:rolleyes: That’s not the only thread being discussed here.
How did she not acknowledge a “brainfart” with this post? You acknowledged it yourself in that thread, a whole two days before making this post. That she thought the event occurred in the US is pretty heavily implied there. I don’t know how a reasonable person couldn’t come away with that impression. Unless somebody here is being unreasonable? But, no, that could never happen!
Ditto that. I am especially confused by the people who complain both about Lissa mentioning her husband’s job and her own work in the museum. Example: catsix in this thread. So, she can’t talk about her hubby’s job, which she has apparently assisted him, or her own, which she presumably has some first-hand experience in? In other words, a whole lot of people want to revoke her speaking privileges? Or at least limit them severely? Oh, yeah, that’s real cool. While we’re at it, why don’t we stop catsix from talking about guns and big bad feminists, alice_in_wonderland from talking about her breasts and ridiculous clothes collection, and the entire slew of male Dopers who ask for pictorial evidence whenever breasts are mentioned from doing so?
Heaven forbid the SDMB did away with non-experts/hobbyists speaking with authority. General Questions would dry up faster than a well in a Kansas drought.
But I have no spouse, so I have no one to turn to to tell me how to think. You guys are just going to have to disregard everything I said. I guess neither Lissa nor I are capable of independent research.
Well, I might have a go at being the little fish who turns around and swims against the school.*
I just read the 2 year old murder thread, and really, Lissa did nothing particularly wrong in there IMO. She fucked up to start with by babbling on about the US system when the crime was in the UK, but she retracted as soon as she realised she was barking up the wrong tree.
Then she participated in a bit of thread shift. I found her to be informative, suitably humble, and at no time did she bring up “Hubby” without him being brought up first.
Some people responded to her in a manner entirely out of proportion to her contribution to that thread, and it is clear that this is because of a bias brought about by Lissa’s posting history. It is, no doubt, quite true that she can be irritating in other threads. But in that one? She was fine and it was a poor time to launch an attack on her.
She may have deserved it in other threads, but not that one.
*Yes, I know I’m not the only one.
No. I couldn’t give less of a shit.
Away with you before you get one too. ETF jumped on a fucking peacemaker for god’s sake, and reamed him out for not digging until he found sufficient reason to bash Lissa. “Hey, if you’d go do my work for me, you’d dislike her too!” What a goddamn rat.
Although that’s not directed at me, I’ll respond because I have also based my post entirely on that linked thread.
She may well be guilty of the “my hubby this…”, “my hubby that…”, and “I know shit about the prison system so don’t argue with me…” in other threads. However, in that particular thread she did not deserve the response she got. Basically, she could’ve been a reformed poster in that thread, she made none of the transgressions that she’s been accused of in the past, and yet she’s jumped all over by a number of posters.
It seemed to be built up frustration getting released. The “last straw” if you like. But people would do well, in real life as well as here, not to blow up at someone at a time when they’ve actually done nothing wrong. It can make it very confusing for the person who may have been making a concerted effort to change their ways.
To be fair, that has been remarkably absent from the last few boob threads.
Lissa can’t fucking win until she never talks about prisons ever again here, right? I mean, she did EXACTLY what you wanted – SHE DIDN’T MENTION HER FUCKING HUSBAND. Yet half of you are sitting here accusing her of doing exactly that, even though she went out of her way not to. Can’t you see that if people are attacking her in that very thread over stuff she WASN’T DOING – literally stating that she did something there she never did – that maybe it’s all in their fucking heads? Maybe she had a problem once, fixed it, and in grand traditional human nature, some of you shitheads just can’t let her change?
Lissa, I’ll tell you why. Because over at that “other place”, they like to make fun of you about this, and they do it so fucking much they have actually lost sight of reality and now think that you mention it as much as they do. Which you don’t. So fuck 'em.
Thank you very much, Struan (and Klaatu); I knew of the film (but have never seen it), and had no idea that that was how “Klaatu” got it’s name. My Sargasso Sea of ignorance is that much smaller. [Sigh.] Please give me time. My brain moves slowly.
I think my position on this issue is clear but allow me to say:
-
I think people see what they want to see. There has been very little “vitriol” directed at Lissa; in fact, people have been quite remarkably nice to her by Pit standards.
-
This isn’t a witch hunt of people trying to nail her to the cross of her husband’s employment: She asked for feedback by opening this thread. Personally, I wouldn’t have posted again on the subject at all if she hadn’t done so.
-
This isn’t insisting that she be held to some double standard of “humbleness” not required of others. I am confident that if other posters posted as authoritatively on a single topic, with as little actual experience, that they would aggravate people as well.
-
The clear majority of posters who cared enough to weigh it have said, yes, I perceive this too, and it’s annoying. Not “light the torches and grab your pitchforks!” just – yes, it’s annoying. Maybe you shouldn’t do it. What she does with that information, if anything, is up to her, but to characterize this as a vitriolic witch hunt is inaccurate – especially when the feedback she’s receiving is feedback she asked for.
And, on preview, it should be completely clear that I DON’T CARE IF SHE MENTIONS HER FUCKING HUSBAND. I care that she posts like she’s the Last Word on the subject and it ends up that the only source of her authority is her husband. Did that bug me in the one thread where it’s become an issue between us? Yeah, it did.
Completely off-topic but I feel I should say it:
Liberal:
This is vicious, beyond meanspirited, and completely content free – a bomb dropped in the middle of a thread in progress with no apparent provocation, about a post that was not uncivil and not even directed at you.
I see you post shit like this out of left field like this, and I honest to God wonder if you have a mental disorder and are off your meds.
Well, of course, but that only comes up around the office cooler when the Lakers loose. We obviously are reffering to another use of the word.
Jodi, you might not care, but your issue is not the only one at hand, and there are people who in that very thread were complaining about her non-existent mentions of Hubby. Those are the ones at whom my comment was directed. That said, HER ONLY SOURCE WAS NOT HER HUSBAND and she went way out of her way to make sure of it.
And I think it’s hilarious when people say shit like “you’re off your meds” because somebody wrote a flame in the Pit.
God, you are shameless. You drop a bomb about something not directed at you about a bomb about something not directed at me. Maybe you should just, like, fucking skip it or something. As a matter of fact, have you ever posted anything to me that wasn’t intended to correct me, chide me, or scold me in some way? Maybe you should look into some meds for youself.
I want to know about this “other place”. Can someone give me the low down?
It’s a site devoted to talking about the goings-on of the SDMB. It’s really very sad. I’d give you a hint of the name so you could google it, but I honestly can’t remember.
It is kind of entertaining to read stuff posted by people with such a feeble grasp on real life that they actually gossip about a message board.
I haven’t noticed this myself, but then I tend to scan threads, due to time constraints,
[QUOTE=
DrDeth]
Lissa I appreciate your unique perspective and the life experience of your Husband. You are a Source.
(but sometimes you do speak a tiny bit too authoritively. Of course so do I )
[/QUOTE]
Well, I do too, though I have no authority whatsoever, except over whether to sign for a FedEx delivery (an authority I delight in, though I always sign). But I still don’t see why this ad hominem thread has sprung up.
As I recall, one user was banned (or suspended) when she uncovered a conspiracy there to coordinate a Pit attack on someone here, and then linked to it from a Pit thread of her own. I suspect that some of the type 1 pile-ons originate from there. You can usually recognize them from their format: “You suck!” “Yeah, you really suck!” “I think you suck too!” Dumbasses don’t even bother to concoct reasonable differences among them.
That’s my feeling as well. Down to the “So fuck 'em.”
monstro, if you want a link, IM/PM/e-mail me and I’ll get one to you. Of course, there’s not a lot of content and you’ll probably be rolling your eyes continuously, but curiosity killed the cat and satisfaction brought him back.
I do believe I remember that. I think that is how a stumbled across that other place.
As per the thread with Jodi, I knew the moment that I left it would be counted as a “victory”, but I humbly submit that despite her claims that what the jail in that case did was illegal, jails all over the country do the same thing every day (in refusing to give inmates the medication they bring in with them and refusing them treatments they had been recieving on the outside if the doctor on the inside doesn’t agree they’re necessary. I provided a few examples of policy, none at the location in question, but not every jail has their policy online.)
If the medication was one which was not in the jail’s fomulary/dispenary it couldn’t be issued by the jail, and they couldn’t just go get it out of her purse and give it to her. Firstly, they’d probably be breaking a rule in going in to dig through her personal effects and secondly, some places have a rule against giving an inmate so much as an aspirin without medical’s approval. So, if medical didn’t approve for whatever reason, “there was nothing they could do.”
I cannot argue legally, citing the case of Nosepicker v. State– I’m not a lawyer. What I can say is that these policies have stood up to intense legal scrutiny and numerous challenges and have been found to be consitutional. Now, because this particular type of situation had never come up before, it’s likely that policy will be reviewed and it’s possible that changes will be made, but not certain, because this is a one-in-a-million situation.
I didn’t know there was “another place” nor that I was the object of ridicule there.
Perhaps you’d like to make your humble submissions in the correct thread and pick the conversation back up again? I would be delighted to follow you back over.
And I for one find it both amusing and quite telling that having asked for particular feedback as to what the problem is, you have completely ignored the feedback you’ve received to go back to defending the substance of your position – which isn’t even the issue of this thread, started by you yourself.