I had intended to write about something entirely different tonight. However, the long-awaited report from the Board at susan-boyle.com was posted this evening and I am bemused, to say the least.
It seems in their enthusiasm to apologise to everyone concerned, several pertinent facts have been misrepresented and the time line confused.
Tomorrow will be the day to examine the report in order to respond to it in detail.
One thing I wish to make absolutely clear tonight is that in the Board's statement I am indicated as the 'temporary admin' (who said) "she thought the amnesty that had been discussed, had commenced". However, I never said that I admitted the banned member. I was not a moderator at the time this event took place. The Board had been informed of this fact on August 4th. The config files (obtained from Hostgator) confirmed this.
The other issue that I have to address tonight is the implication that lchris may have been influenced by the troll. I refute absolutely that Chris has been influenced in this way. Chris works from data rather from an emotional platform.
As stated in earlier blogs, the troll's influence was pervasive, but it was working in another direction. Lonnirose was in contact with the troll and influenced by him as witnessed by her email dated July 18th (4.16pm EST) in which she called for members to post against Chris and Dyebat's actions. She falsely claimed that they were in league with DJG and his followers. She further claimed that support for Chris and Dyebat was 'proof' of the attack.
CanadianBill was also in contact with, and influenced by, the troll. I have an email from CanadianBill in which he shares what the cyber-troll told him:
"The night of that trouble CL made a post saying "the back door of EW is open and just logon with your old account name an passwords".
This statement made by the cyber-troll is totally untrue. Even tonight, he continues to send out messages to people, trying to "prove" that I was responsible for the admission of the banned member. But there are records that show otherwise. The data will speak for itself.
So, whilst I had hoped against hope that we could draw a line and move on, we are faced with at worst, a poisoned chalice; at best appeasement. Personally, I would rather wait for the whole truth, which is yet to be revealed.
It seems in their enthusiasm to apologise to everyone concerned, several pertinent facts have been misrepresented and the time line confused.
Tomorrow will be the day to examine the report in order to respond to it in detail.
One thing I wish to make absolutely clear tonight is that in the Board's statement I am indicated as the 'temporary admin' (who said) "she thought the amnesty that had been discussed, had commenced". However, I never said that I admitted the banned member. I was not a moderator at the time this event took place. The Board had been informed of this fact on August 4th. The config files (obtained from Hostgator) confirmed this.
The other issue that I have to address tonight is the implication that lchris may have been influenced by the troll. I refute absolutely that Chris has been influenced in this way. Chris works from data rather from an emotional platform.
As stated in earlier blogs, the troll's influence was pervasive, but it was working in another direction. Lonnirose was in contact with the troll and influenced by him as witnessed by her email dated July 18th (4.16pm EST) in which she called for members to post against Chris and Dyebat's actions. She falsely claimed that they were in league with DJG and his followers. She further claimed that support for Chris and Dyebat was 'proof' of the attack.
CanadianBill was also in contact with, and influenced by, the troll. I have an email from CanadianBill in which he shares what the cyber-troll told him:
"The night of that trouble CL made a post saying "the back door of EW is open and just logon with your old account name an passwords".
This statement made by the cyber-troll is totally untrue. Even tonight, he continues to send out messages to people, trying to "prove" that I was responsible for the admission of the banned member. But there are records that show otherwise. The data will speak for itself.
So, whilst I had hoped against hope that we could draw a line and move on, we are faced with at worst, a poisoned chalice; at best appeasement. Personally, I would rather wait for the whole truth, which is yet to be revealed.
