4041

When you’re done building that strawman over there, how about you step down from your tower of abuser-sheltering privilege and engage honestly?

4042

I hink the reason that you think only “a few” disagree with you is because most who disagree are afraid to voice their opinions lest they get permabanned.

Okay maybe it’s a lot. It’s not like I’m keeping score or was even involved in it. I am just a rubber necker and from where I sit, it all seemed like righteous ban hammering.

If I participated in the site more, I’d probably get banned more myself, and then maybe I’d feel differently, but I honestly don’t get all the grief over bans. Did none of ever get sent to your room for a time out? Where you never flagged at the bar? Did the teacher never send you to the office?

It seems like such a small thing.

4043

Did you see the (pre-edited) OP? Do you remember what Munky was asking for?

Do you remember the part where a child abuser who brought his own personal business to the board had Tom sticking up for him because nobody’s personal business should matter on the board?

4044

Yeah, I think I’m just too subtle, anyway. No worries.

4045

Fighting? What’s there to fight. Tom’s sense of judgement fell off a cliff. And for some unfathomable, unexplainable reason you take pride in it in a celebration of idiocy whose like hasn’t been seen since your last post about dicks.

4046

I said it further in my post what the court order was. You’re taking one small segment of what I thought was reasonableness on my behalf* and throwing faux righteous indignation back at me. Which is the exact reason I deleted my post, I don’t think this conversation goes anywhere good.

While seeing the direction this is going now, I believe I was correct in deleting the post. I do think there are two sides in response to Tom’s ultimate decision. I’m at the very least willing to say Tom handled it better than a lot of other people would have. I don’t think the base of Tim’s opinion has no support (whether he’s being sincere or not.)

*At least in tone, I know you disagree with my sentiment.

4047

Just to be clear, I am completely sincere here. I am trying to be jokey, but that’s just an attempt to deflect some of the vitriol. I thought Tom handled that well for the reasons he’s already stated.

4048

I can see merit in Tom’s general argument that you shouldn’t dig up dirt on what forum members do in real life and hold it against them here.

But that wasn’t what happened. To paraphrase the childbeating poster. “Hai guyz, I have a court order out against me to prevent me from seeing my kids and it’s totally unfair because I only beat one of them, please help me violate it!” If you think that such statements merit protection then you need a reality check.

4049

I will also note that it’s around that time that most of the other female posters retreated to Paradise Island and/or stopped posting around here altogether.

4050

You just don’t like the explanation. It’s actually quite clear, if you can set aside your own sick needs long enough to read it.

4051

Thanks for pointing this out.

4052

There are other factors involved, but it does have something to do with it.

4053

What I saw was him saying the restraining order was unfounded. That he didn’t have the means or aptitude to fight it at the time it was handed down. And that he wanted to see his child again. If there’s more to it than that, then fair enough, but I don’t think Tom’s attitude would have been any different. People did take outside information on him and post it to the thread. The choice that was made was to make it a public stoning. I feel the better response would have been to PM Tom and tell him what was happening, and let him deal with it. What happened was that instead of doing this, forum drama perpetuated, and everyone looked bad.

4054

What I saw was him saying “I never beat my boys”, which is an odd thing to say when one of your children is a girl.

4055

Maybe because the accusation was that he beat a boy?

You’re reading things into what he said, and presuming that if he was devious enough to cover up some information outright, he’d be sinsister enough to insult us all by obfuscating with other parts.

And that’s a long way from you saying

People are being incredibly disingenuous with this.

4056

And if that’s where Munky’s post had ended, it wouldn’t have blown up or blown up as much. But it didn’t end there, and that’s the whole point.

4057

Ok.

“People who outright admit that they’re not allowed to see their kids because the state thinks they’re a danger to them”

Better?

4058

I’d just like to thank Tom for establishing a safe zone where I can talk about beating my games without fear of reprisal from the general public.

The way he handled the Munky situation was terrible, and I hope people either PMed or emailed him saying so rather than just quietly raging.

He’s usually willing to have a private conversation about things that go down here if you make the effort and aren’t being a cock about it.

4059

How about

“People who outright admit that they didn’t fight a court order their angry ex-girlfriend took against them but would now like to do so and are asking for advice.”

Court orders prove nothing. They’re weighted so they’re easy to obtain (and rightly so) relying on the person they’re taken against to fight against them. Munky admitted he didn’t fight it, he was looking to do so.

And that’s one of the possibilities of what happened. It’s equally possible that he was slamming his family’s faces onto a bbq grill every Sunday after church, but we don’t know that. So instead of making a reasonable decision to alert Tom that there might be something askew, people instead decided internet drama would be the better option.

It’s like the people who go to courthouse steps and throw stuff at prisoners walking in. Let the system that’s in place deal with it, and that system here is in Tom. Making everything into a shouting match achieved nothing.

4060

Fuck no. If someone is misrepresenting themselves and asking for advice to get around a restraining order, I want to know about it before I go offering advice. And I hope the well meaning people in that thread were damn grateful that someone pointed out his original story was off and hey, here’s why. And here’s how bad it had to have been to have the court uphold it even if the wife was wanting to wave it. Here’s how bad it must have been to have it have been taken out by the court to protect the child.

Munky threw this all out there in his post. He had his RL information out there. He should never have posted about it in the first place. Hell, he should never have done what he did to need the advice in the first place, but apparently pointing this out when he brought it up in the first place isn’t cool.

That Tom felt he had to protect Munky’s RL information when Munky was putting it out there was ridiculous. Absolutely hands down ridiculous.