A warning to all about Rick Olney

[MacQuarrie]

I notice you didn't make any mention of the threat of violence he made against me on the You'll All Be Sorry Fourum. I wonder why? You also didn't make any mention of the link I posted of him accusing me of being two people he said he didn't. Again, I wonder why?

He didn't threaten you with violence. He made threats against the person who was making up lies about him. That would be the person who sent you the three harassing messages. Unless you made them up. Which appears more likely by the minute.

[MacQuarrie]

I'm done here.

It's been proven to my satisfaction that neither Matt nor anybody else pretending to be him has sent out harassing messages to anyone here. I'm also convinced that although BigMack is a fake identity, she is not associated with Rick Olney in any way.

With that in mind, my concerns here have been addressed. This issue is a grudge between BigMack and Matt and has nothing to do with Unscrewed, and that's all I care about.

Case closed.

Bye all. I won't be bothering anyone here any further. I apologize for the disruption.

[McDuffies]

Can someone draw me a diagram of all this?

[Risky]

I'm done here.

It's been proven to my satisfaction that neither Matt nor anybody else pretending to be him has sent out harassing messages to anyone here. I'm also convinced that although BigMack is a fake identity, she is not associated with Rick Olney in any way.

With that in mind, my concerns here have been addressed. This issue is a grudge between BigMack and Matt and has nothing to do with Unscrewed, and that's all I care about.

Case closed.

Bye all. I won't be bothering anyone here any further. I apologize for the disruption.

10 posts was too many, especially given how many were one right after the other. I have no psychic or even technical method of determining who is a "real person" and who is making shite up, but I know redwolf from long association on this forum, and given that things he said were true, you are saying are lies, I'm gonna say you are a liar, and I'm really glad you are leaving. Given the way you've behaved, even if you believe you are doing the right thing, I'm really shocked you haven't been banned. Even if AMack isn't a "real person", even if you are "trying to get to the bottom of things", your behavior is still inexcusable.

Considered yet the fact that you actually ARE tormenting a teenage girl? No, suppose it didn't occur. Threatening people with libel? Be careful you don't step over legal lines yourself, donation fueled law-team or no.

And my name is Risky, either, btw, but that doesn't mean I'm not a "real person".

[Rkolter]

Can someone draw me a diagram of all this?

UNSCREWED, a play in three parts:

Part One
Bad Guy #1 posts a bit saying bad stuff on a comic forum here.

Bad Girl #1 posts and says that Bad Guy #1 is bad, and that Unscrewed is good.

Bad Guy #1 posts more bad stuff and sends Bad Girl #1 some bad PMs.

StrRedWolf kills Bad Guy #1 (ok, bans him).

Part Two
Bad Girl #1 posts saying Bad Guy #1 has been ressurected (created a new acct) and is harassing her and others. Oh, and Unscrewed is good. Oh, and she's leaving and it's our fault and we should hope we're happy about it. But Unscrewed is good!

Bad Guy #2 comes in and says "Maybe Bad Guy #1 is not Bad Guy #1 send me A/S/L please!"

Bad Girl #1 sends A/S/L to Bad Guy #2 and reminds everyone that Bad Guy #2 is part of Unscrewed, which is good. The info doesn't check out. But, this is the internet. And Unscrewed is good. And she's leaving.

StrRedWolf reads Bad Girl #1's mailbox (probably because Bad Guy #2 is talking about legal action) and says something which could be interpreted to mean that there weren't any new posts of a threatening manner unless Bad Girl #1 deleted them.

Part Three
Bad Guy #2 says he wants to know who the person who sent info to Bad Girl #1 was.

Bad Girl #1 says I'm leaving Unscrewed and you were Unscrewed bad too Bad Guy #2 because Unscrewed you're taking the Unscrewed position of Bad Guy #1 and you're his friend Unscrewed and you're going to give Unscrewed my information out and I'm leaving. Unscrewed

Bad Guy #2 says he's leaving and that he "proved" that Bad Guy #1 wasn't so bad and Bad Girl #2 might be somewhat bad.


Basically, it's a play where everyone over(re)acts; A Trainwreck in Text.

I don't believe a word of it at this point. Nobody has any credibility, except perhaps StrRedWolf.

Unscrewed is the innocent victim in all this. It really is good despite the bad acting.

[Dotty]

I dunno, considering all the variety of threats being tossed around, and sticking up for a guy who was already banned, and failure to provide sufficient evidence and constant harassment from what I think was trying to be a mediator, all I know is I -think- I shall avoid whatever these unscrewed comics may be. I don't like any of the angles I saw here, at all.

So yes, this entire play reflected poorly on the community.

[Smelch]

I suggest we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[MacQuarrie]

10 posts was too many, especially given how many were one right after the other. I have no psychic or even technical method of determining who is a "real person" and who is making shite up, but I know redwolf from long association on this forum, and given that things he said were true, you are saying are lies, I'm gonna say you are a liar, and I'm really glad you are leaving. Given the way you've behaved, even if you believe you are doing the right thing, I'm really shocked you haven't been banned. Even if AMack isn't a "real person", even if you are "trying to get to the bottom of things", your behavior is still inexcusable.

Considered yet the fact that you actually ARE tormenting a teenage girl? No, suppose it didn't occur. Threatening people with libel? Be careful you don't step over legal lines yourself, donation fueled law-team or no.

And my name is Risky, either, btw, but that doesn't mean I'm not a "real person".

hmm. I think you must have misread something.

I haven't denied or contradicted anything RedWolf said. I have no dispute at all with RedWolf. Since I don't disagree with anything RedWolf said, how does his telling the truth prove that I'm lying about anything?

The person who gave the summary got it pretty much right, frankly.

I had to come here to deal with this mess simply because there are serious legal issues involved.

I'll say it again, just in case I wasn't clear:

I did not come here to defend Matt. I came here to defend Unscrewed.

Matt has admitted to the harassing messages that got him banned. Nobody is disputing them. He was out of line to send them, and it was good and right that he got banned for them.

The question was whether or not he had returned here under another identity in order to continue the harassment, as BigMack claimed. If he had, he would have been banned from both CBR (home of YABS), and Unscrewed, and would have been publicly denounced for his actions. All BigMack needed to do to prove it was send the user name to STrRedWolf, stating that this was the account that was harassing her. She refused.

It's pretty clear to anyone who looks that BigMack registered here for the sole purpose of confronting Matt. After he was banned, she went completely silent until she decided to start things up again with her false accusations against him. Check her posting history and see for yourself.

Matt has had unpleasant confrontations with a lot of people on a lot of sites over the years. He's been banned from more than one site for his pit bull tactics. Obviously somebody he pissed off came here for a little payback.

As long as it wasn't Matt harassing people, and it wasn't Rick Olney or one of his pals trying to cause trouble for Unscrewed, it's between Matt and whoever BigMack really is.

But I am really curious to know what it is I'm lying about. I think I've been pretty consistent and straightforward aobut who I am and why I'm here. Could you please point out where I've lied, since you chose to brand me a liar?

[McDuffies]

But I am really curious to know what it is I'm lying about. I think I've been pretty consistent and straightforward aobut who I am and why I'm here. Could you please point out where I've lied, since you chose to brand me a liar?

I don't know about lying, but there are some things that don't sound sound.

The most noticeable one is when you say:

It's pretty clear to anyone who looks that BigMack registered here for the sole purpose of confronting Matt.

But elsewhere, you'll say that it was Matt who harrased BigMack first. So BigMack registered here with specific purpose to be harrased? Like, she knew upfront that if she registered here, Matt would harras her? That doesn't sound very believeable to me.

Other thing that troubles me is, even if I believe everything you say, I can't agree with you. You're saying that BigMack's intention was to claim that Matt harrassed her a lot, while he harrased her only a little? You're saying that her intention was to make Matt look bad, but he already made himself look bad by harrasing her in the first place. You say, she wants to make him look like worse troll than he really is, but you'll hardly find a person here who cares whether someone is a big troll or just a medium size troll.

There are other troubling conclusions too:
For one, you conclude that BigMack is lying about Matt re-harrasing her, and from that you conclude that she lies about everything she says about herself too. That's a very big stretch of imagination. I'm not saying that she isn't, and the fact that she hasn't posted anywhere unrelated to this makes it suspicious, but there are no actual proofs just some rather subjective wild guessing.
Perhaps if your phrasing was less strong it wouldn't poke in the eye so much, but it is true that you're using some very strong words for someone who has absolutely no proof for what he's saying.

And then, motivation of the whole scenario you've shown seems feeble. If Matt already gained bad reputation on this forum (what's more, he's banned), why would someone go that far to make him have insignificantly worse reputation? What's the point?

I have no reason to defend BigMack, nor care... she's not a regular poster and isn't very likely to be one in future, and I'm cautions about information she gives as much as about everything I hear on internet from unreliable sources.
I am just amused by spotting falacies in people's arguements, and I found that your case here had a few that would be interesting to mention.
Like Rkolter, I'm not inclined to believe to anyone here. We've apparently established one thing with which everyone agrees, and that is that this Matt guy, at some point, harrased someone through PM. And frankly everything else is just details anyway.

[MacQuarrie]

But I am really curious to know what it is I'm lying about. I think I've been pretty consistent and straightforward aobut who I am and why I'm here. Could you please point out where I've lied, since you chose to brand me a liar?

I don't know about lying, but there are some things that don't sound sound.

If you don't know about lying, why did you call me a liar? Prove it or retract it.

The most noticeable one is when you say:

It's pretty clear to anyone who looks that BigMack registered here for the sole purpose of confronting Matt.

But elsewhere, you'll say that it was Matt who harrased BigMack first. So BigMack registered here with specific purpose to be harrased? Like, she knew upfront that if she registered here, Matt would harras her? That doesn't sound very believeable to me.

It's exactly what happened. Here's her posting history:
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 4#p1476524

Her first post here was a direct attack on Matt. Clearly she knew a lot about him and his involvement with Unscrewed from the start, despite having supposedly never had any dealings with him.
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 0#p1476360

She knew that if she attacked him, he would respond. That's why she came here. After he got banned, she came back and created false accusations in order to stir up more trouble. And here we are.

Other thing that troubles me is, even if I believe everything you say, I can't agree with you. You're saying that BigMack's intention was to claim that Matt harrassed her a lot, while he harrased her only a little? You're saying that her intention was to make Matt look bad, but he already made himself look bad by harrasing her in the first place. You say, she wants to make him look like worse troll than he really is, but you'll hardly find a person here who cares whether someone is a big troll or just a medium size troll.

No, that's not what I said. It's not that "he harassed her only a little." She falsely accused him of creating a new identity in order to get around his ban so that he could continue to harass her. That's stalking and it's a felony. If she made the story stick, he could have been facing a court date and possible jail time.

Her goal wasn't to "make him look bad." It was to accuse him of criminal behavior and seriously screw up his life.

There are other troubling conclusions too:
For one, you conclude that BigMack is lying about Matt re-harrasing her, and from that you conclude that she lies about everything she says about herself too. That's a very big stretch of imagination. I'm not saying that she isn't, and the fact that she hasn't posted anywhere unrelated to this makes it suspicious, but there are no actual proofs just some rather subjective wild guessing.
Perhaps if your phrasing was less strong it wouldn't poke in the eye so much, but it is true that you're using some very strong words for someone who has absolutely no proof for what he's saying.

Let's just say I have a few suspicions about who she really is.

And then, motivation of the whole scenario you've shown seems feeble. If Matt already gained bad reputation on this forum (what's more, he's banned), why would someone go that far to make him have insignificantly worse reputation? What's the point?

The point is payback. The point was to get the YABS and Unscrewed peopel to believe the story, ban Matt, ostracize and attack him, and possibly have somebody report him to the police.

I have no reason to defend BigMack, nor care... she's not a regular poster and isn't very likely to be one in future, and I'm cautions about information she gives as much as about everything I hear on internet from unreliable sources.

Good policy.

I am just amused by spotting falacies in people's arguements, and I found that your case here had a few that would be interesting to mention.

You aren't very good at it.

Like Rkolter, I'm not inclined to believe to anyone here. We've apparently established one thing with which everyone agrees, and that is that this Matt guy, at some point, harrased someone through PM. And frankly everything else is just details anyway.

You're really good at missing the point.

Yes, Matt was a jerk here and got banned for it. But then BigMack accused him of stalking her. That's far beyond being a troll. It's a legal issue, and it possibly implicates Unscrewed in the repercussions. We have too much at stake to allow that to go unchallenged.

So let's look at BigMack's activity here. Since you enjoy spotting the fallacies in people's arguments, let's see how you do with some fairly obvious ones you missed the first time around....

Here, she says that Matt has accused her of being Crowley and/or Nick Chumbly (an obvious satire of Rick Olney).
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 4#p1476524

But later she pretends not to know who Crowley is, despite the fact that he is the Treasurer and one of the co-founders of Unscrewed and a very vocal member of the YABS thread she keeps pointing to. So which is it? Is she well-versed in the details of Unscrewed vs. Rick Olney, or has she never heard of anybody involved?
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 5#p1482395

Here she says "Perhaps you are unaware of the number of times people have asked him to stop attacking someone. Perhaps you are unaware of the times his friends have said he has anger issues and needs to stop posting at times." But she's not a member of YABS, not a member of Unscrewed, and allegedly has no prior knowledge of Matt before joining this forum. So how does she know so much about his past behavior?
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 5#p1476565

Here she accuses Matt of sending harassing messages to other girls: "You should be ashamed for treating me like you did and all the other girls who you have been sending harassing messages to."
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 3#p1480953
Oddly, no other girls have mentioned being harassed by him. Has anybody else here received threatening or harassing PM messages or emails from Matt?

BigMack seems to know an awful lot about Unscrewed, and supports it here very vocally. Oddly, she doesn't support it anywhere else. She doesn't participate at Gail's forum despite allegedly being a fan. She isn't registered at Unscrewed, and searches have not turned up any posts by her anywhere else. She seems to only support Unscrewed at this forum, it's the only thing she talks about here, but she doesn't talk about it anywhere else. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Have you noticed any fallacies yet?

Now, back to the beginning. You called me a liar. Either prove I'm lying or retract and apologize.

[MacQuarrie]

But I am really curious to know what it is I'm lying about. I think I've been pretty consistent and straightforward aobut who I am and why I'm here. Could you please point out where I've lied, since you chose to brand me a liar?

I don't know about lying, but there are some things that don't sound sound.

If you don't know about lying, why did you call me a liar? Prove it or retract it.

The most noticeable one is when you say:

It's pretty clear to anyone who looks that BigMack registered here for the sole purpose of confronting Matt.

But elsewhere, you'll say that it was Matt who harrased BigMack first. So BigMack registered here with specific purpose to be harrased? Like, she knew upfront that if she registered here, Matt would harras her? That doesn't sound very believeable to me.

It's exactly what happened. Here's her posting history:
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 4#p1476524

Her first post here was a direct attack on Matt. Clearly she knew a lot about him and his involvement with Unscrewed from the start, despite having supposedly never had any dealings with him.
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 0#p1476360

She knew that if she attacked him, he would respond. That's why she came here. After he got banned, she came back and created false accusations in order to stir up more trouble. And here we are.

Other thing that troubles me is, even if I believe everything you say, I can't agree with you. You're saying that BigMack's intention was to claim that Matt harrassed her a lot, while he harrased her only a little? You're saying that her intention was to make Matt look bad, but he already made himself look bad by harrasing her in the first place. You say, she wants to make him look like worse troll than he really is, but you'll hardly find a person here who cares whether someone is a big troll or just a medium size troll.

No, that's not what I said. It's not that "he harassed her only a little." She falsely accused him of creating a new identity in order to get around his ban so that he could continue to harass her. That's stalking and it's a felony. If she made the story stick, he could have been facing a court date and possible jail time.

Her goal wasn't to "make him look bad." It was to accuse him of criminal behavior and seriously screw up his life.

There are other troubling conclusions too:
For one, you conclude that BigMack is lying about Matt re-harrasing her, and from that you conclude that she lies about everything she says about herself too. That's a very big stretch of imagination. I'm not saying that she isn't, and the fact that she hasn't posted anywhere unrelated to this makes it suspicious, but there are no actual proofs just some rather subjective wild guessing.
Perhaps if your phrasing was less strong it wouldn't poke in the eye so much, but it is true that you're using some very strong words for someone who has absolutely no proof for what he's saying.

Let's just say I have a few suspicions about who she really is.

And then, motivation of the whole scenario you've shown seems feeble. If Matt already gained bad reputation on this forum (what's more, he's banned), why would someone go that far to make him have insignificantly worse reputation? What's the point?

The point is payback. The point was to get the YABS and Unscrewed peopel to believe the story, ban Matt, ostracize and attack him, and possibly have somebody report him to the police.

I have no reason to defend BigMack, nor care... she's not a regular poster and isn't very likely to be one in future, and I'm cautions about information she gives as much as about everything I hear on internet from unreliable sources.

Good policy.

I am just amused by spotting falacies in people's arguements, and I found that your case here had a few that would be interesting to mention.

You aren't very good at it.

Like Rkolter, I'm not inclined to believe to anyone here. We've apparently established one thing with which everyone agrees, and that is that this Matt guy, at some point, harrased someone through PM. And frankly everything else is just details anyway.

You're really good at missing the point.

Yes, Matt was a jerk here and got banned for it. But then BigMack accused him of stalking her. That's far beyond being a troll. It's a legal issue, and it possibly implicates Unscrewed in the repercussions. We have too much at stake to allow that to go unchallenged.

So let's look at BigMack's activity here. Since you enjoy spotting the fallacies in people's arguments, let's see how you do with some fairly obvious ones you missed the first time around....

Here, she says that Matt has accused her of being Crowley and/or Nick Chumbly (an obvious satire of Rick Olney).
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 4#p1476524

But later she pretends not to know who Crowley is, despite the fact that he is the Treasurer and one of the co-founders of Unscrewed and a very vocal member of the YABS thread she keeps pointing to. So which is it? Is she well-versed in the details of Unscrewed vs. Rick Olney, or has she never heard of anybody involved?
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 5#p1482395

Here she says "Perhaps you are unaware of the number of times people have asked him to stop attacking someone. Perhaps you are unaware of the times his friends have said he has anger issues and needs to stop posting at times." But she's not a member of YABS, not a member of Unscrewed, and allegedly has no prior knowledge of Matt before joining this forum. So how does she know so much about his past behavior?
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 5#p1476565

Here she accuses Matt of sending harassing messages to other girls: "You should be ashamed for treating me like you did and all the other girls who you have been sending harassing messages to."
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/viewtopi ... 3#p1480953
Oddly, no other girls have mentioned being harassed by him. Has anybody else here received threatening or harassing PM messages or emails from Matt?

BigMack seems to know an awful lot about Unscrewed, and supports it here very vocally. Oddly, she doesn't support it anywhere else. She doesn't participate at Gail's forum despite allegedly being a fan. She isn't registered at Unscrewed, and searches have not turned up any posts by her anywhere else. She seems to only support Unscrewed at this forum, it's the only thing she talks about here, but she doesn't talk about it anywhere else. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Have you noticed any fallacies yet?

EDITED TO ADD: How about this one: I own the Unscrewed domain, was one of the founders of the organization, and have been a very active participant in the Olney thread at YABS since it began, but BigMack doesn't seem to know who I am. She can cite chapter and verse of everything Rick Olney and Matt Martin have ever done, but she's never heard of one of the primary people involved in their activities for the past 18 months. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Now, back to the beginning. You called me a liar. Either prove I'm lying or retract and apologize.

[Mercury Hat]

This is the most mundane tempest in a teapot this forum's seen in ages. Sort out your respective identities and allegiances off this board. For all I care, everyone involved in this are really just separate accounts of Ron Paul.

< ~
~ >
~ ~