12-01-2024, 11:39 PM (This post was last modified: 12-01-2024, 11:56 PM by Patricia.)
(12-01-2024, 11:21 PM)Obie Wrote: Sorry but your original post of the attorney's correspondence had that info and it wasn't redacted.
By the way that letter from the attorney has to do with you posting information that was not yet in the public domain.
It was brought up in a court of law.
You got that info from someone who wasn't supposed to have that information and it was illegal for anyone to post that on information on Facebook.
You are CONFUSED. The info I posted is an email written to me. It is harassment, sent from one of the HPPOA attorneys and has absolutely NOTHING to do with "public domain." It was personally sent to me, to intimidate, and I can personally do whatever I wish with it. NOTE: Notice to Patricia Ruppert
Mr. O. I thought this post was supposed to be about Kane, Moderaror 2's judgement, and the difference between moderation and censorship.
I did not realize Moderator 2, referring to the removal of an email, written to me (not a public domain document) with info redacted, would result in this interruption.
So, back to Kane's post- are we allowed to briefly mention what it was about? (No names)
(12-02-2024, 12:38 AM)Rob Tucker Wrote: I would prefer it if you, or someone, would launch a forum for HPP issues somewhere and bring to a conclusion the endless harping on HPP's problems.
Agreed. Which is why I have one post, regarding those issues. And wondered why Moderator 2 and Mr. O. felt discussing my HPPOA involvement here was appropriate.
Still, if the Moderator and Mr. O are going to post false information (whether intentionally or not) it should not go unchallenged- correct?
12-02-2024, 01:23 AM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2024, 02:02 AM by Patricia.)
(12-02-2024, 01:19 AM)Obie Wrote: * had at one time about 2 or 3 Facebook groups about HPP and a webpage.
She shut those down but started a new Facebook group concerning HPP and most everyone on Facebook has blocked her so she brought her drama here.
I'm truly sorry Rob and everyone else here ! Again, sorry.
Aloha Rob Tucker and Moderator 2, what Mr. O. is stating about me are half truths and totally false.
I request that his (this) comment be removed
(12-01-2024, 11:37 PM)HiloJulie Wrote: I got to hand it to you Patricia.
You take the term "beating a dead horse" to a completely higher plane than anyone could ever imagine!
And again, I ask, with all the calls for openness, no nom de plume's etc., and yet your status is set to "hidden."
I'm just wondering why.
In what way am I "beating a dead horse?" I was curious about Kane's post, which I never read. I was curious about the tensions between those who supported Moderator 2's decisions and those who did not. I was curious about why Moderator's, since they are handing out judgement and "punishment" (if what they are doing can be considered censorship) are not required to use their true names. I was curious as to what some consider the difference between censorship and moderation.
In answer to my curiosity, Moderator 2 and Mr. O. not only brought up a past posting of mine (something I did not do) but then Mr. O and the Moderator continued to state "facts" regarding me and their behavior regarding me that were/are not true. Was I supposed to let that stand?
In addition, every time I attempted to return the commenting to Kane's post, Moderator 2, and a discussion regarding censorship and moderation, my requests were passed over.
As far as a nom de plume I feel, personally, that as long as you are not a person in "authority," on this forum, you should be able to use whatever name you want (within reason, of course). It appears that most of you have been on this forum for some time- so like I said, you actually know one another (whatever name you choose to use) and know what to expect from one another.
As for my status being hidden. Ask me what you want to know. I am an open book.
(12-01-2024, 11:37 PM)Punatang Wrote: Should moderators be required to prove the poster knowingly posted false or inaccurate material?
No, but they should be ableto prove that any material they delete for being false or inaccurate is false or inaccurate. If they can prove that the material is false or inaccurate and the material is somehow harmful, then they should delete it and say that it broke forum rules. End of story. They are not required to offer the proof in the forum. Likewise, posters are not required to prove the things that they post are true. Challenging Kane to do that was also out of line.
Sounds like you think the material is false or inaccurate and you proved that you think it is a "conspiracy theory" which is a term people use when they want to suppress information and control speech usually for political and ideological reasons. What you did is perfectly human and you have the right to do it - under your personal PW handle.
Just say that you have proof that what Kane said is false or inaccurate. If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Crickets. That is what I thought M2.
Meanwhile Obie who recently outed another Punawebber and should have been banned, made the creepiest, most violating post I've ever seen on here:
"The email address and phone number you posted allowed me to find a bunch of info about you and your family.
Luckily I'm not a criminal so I'm not going to use it." - Obie Both moderators have since visited this thread and commented on totally innocuous posts, but this is OK.
Just say that you have proof that what Kane said is false or inaccurate.
I have tried to restore the original quote, or find a search engine cache of the quote, but to no avail. Without the exact quote, what is there to discuss? You can see on this thread that even WITH the original quote, location, copy and paste, screen shot, people will continue to argue that they didn’t say what they said.
If you can find kane’s quote then we might have something to discuss.
I read Obie’s post as an example of what could happen when personal info is revealed. He said he was not a criminal, and would not use the info. The implication was that someone who was a criminal might use it. That is why the attachment with name, phone, address was deleted.
(12-02-2024, 01:23 AM)Patricia Wrote: In what way am I "beating a dead horse?" I was curious about Kane's post, which I never read. I was curious about the tensions between those who supported Moderator 2's decisions and those who did not. I was curious about why Moderator's, since they are handing out judgement and "punishment" (if what they are doing can be considered censorship) are not required to use their true names. I was curious as to what some consider the difference between censorship and moderation.
In answer to my curiosity, Moderator 2 and Mr. O. not only brought up a past posting of mine (something I did not do) but then Mr. O and the Moderator continued to state "facts" regarding me and their behavior regarding me that were/are not true. Was I supposed to let that stand?
In addition, every time I attempted to return the commenting to Kane's post, Moderator 2, and a discussion regarding censorship and moderation, my requests were passed over.
As far as a nom de plume I feel, personally, that as long as you are not a person in "authority," on this forum, you should be able to use whatever name you want (within reason, of course). It appears that most of you have been on this forum for some time- so like I said, you actually know one another (whatever name you choose to use) and know what to expect from one another.
As for my status being hidden. Ask me what you want to know. I am an open book.
First, Patricia, you beat a dead horse by continually posting over and over and over despite the answer to your question(s) being answered over and over and over. Both in this thread as well as your HPP threads.
Secondly, you refuse to admit that you are wrong. You posted a document in your HPP thread that contained your personal information. Obie told you that. You retorted in agreement on your thread even though your retort stated you did not care. M2 deleted that document. And now in this thread, regardless of what has been presented to you as fact, reality and truth, it is deny, deny, deny, putting words in your mouth, deny, deny, deny. M2 quoted you and your reply was “don’t put words in my mouth.” M2 posted a screen shot of the same words. Just deny, deny, deny.
Additionally, you display an alarming inability to grasp what it is you have said and done prior on dozens of your posts.
The “You are right, everyone else is wrong” mantra, repeated over and over and over that you exhibit is astounding.
As for the Kane debate, M2 answered your question. (as well as Punatang’s) and I quote below:
M2: “The thread has been deleted. It’s over. The ref called offsides. There’s no instant replay.”
But, no, more deny, deny, deny – or – as I stated, “beat the dead horse”
As for the “hidden” status, I only desire to know why? What value does it bring you? Other than it being a bit hypocritical – have at it as far as I am concerned. I even wonder why it’s an option here on PunaWeb.
At any event, want to prove my beat the dead horse analogy totally wrong? Don’t reply to me – or this thread.
But I doubt that will happen.
Oh, one more thing. I am a (retired) lawyer – admittedly my specialty is copyright law. (I’ve got thousands of interesting stories on how that industry works!) Other than in my junior day’s decades ago, I have not tried a case in court for a long long time.
But after reading your HPP threads and now this, I’d guarantee that any defense trial lawyer worth his/her salt would be like Arnold Horshack jumping up and down - arm flailing in the air - grunting ooh ooh ohh to have you on the stand during any form of direct/cross examination. I’m pretty sure their closing line after they have finished with your testimony would be “your honor, we move for immediate dismissal!”
You should read this article from Psychology Today:
(12-02-2024, 03:54 AM)Moderator 2 Wrote: Just say that you have proof that what Kane said is false or inaccurate.
I have tried to restore the original quote, or find a search engine cache of the quote, but to no avail. Without the exact quote, what is there to discuss? You can see on this thread that even WITH the original quote, location, copy and paste, screen shot, people will continue to argue that they didn’t say what they said.
If you can find kane’s quote then we might have something to discuss.
I read Obie’s post as an example of what could happen when personal info is revealed. He said he was not a criminal, and would not use the info. The implication was that someone who was a criminal might use it. That is why the attachment with name, phone, address was deleted.
I read Obie’s post as an example of what could happen when personal info is revealed - M2
It is what did happen that is ultra creepy, threatening or invasive of a person's privacy, or any other material which may violate any applicable laws.: allowed me to find a bunch of info about you and your family.
