correct way. |
Yet one of the SC said she did beg to get back on. ( I can look through the forum to find it, but it's on one of the previous pages.)
I'm glad that a few people are sticking up for her. She did take wonderful photographs, and other than sneaking back in, there was nothing that warranted banning this time around.
However, I TRUST THE SC--I've been very impressed with them in the short time I've been here. They've seen what happened in the past, and it's their decision, not mine. But I was amazed at the number of people that were willing to be supportive, and then, in less than 24 hours, the number of people who were ready to condemn.
So please, SC people, don't take this message as a condemnation--I support you. It's just hard, because I considered her a friend, and I'm still trying to work things out in my mind. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 07:06:51 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
So please, SC people, don't take this message as a condemnation--I support you. It's just hard, because I considered her a friend, and I'm still trying to work things out in my mind. |
You might keep reminding yourself that she has lied to us repeatedly.
Unfortunately, at some point -- perhaps a different threashold for each individual -- you must start acting on the basis of every statement a repeated liar makes being untrue, even if that's unlikely to be the literal case.
Message edited by author 2009-04-24 19:07:17. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 08:15:56 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe it was Simms that was the Rikki ghost account and not Nikonjeb... |
you may be onto something..... :-) |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 08:18:24 PM · #148 |
she did at one point ask to come back. we told her no. she came back anyway; i can't remember if it was edsloan, fantasia, or maestro at that point.
also, please note that this isn't someone who had one account, messed up, got kicked temporarily, came back and behaved.
this is a person who was so disruptive, she got kicked, came back, disrupted again, got kicked, came back, etc. each time she comes back, she is lying to everyone. much like the boy who cries wolf, when you lie, eventually people stop believing ANYTHING you say. at this point, even if she tried to "come clean" she has so arrested her integrity, i wouldn't trust anything she said.
Message edited by author 2009-04-24 21:04:37. |
|
|
|
04/24/2009 08:19:28 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
...it was also believed that she was not really the one taking the photos... |
. She's essentially burned her bridges, stocked the river with crocodiles and lobbed mortars over the chasm, so any promise of good behavior is moot at this point. |
  
It's more fun with photos. : )
|
|
|
|
04/24/2009 08:19:58 PM · #150 |
Good grief...you've got to be kidding.
Her recent posts were odd, but not the extreme crap from before. Guess when you come back from the dead, you're a little less lively! Wonder if her husband knows she's alive (again)! (rolls eyes) At least I think it was her...Sheilz??
Thanks SC for being so good at what you do!
I think in honor of her most recent malady, we should do a tooth/teeth challenge, rofl!! :P
Message edited by author 2009-04-24 20:20:33. |
|
