Mike Greathouse [you decide]

[snake5007]

I think "attack" is being thrown around a little too loosely. A disagreement isn't an attack. I don't recall Mike, as Shrillomn, ever calling anyone cutesy names,swearing or threatening. I know there was the PM to Chuck but that was in private. It doesn't make it good. He admitted that it got out of hand.

I agree with Sammy's point that there was a good deal of harm done when members started up against each other as a result of something originated by Shrill.

My vote, good guy that made a mistake.

I remember names and swearing. D'ya need proof?

 

[kmurphy]

I remember names and swearing. D'ya need proof?

Well if it is choice between me or you searching through the threads - I vote for you.

Actually I didn't think he did, I am not disagreeing with you, I just don't recall it.

 

[SPJ]

New avatar Chuck?

You do realize that is not a monkey.

 

[critical bill]

My vote, good guy that made a mistake.

He made many mistakes. Not just "A" single mistake.

---------------------------------------------
Webslave's Thorn [email protected] 208.68.174.24

Webslaves Thorn [email protected] 208.53.183.83

Claude Raines [email protected] 66.242.21.22
----------------------------------------------

And you call those mistakes? Intentionally and persistently trying to be a thorn in Rich's side? As it was pointed out...all three of those were created on the same day.

Get your head out of your ass, murphy.

 

[snake5007]

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90372&highlight=shrillomn

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92457&highlight=shrillomn

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92598&highlight=shrillomn

This is just a few of them, but i'm sure there's a few swear words in there.

 

[critical bill]

New avatar Chuck?

You do realize that is not a monkey.

I never said I was smart monkey.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Count me as one who does not feel that the harm in Shrill was as an instigator of conflict between other members. At the time, when more of us participated, any thread would serve as a battleground. If not one in which Shrill was an antagonist, then surely elsewhere. The big boys and girls here hardly needed Shrill as an excuse. While Shrill was often humorous, the use of an alias in an antagonisitc way towards anyone else met with disapproval from some, myself well included. IMMHO it was a bad precedent that it stood for as long as it did, i.e. known alias posts were not deleted. Rich stated his reasons for "giving someone enough rope" (my paraphrase) but again IMMHO, known alias posts should be deleted as they occur, regardless of curiosity.

All of my interactions with Mike have been exemplary otherwise. His stellar reputation with his animals is well earned, as has been his generosity with others. But there is also a real quandary now, where the cyber-expertise is well beyond me. At least one in a position of such expertise, who is also quite familiar with the span of events, said in no uncertain terms that Mike was not being truthful. While I found the initial "crime(s)" repulsive, the allegation is now that there's a cover-up, aka denial. I don't pretend to know the answer, but the allegation is serious, and not from someone who shoots in all directions either.

 

[kmurphy]

And you call those mistakes? Intentionally and persistently trying to be a thorn in Rich's side? As it was pointed out...all three of those were created on the same day.

I am calling the whole idea one mistake.

 

[shrap]

All of my interactions with Mike have been exemplary otherwise. His stellar reputation with his animals is well earned, as has been his generosity with others.

I completely agree Jim. Everyone certainly needs to look at the entire picture that is Mike Greathouse. I dont like or agree with everything Mike has done with this little game of his and I for one am trying real hard to look at the entire picture here.

I thought most of this game of his to be harmless. Cowardly in some aspects, but harmless. Right up until I learned he threatened Chuck. That put a different light on the subject for me.

 

[KelliH]

Right up until I learned he threatened Chuck. That put a different light on the subject for me.

He threatened to dig up an old thread. Old threads get dug up here all the time, don't they?

 

[shrap]

He threatened to dig up an old thread. Old threads get dug up here all the time, don't they?

You are free to look at it however you want, Kelli. I simply said it made a difference to me. The intent behind the threat is what matters to me.

 

[WebSlave]

He threatened to dig up an old thread. Old threads get dug up here all the time, don't they?

Yes they do. It's what is known as "evidence". Which is why I restrict the ability for members to edit and delete older posts quite a bit here. You just never know what tomorrow may bring and when something seemingly innocent may take on new meaning with later developments.

 

[Griz]

Is digging up old threads really a threat? Chuck's a big boy and hardly needs any defense by me or anyone else. If it was simply a matter of "Chuck, back off or I will dig up an old thread about you that won't show you in a good light" then who cares. If it was "Chuck, I am going to show up at your door and knock the martini out of your hands" then them there is fighting words.

Poor judgement? Yes, I would agree with that. I see the original intent of Shrillomn, given the knew information, as possibly a good, albeit misconceived idea that simply spiraled out of control. I think the whole ddos garbage needs to take a back seat until Rich figures it out. Throwing that accusation out at this juncture probably was not prudent. Although, there have been many posts in this thread that would not pass the prudent test, now isn't there?

Griz

 

[critical bill]

He threatened to dig up an old thread. Old threads get dug up here all the time, don't they?

But I had long since resolved the issues on the thread, Kelly. It was a dead issue. I was wrong and I made it right. I even took his advice because I respected him. My customer was his old customer. I figured if he didn't have a problem with her then it had to be me...because reputation was so stellar and his opinion so well respected. I would have done what was right anyway but he was a great influence in my reacting so quick.

To threaten me to dig it up and add crap to it for the sole purpose of silencing me was dead wrong. He sought to intimidate me and manipulate my involvement in any of his threads as Shrillomn. That's pretty serious. That's a scumbag thing to do to anyone just so he could have his fun with mocking Wes and a bunch of others.

 

[critical bill]

If it was "Chuck, I am going to show up at your door and knock the martini out of your hands" then them there is fighting words.

Doh!!! You bectha!

 

[critical bill]

Doh!!! You bectha!

LOL. Speaking of a martini in hand....

I meant "Betcha"!

 

[Dragondad]

Is digging up old threads really a threat? Chuck's a big boy and hardly needs any defense by me or anyone else. If it was simply a matter of "Chuck, back off or I will dig up an old thread about you that won't show you in a good light" then who cares. If it was "Chuck, I am going to show up at your door and knock the martini out of your hands" then them there is fighting words.

Poor judgement? Yes, I would agree with that. I see the original intent of Shrillomn, given the knew information, as possibly a good, albeit misconceived idea that simply spiraled out of control. I think the whole ddos garbage needs to take a back seat until Rich figures it out. Throwing that accusation out at this juncture probably was not prudent. Although, there have been many posts in this thread that would not pass the prudent test, now isn't there?

Griz

Prudent is not a word to describe the average BOI posters intent.

The BOI of old would require a certain amount of proof to a statement. I see a man stating something called a threat " wow have we seen worse threats than bringing up an old thread" What was the threat Chuck, I just looked over all of Shills posts I cant seem to find the discussion you say took place.

Proof man give us proof

Or shut the monkey trap

 

[critical bill]

Proof man give us proof

Or shut the monkey trap

As I stated to Roz....I never saved the PM. Maybe Shrills account has the PM he sent me saved in his outbox.

And calm yourself down giving me orders. lol. You silly head.

 

[shrap]

"Chuck, back off or I will dig up an old thread about you that won't show you in a good light" then who cares.

I do. Again, the intent behind the threat is what I care about. Which was trying to intimidate and silence Chuck. I personally just dont think that is right.

 

[critical bill]

I'll add that its anyones choice to believe me or not. I don't really care and there isn't much I can do to convince anyone. And its not like Mikey is know for his bravery and will come along to confirm that he sent me the PM. Again it doesn't matter to me. I used my experience with Shrillomn to make my decision on how I feel about Mike. Use whatever you need to make yours. I don't like him regardless of the PM and that's because I just don't like cowards. I don't mind people supporting a coward because I think its great when that coward actually learns how to stand up for himself. I just dont have the patience to be around cowards during nut dropping time. Some of you in my book deserve medals. So....good for you and..good - for - you.