Well if it is...Merry Christmas Scranton!!

The board is going to be cleaned up of the vulgar and inappropriate comments relating to both public and private persons.

Regarding the use of multiple IPs:

It would not be fair to have only one user per household. There are often at least two adults using the same computer connection, and they each may have their own user name. And don't forget that people can also have several different email addresses; therefore it seems to be the way of the electronic world.

Also, it's quite easy to manipulate IP addresses and to mask them.

I want to keep it relatively simple in terms of the exchange of information, ideas and opinions. Some opinions will be harsh, and that's okay. But at no time will I tolerate the abuse of someone's family, or of private individuals. There may be legitimate discussion of persons who are involved with political figures who are not public figures themselves, and those discussions will be permitted, until or unless they cross the line into defamation, vulgarity or abuse.

And, while I, for my own purposes, don't like the use of obscene words; I will allow it for the sake of just expressing a frustration or a depth of emotion relating to a certain issue. Particular words, if you've noticed, have already been masked and filtered with astericks so that a reader can get the gist of the statement without having to read the full word.

Joann...understand that this is something we have been saying for YEARS now, yet no one at DD dared to even imply that this was happening.  The closest I ever heard a DD poster ever come to acknowledging this was Glenn, who once made the very lawyerly comment (that went something like) "I am well aware of the actual poster count...".

This is a kind of affimation that we have been right...all along...about Joe Pilchesky and his scamming of his "followers".

Paul wrote:

---

How many IDs belonged to Joe? How many belonged to you?

---

 Answer the question asked of you, please.  It was pretty straightforward.  We're harder to lie to than most of the goobers at your site.

lol

Paul wrote:

---

Paul wrote:

---

How many IDs belonged to Joe? How many belonged to you?

---

 Answer the question asked of you, please.  It was pretty straightforward.  We're harder to lie to than most of the goobers at your site.

---

What exactly am I missing here? Was I married to the jerk? Yep. Was I loyal? Yep. Was I manipulated and emotionally abused? Yep. But what did I, Joanne Pilchesky, ever do to you or any of your pseudonyms to warrant your ill will? Now that I'm trying to break free for a few months before I face another change in life, you won't let me come up for air! WTF did I do to any of you to deserve this treatment?

I don't have an exact count of Joe's alter-egos. I think there are dozens. Just remember, that there are hundreds of other members who are not necessarily Joe's followers, but true believers in the purpose of the site. Just look in the mirror. You want/wanted to participate for good political reasons.

You tell me who you were/are on DD and I'll unban any of you.

I don't feel that I was demonstrating any ill will towards you with what I had asked, or treating you poorly in any way, in this thread. I presented you with a straightforward question, and have little patience for deflection and flawed reasoning that has nothing to do with the question asked. Neither this board nor yours is an online sweepstakes. While acknowledged that multiple usernames may be "common" on other messageboards, the ones that actively condone it as Joe does, or passively allow it as you appear to, lack any sort of true credibility. We make efforts to control that a single person posts under a single ID. No such efforts appeared to have been in place at DD. To the contrary, it apeared that the Administrator created and utilized several (dozens, perhaps) IDs, permitted like minded friends to post under several (dozen, perhaps) IDs, and took no steps to prevent these sockpuppets (also common on message forums) from continuing to undermine an already shaky reputation of your messageboard.

You wrote: "There are often at least two adults using the same computer connection, and they each may have their own user name. And don't forget that people can also have several different email addresses; therefore it seems to be the way of the electronic world." While it's all true, it did not address the question, it weakly deflected it. Single users with multiple e-mail addresses who post under multiple IDs are socks, and it's generally a bannable offense. Check the TOS to a few messageboards.

No one here ever asked you to verify the accuracy of our multiple ID guesses. No one here ever asked you to identify any of your users. Many of them have unwittingly identified themselves, the rest was done for our own amusement. We are simply looking for you to come clean with how many IDs your husband has used, ban them, and do your job as Administrator. While we may disagree with the content, as long as it is being presented honestly by individuals, we're fine with that. When several IDs are created by Joe (or anyone else for that matter) to manipulate sketchy opinions or third person accounts and present them as fact....well, that's not very open and transparent, is it?

Paul wrote:

---

I don't feel that I was demonstrating any ill will towards you with what I had asked, or treating you poorly in any way, in this thread.

Paul, you have insulted me in other posts. Under this topic, you've pushed for answers from me for what reason? Do you really care about the site?

I presented you with a straightforward question, and have little patience for deflection and flawed reasoning that has nothing to do with the question asked.

You just didn't like my answer. What's going to be next, you'll want to verify everyone's IP address to show that I'm not deflecting and illogical?

Neither this board nor yours is an online sweepstakes. While acknowledged that multiple usernames may be "common" on other messageboards, the ones that actively condone it as Joe does, or passively allow it as you appear to, lack any sort of true credibility.

Prove it. I've been on numerous sites and blogs relating to political discussions that are far more explosive and push the extreme envelope of free speech, and discovered multiple user names. Even the Huffington Post permitted it.

We make efforts to control that a single person posts under a single ID.

But that's your choice here.

No such efforts appeared to have been in place at DD.

So what?

To the contrary, it apeared that the Administrator created and utilized several (dozens, perhaps) IDs, permitted like minded friends to post under several (dozen, perhaps) IDs, and took no steps to prevent these sockpuppets (also common on message forums) from continuing to undermine an already shaky reputation of your messageboard.

Joe had full control over the message board, although I created it and taught him how to use it. Same as DD website, except that about a year ago he purchased the domain name when it came up for renewal.

He does prefer like-minded members, for obvious egomaniacal reasons. Your definition of shaky, please?

Again, Paul, I ask why do you care?

You wrote: "There are often at least two adults using the same computer connection, and they each may have their own user name. And don't forget that people can also have several different email addresses; therefore it seems to be the way of the electronic world." While it's all true, it did not address the question, it weakly deflected it. Single users with multiple e-mail addresses who post under multiple IDs are socks, and it's generally a bannable offense. Check the TOS to a few messageboards.

I most certainly did address the question. And where did I say single users? I said that households may have at least two adults; who rightfully, should be able to participate on any message board; and rightfully, may have the same or differing political views.

The electronic world is not one user per household, and if that were the case, blogs and online commentary sites would soon be dormant. The restriction you speak of, in my opinion, in some cases, is to reduce the amount of time an admin may have to spend to monitor online comments, which can easily be a full time position, and unpaid.

No one here ever asked you to verify the accuracy of our multiple ID guesses.

Yes, they did.

No one here ever asked you to identify any of your users.

In essence they did. Saying that one member is registered as another member could easily identify someone depending on the information that was posted about a particular topic.

Many of them have unwittingly identified themselves, the rest was done for our own amusement. We are simply looking for you to come clean with how many IDs your husband has used, ban them, and do your job as Administrator.

I don't know how many exactly. Unless I was there to see him sign up, how would I know? The IPs are dynamic as you know, and are constantly changing either by automation or by design or by posting location. And, one needs an excel spreadsheet to study the user name as it intersects with the IP address.

I believe he has dozens. And they will be banned as I discover each one. But please back off and don't tell me what my job is as administrator of a board that you don't own.

While we may disagree with the content, as long as it is being presented honestly by individuals, we're fine with that.

I must have missed something; can you tell me how I can assure anyone that content and opinion is being presented honestly?

And, I'm glad you're fine with that. But, and please don't take this wrong, when did I join the parade to make you feel fine?

When several IDs are created by Joe (or anyone else for that matter) to manipulate sketchy opinions or third person accounts and present them as fact....well, that's not very open and transparent, is it?

I agree, and I've stated that.

-- Edited by Paul on Thursday 29th of December 2011 03:08:06 PM

---

I think the elemental remedy here is the filtering of sycophantic members and members who leave track records of disseminating rumor, defamation and statements of false facts. Other than that, your inquiries about the IDs speaks to your curiosity, and not to the promotion or support of a political discussion forum.

Do you want me to go away mad, or just go away?

Neither. We are just pretty straight forward and don’t treat anyone with kid gloves.  You have to admit we aren't nearly as aggressive with you as the posters (you included) who skewered Judy Gatelli or Sherri Fanucci. I certainly hope you are able to take criticism as well as you have extended it to others.

The point we are making (and I don't believe you are unable to see it) is that the alter egos (which I know you now admit exist) were used to further certain arguments or events, as if they were being independently supported by many voices. In fact it was often one voice multiplied by several dozen alter egos. The "death threat" posts for instance are a good example of this travesty. We all knew it was Joeyboy posting them himself and while that was, on its surface, pathetic it was also WRONG. A lot of people who post over there appear to be incapable of logical thinking (to put it nicely) so they are able to be manipulated by such nonsense. Intentional manipulation is just plain wrong. Would you agree?

IHavehadenoughofhaters wrote:

---

 

Neither. We are just pretty straight forward and don’t treat anyone with kid gloves.  You have to admit we aren't nearly as aggressive with you as the posters (you included) who skewered Judy Gatelli or Sherri Fanucci.

You've given me my fair share.

I certainly hope you are able to take criticism as well as you have extended it to others.

 I can, but critical statements don't make one right or wrong.

The point we are making (and I don't believe you are unable to see it) is that the alter egos (which I know you now admit exist) were used to further certain arguments or events, as if they were being independently supported by many voices. In fact it was often one voice multiplied by several dozen alter egos. The "death threat" posts for instance are a good example of this travesty. We all knew it was Joeyboy posting them himself and while that was, on its surface, pathetic it was also WRONG. A lot of people who post over there appear to be incapable of logical thinking (to put it nicely) so they are able to be manipulated by such nonsense. Intentional manipulation is just plain wrong. Would you agree?

-- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters on Thursday 29th of December 2011 04:50:14 PM

---

 Yes, I agree.