I abused my mod powers

[EllieArroway]

to delete the 'Well then' thread. Too much personal info in there.

Get out your pitchforks!

[flex]

Ack!

ETA: Oh so you got Stan's approval.  Kewl.  She had said she was going to have it DD'ed ultimately.

[EllieArroway]

Aug 8, 2014 19:13:00 GMT -5 mofongo said:

Wait, so Stan didn't request it? It's her decision.

No, she did. I am just making fun of you guys for the 'abuse of powers!!!' overreaction from the other thread.

[Deleted]

I hate when I don't know what's going on.

[EllieArroway]

Aug 8, 2014 19:14:10 GMT -5 mofongo said:

Wait, who is this? All I see is admin.

It's Ellie. Tapatalk is weird sometimes with usernames.

[flex]

Aug 8, 2014 19:13:00 GMT -5 mofongo said:

Wait, so Stan didn't request it? It's her decision.

It's Ellie Arroway.

[Booze Raccoon]

I was on page 2!

DAMNIT!

Oh well, it's not like I could figure out what was going on in there anyway.  

Back to Candy Crush.

[stealthmom]

Good. Stan didn't owe anybody anything and lhc can go fuck herself with her ususal moi? ? Routine.

[pinkeggs]

Dammit. I finally got pushed over the edge enough to make a good call out and it's gone.

[stealthmom]

Aug 8, 2014 19:19:46 GMT -5 pinkeggs said:

Dammit. I finally got pushed over the edge enough to make a good call out and it's gone.

it was spot on too.

[alicenelson]

Shit. I picked today to actually work at the office instead of farting around on ML.

[flex]

[noodle]

Thank you! It sucked that Stan felt the need to share such private info to defend herself from gossipy accusations that should never have been made. If she no longer wants any of it out there, I'm glad it's gone.

[Deleted]

Ok so I saw LHC's post in the flameful. I also saw Stan's OP in the well now thread but didn't get to read past the first couple of posts. Did something happen with LHC in that post? I need caught up.

[W.T.Faulkner]

Aug 8, 2014 19:25:11 GMT -5 @t2j said:

Ok so I saw LHC's post in the flameful. I also saw Stan's OP in the well now thread but didn't get to read past the first couple of posts. Did something happen with LHC in that post? I need caught up.

LHC had a super callous response, basically "You are too rah-rah about the military but I don't have a problem with YOU, and you didn't owe anybody anything." Then she got called out, like, 38 times for being cold and not necessarily apologetic; finally, she wrote a new post in a new thread apologizing to Stan and said she needed a break.

I was taken aback and subsequently grossed out by LHC's behavior initially, but it looks like she finally did get it and was truly repentant, knowing how difficult that must have been for Stan.

[underwaterrhymes]

In defense of LHC (whose original post I missed) - she didn't know the horrible details of Stan's story and has since apologized.

We are a board that loves drama and people almost universally eat it up with a damn spoon. I think there is some hypocrisy here from people who refreshed, refreshed, refreshed to get details, but then later felt bad when they found out what happened. It's easy to hide behind a scapegoat.

[stealthmom]

Aug 8, 2014 19:35:00 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

In defense of LHC (whose original post I missed) - she didn't know the horrible details of Stan's story and has since apologized.

We are a board that loves drama and people almost universally eat it up with a damn spoon. I think there is some hypocrisy here from people who refreshed, refreshed, refreshed to get details, but then later felt bad when they found out what happened. It's easy to hide behind a scapegoat.

there is NO excuse for her response after stan posted the details. None.

[themoneytree]

Aug 8, 2014 19:35:00 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

In defense of LHC (whose original post I missed) - she didn't know the horrible details of Stan's story and has since apologized.

We are a board that loves drama and people almost universally eat it up with a damn spoon. I think there is some hypocrisy here from people who refreshed, refreshed, refreshed to get details, but then later felt bad when they found out what happened. It's easy to hide behind a scapegoat.

Uh no.
The call outs were valid and and the response did not contain an apology until many more people expressed their dismay.

I am happy that there was finally an apology but this was no scapegoat situation, not by a long shot.

And LHC isn't the only person I am side eyeing the hell out of in that thread. I'm glad it's gone, it was full of yuck.

[wannabe]

I hope that Stan got to read all of the supportive posts from everyone in there first. I didn't get a chance to add mine, but I'm sorry she's had to deal with all that bullshit.

I also still love LHC. she totally owned up to her part and wrote a heartfelt apology.

[underwaterrhymes]

Aug 8, 2014 19:37:52 GMT -5 stealthmom said:

Aug 8, 2014 19:35:00 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

In defense of LHC (whose original post I missed) - she didn't know the horrible details of Stan's story and has since apologized.

We are a board that loves drama and people almost universally eat it up with a damn spoon. I think there is some hypocrisy here from people who refreshed, refreshed, refreshed to get details, but then later felt bad when they found out what happened. It's easy to hide behind a scapegoat.

there is NO excuse for her response after stan posted the details. None.

Did you read her apology?

[Deleted]

Aug 8, 2014 19:35:05 GMT -5 @tambcat said:

Did we ever find out who the bff who PMed LHC was?

Ojo - she was a poster on MMMs? She seemed normal if not a little intense at times.

[MarmeeNoir]

Aug 8, 2014 19:22:29 GMT -5 flex said:

Who is this dude?

[pinkeggs]

I have no beef with anyone else regarding this, so please know that I am not trying to start a war here. BUT, there is no way LHC would have written that apology if she hadn't been piled on. If she had apologized immediately after stan's post, I would be more forgiving, but it took several pages of call outs for that to happen.

[underwaterrhymes]

Aug 8, 2014 19:38:58 GMT -5 themoneytree said:

Aug 8, 2014 19:35:00 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

In defense of LHC (whose original post I missed) - she didn't know the horrible details of Stan's story and has since apologized.

We are a board that loves drama and people almost universally eat it up with a damn spoon. I think there is some hypocrisy here from people who refreshed, refreshed, refreshed to get details, but then later felt bad when they found out what happened. It's easy to hide behind a scapegoat.

Uh no.
The call outs were valid and and the response did not contain an apology until many more people expressed their dismay.

I am happy that there was finally an apology but this was no scapegoat situation, not by a long shot.

And LHC isn't the only person I am side eyeing the hell out of in that thread. I'm glad it's gone, it was full of yuck.

To be fair, I missed LHC's original post and didn't see any of this until Stan's post.

But this is not my point.

My point is every single person on this board swoops in for the drama. In this particular case, there was a horrific story behind it. But you don't have to look far to see cases where people have shared private details given to them on this board and people went bananas.

[stealthmom]

Aug 8, 2014 19:40:14 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

Aug 8, 2014 19:37:52 GMT -5 stealthmom said:

there is NO excuse for her response after stan posted the details. None.

Did you read her apology?

I'm not sure but I doubt it would change my opinion of her. This is just par for the course for her and totally in keeping with past bebehavior- which many people pointed out in that thread. So if she's done this before and I have no reason to believe it won't happen again, what difference should an apology make?

[whiskeyandwine]

I am 99% sure I read a totally different thread than anybody who felt LHC wrote a heartfelt apology in that thread. To me, every "apology" she posted was, "Well I'm sorry BUT!" 

"I'm sorry, BUT you're too ra-ra military especially in light of this." (WTAF?)

"I'm sorry, BUT I did think it was just gossip."

"I'm sorry, BUT everybody here loves the gossip!"

It's one thing to get wrapped up in the drama. It's a whole different thing to get ONE PM from a relative random who then immediately deactivated, and then post the hurtful details of that PM on the board. LHC doesn't like S's military involvement or enthusiasm and therefore went for the jugular. 

[Deleted]

Aug 8, 2014 19:42:51 GMT -5 MarmeeNoir said:

Aug 8, 2014 19:22:29 GMT -5 flex said:

Who is this dude?

Flex's boyfriend.

[underwaterrhymes]

Aug 8, 2014 19:46:33 GMT -5 stealthmom said:

Aug 8, 2014 19:40:14 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

Did you read her apology?

I'm not sure but I doubt it would change my opinion of her. This is just par for the course for her and totally in keeping with past bebehavior- which many people pointed out in that thread. So if she's done this before and I have no reason to believe it won't happen again, what difference should an apology make?

LHC isn't a bad person. She's like many people on this board.

This board loves drama. If you haven't figured this out by now, you haven't been paying attention.

Without knowing the details, LHC simply shared something figuring it would be like similar scenarios in the past. She had no idea what Stan would share.

I do agree the wide-eyed innocence thing was a bit much because, honestly, she shared it because of the drama it would create, but I think she genuinely felt horrible once she found out what had really happened.

[sparkythelawyer]

LHC showed up all "I have gossip! People PM'd me!" so that everyone would be all "Teeeeeeelllllll meeeeeeee!" So she did, and when people pointed out that what she posted was really assy, she was all "What? I'm perfectly innocent!" all doe-eyed.

Then Stan posted what really happened. And what really happened makes me want to nut punch A WHOLE LOT of people.

And then LHC was all, "Well, you're too rah-rah about the military, but I mean, I guess you're ok, oops?"

And people were all "WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF A RESPONSE IS THAT"

And suddenly, and finally, her asshole light went off and she finally apologized and is off "evaluating herself."

And then the underlying gossip and Stan's post were deleted, because they never should have had to be here in the first place, or lots of reasons.

[pinkeggs]

Aug 8, 2014 19:53:48 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

Aug 8, 2014 19:46:33 GMT -5 stealthmom said:

I'm not sure but I doubt it would change my opinion of her. This is just par for the course for her and totally in keeping with past bebehavior- which many people pointed out in that thread. So if she's done this before and I have no reason to believe it won't happen again, what difference should an apology make?

LHC isn't a bad person. She's like many people on this board.

This board loves drama. If you haven't figured this out by now, you haven't been paying attention.

Without knowing the details, LHC simply shared something figuring it would be like similar scenarios in the past. She had no idea what Stan would share.

I do agree the wide-eyed innocence thing was a bit much because, honestly, she shared it because of the drama it would create, but I think she genuinely felt horrible once she found out what had really happened.

With all due respect, the details were important. And there were people who expressed distaste at the drama of the situation before stan even posted her side, like iamali.