The Alphaville Herald

349 Responses to “updated: We didn’t Want You to Know This, But Agitators Will Be Banned”

1. 

   Joshua Nightshade
   

   Apr 2nd, 2007
   

   Anyone interested in a true history of the War with Prokofy, please, please read this before you listen to anything else that she says. I’m done trying to behave rationally when confronted with such overwhelming lunacy.

   http://forums.secondcitizen.com/showthread.php?t=10653
2. 

   Cocoanut Koala
   

   Apr 2nd, 2007
   

   Chat log:

   —–

   Hey Coco, I got an IM from someone who sent me a link to a picture of Prokofy’s door. I reported the guy and it looks like he’s banned, but I thought Prokofy should know about it. Would you mind letting her know? She has me muted I think and anyway if I try to tell her this she’s going to say I was trying to scare her.

   [here is where I sent the link to the photo and the chatlog from the alt]

   [10:15] Cocoanut Koala: Thank you, Josh, I will send this on to Prok.
   [10:16] Cocoanut Koala: P.S. What was the alt’s name?

   It was just made yesterday. Isn’t on search anymore. Griefer Acronym

   [10:19] Cocoanut Koala: thanks
   [10:20] Cocoanut Koala: too bad I didn’t see his front door when I was in NYC

   —–

   Thank you very much for posting that, Joshua. I didn’t remember promising not to tell him it was you, or even talking about it, and this confirms it.

   Apparently you thought, by what you had said, that it was understood I would not say that the photo had come from you to me.

   Obviously, I understood that you were trying to warn Prok with this information, but he had you on mute, and the two of you didn’t get along anyway, so didn’t want to be the one to give him this news anyway.

   Apparently you think in the conversation it was understood that I was not to tell Prok that it came from you, which was not at all understood, as you can see.

   Cristiano: There was NOTHING I didn’t “honor” in this, Cristiano – you who weren’t even in on this and know nothing about it except what Joshua has told you – so I would like an apology from you now.

   You and your “here is what happened.” You don’t KNOW what happened. But now you do!

   I would further ask you to stop spreading around as if it were FACT that I didn’t honor a request when in fact the request was never made. Much less that I would ever promise such a thing and then renig on it.

   coco
3. 

   Joshua Nightshade
   

   Apr 2nd, 2007
   

   You totally made up the chatlog text above, haha. But either way it still says essentially the same thing as I said, minus the part where I asked Coco to leave me out. Curious, did you lie about the chat text completely or will you get Coco to play along too?

   Anyway as I said previously, I was at work when Coco IMed me back and I replied to her via email; my response was above. The alt’s name was Griefer Acronym. I was very clear and honest about that from the get-go.

   http://forums.secondcitizen.com/showthread.php?t=10653
4. 

   Joshua Nightshade
   

   Apr 2nd, 2007
   

   Also please show me a screenshot of said notecard, I don’t remember sending Coco a notecard in the first place about this; I contacted her via IMs. I’d love to see a screenshot of this supposed notecard that I made. Show me a cap of it saying it was made by me. Go for it.
5. 

   Cocoanut Koala
   

   Apr 2nd, 2007
   

   And thanks, Prok, for providing that notecard.

   Perhaps the most awful part of all this is the attempt – on the part of many – to pretend that Prok was never banned at all, and it was some “ridiculous business about her being banned months ago. How convenient!”

   That was no “ridiculous business.” That was exactly what happened, and Jennyfur knows it, Flipper knows it, the SLCC knows it, everybody on SC knows it, and probably even Cristiano knows it.

   You know it, too, Joshua.

   The SLCC was just getting too much heat for it, so they came to their senses. Good.

   coco
6. 

   Tenshi Vielle
   

   Apr 2nd, 2007
   

   Why isn’t Aimee here herself? Why is she avoiding this thread? She’s probably heard of it by now.
7. 

   Prokofy Neva
   

   Apr 3rd, 2007
   

   1. I *was* banned months ago. Jennyfur was bragging about it on SC. It’s clear to see on SC. I just chose to ignore it. Both she and Flipper couldn’t help bragging about it. That caused some people to begin to ask about it. It’s all on SC.

   2. Joshua went to Cocoanut because I had him on mute, so he couldn’t send things to my inventory, nor talk to me such as to send me links or IMs. So he sent it to Cocoanut. It’s sick.

   She copied what he said in chat and sent it on a card to me.

   As you can see from what I cut and pasted above, it isn’t that he “made a notecard that shows him as author”. It’s that HE SAID THE TEXT and she copied it and sent it to me. He ASKED her to do that.

   The picture is visible still at the URL in the text of what he said, he sent the link to Cocoanut, she sent it to me.

   The whole point in drawing in Cocoanut was to use her credulity, for her to get in on the act, too, and say, oh, wow, somebody ELSE is stalking Prok!

   Why couldn’t Joshua name the alt?

   Convenient, eh, that he didn’t?
8. 

   Prokofy Neva
   

   Apr 3rd, 2007
   

   Anyone who sees the awful mysogenous language used and the “insult culture gone off the rails” and the self-justification used in this self-serving post will get the problem. He conveniently leaves out things like his doctoring up a Wikipedia entry and posting things like “oh, I live two blocks away from Prok and today’s Prok has an umbrella, it’s raining” blah blah. Sick.
9. 

   Buridan Simon
   

   Apr 3rd, 2007
   

   You are making some unwarranted assumptions about the attourney’s statement. There is no clear concern that Prok or other people would be harmed, nor who would do the harming, there is merely the statement that agigators should not be allowed to comingle with alcohol present. There is no implied violence in the lawyers statement.

   I think the word ‘ban’ is probably just inflamed rhetoric here, what we have is a situation where a person is not allowed to participate. Children are not allowed to participate in many adult activities. Many adults are not allowed to particpate in the activities of other adults when their past behaviour has warranted exclusion.

   I’ve been in public spaces with Prok, mostly s/he just sits and harrangues people or walks around to find new people to harrangue. S/he seemed perfectly harmless IRL, people put up with her, and some even seem to enjoy her company. In SL though, she certainly goes beyond harranguing tries to silence, threatens to ban, and relatedly constructs fictions in order to attempt to influence a variety of opinions that help to maintain status, ego, and related matters.

   Personally, I think far too many people at LL, in sl, and rl spend far to much time feeding the troll. Prok should have been expropriated and removed from SL ages ago on the basis that she wastes too much of other people’s time and resources. The Prok resource expenditure in LL meetings alone must be in the hundreds if not thousands of man-hours. However, Prok does keep the SL Herald well fed with controversy and related tripe, so there’s that.
10. 

    Cat Cotton
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Good God I think this little war from Flip and friends (sometimes referred to as the FIC) has gone a little too far. Banning ppl in RL from their little community events, its laughable. Seems to me the bottom line is they don’t want anyone who would cause anyone to believe anything outside the “collective think”. What was it WC Fields once said? “I wouldn’t want to be in any club that would have me as a member”

    The SLCC reminds me of a group of elitists who’s group think leads me to believe they just never had any clue; about the freedoms that SL once provided. Sad, just sad.

    Cat
11. 

    David Cartier
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Jesus. This is like watching the inmates in a nuthouse arguing about which one is craziest. Whatever is going on, it’s pretty clear that at least one of you has been calling Prokofy’s real-life home and coaxing real-life information out of her child. The provocation that Prokofy may or may not have provided to drive you into that action utterly pales in comparison to your stepping over the line like that in such a weird, creepy, possibly psychotic, most probably illegal harrassment/stalking.
    Keeping in mind that another woman that we have all heard about just recently cancelled her appearance at an important industry function, due to death threats that she was frightened enough to take seriously, maybe it might not be such a bad idea to remember that whether it be a MMORPG or game or chat room or whatever, Second Life is supposed to be FUN?
12. 

    Joshua Nightshade
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    David: The person who contacted Prokofy at home because he stupidly thought that she would behave rationally. He understands that he was a moron for doing so and he crossed the line, and he only called her “once.” If anyone else did that afterward (which is largely unlikely, given Prokofy’s hyperbole and lies even here) then that was someone else completely.

    At no point have I ever, nor would I ever, do anything with Prokofy’s real life information, and I’ve been quite firm about ensuring that point is clear. I’ve never contacted her in real life, I’ve never taken photos of her apartment, and up until last Friday I’ve never been in close proximity of her. Beyond the fact that we used to live in the same neighborhood and unfortunately seeing her around was a common occurrence, I’ve never had any reason whatsoever to bother myself with her delusions. In Prokofy land, being someone’s neighbor is implied stalking. Prokofy again makes up further lies, from a doctored chatlog to claims of a “notecard” I sent her.

    Where’s the screenshot of the notecard Prok? And I did name the alt to Coco, as I pointed out already, you conveniently chose to leave that out of your fake chatlog.
13. 

    Jennyfur Peregrine
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    What a difference a day makes.

    Yesterday, Second Life lost one of its greatest residents to cancer… Feliciaa Feaver was a dear friend for many years to so many of us.

    It really put things into perspective for me and this whole issue of slcc banning pales in comparison and becomes downright irrelevant. Many of her friends are devastated by the loss we all feel.

    So lets just stop this nonsense and take to heart the things that really matter instead of quibbling dramatically over inconsequential things such as this.
14. 

    Prokofy Neva
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Buridan,

    Please don’t *lie* — because it’s very easy to check.

    You are making some unwarranted assumptions about the attourney’s statement. There is no clear concern that Prok or other people would be harmed, nor who would do the harming, there is merely the statement that agigators should not be allowed to comingle with alcohol present. There is no implied violence in the lawyers statement.

    Spare me the bullshit. You’ve long behaved inworld in every event and setting to challenge me because early on, you didn’t like my critique of *your* particular brand of bullshit, so you are merely siding with the Peregrines now as “the enemy of my friend is my enemy”.

    Jennyfur and Flipper did a VERY political act in posting this information about the attorney in threads on Second Citizen that had a CONTEXT. And that context — pure, utter bullshit — was that “OMGODZORZZZ Prok makes death threats against people and calls them rapists and exaggerates attacks on himself like calling them assaults when they are merely peace gestures”. And that context is complete crap as I’ve written here over and over again.

    Read the threads. Both Jennyfur and Flipper were gloating about banning me months ago, and Flipper merely wheeled out the bit about the attorney because even he was feeling the pressure of his own peers on SC who were saying, but wait, we hate Prok, but you shouldn’t ban people.

    So to pretend that any of us have been presumptious here is really total arrant bullshit. We haven’t. Flipper deployed the attorney to bolster his ban case, pure and simple. This is only led people to poke at more, of course.

    Your inability to see the essential bad faith and cunning viciousness of these people is obscuring your ability to read the clues in it. They went to an attorney precisely because they felt pressure and needed “legal justification”. The attorney was given some biased and skewed hypothetical and said whatever *paid attorneys* tell their clients. *Shrugs*.

    >I think the word ‘ban’ is probably just inflamed rhetoric here, what we have is a situation where a person is not allowed to participate.

    No, Buridan, please don’t LIE about this and PREVARICATE. BANNING is what Jennyfur ANNOUNCED long ago on SC and Flipper CONFIRMED. It’s the word they used. Please don’t LIE about this. It’s on the RECORD.

    >Children are not allowed to participate in many adult activities. Many adults are not allowed to particpate in the activities of other adults when their past behaviour has warranted exclusion.

    Oh, please. They’re the children, hysterical, scared of their own shadows, and only motivated by petulant and vindictive animosity because of my post, “Get Rid of These People” calling to get rid of them as leaders because they performed badly. Hello? And…do you notice them being leaders any more? You don’t. Could you do the math please?

    >I’ve been in public spaces with Prok, mostly s/he just sits and harrangues people or walks around to find new people to harrangue. S/he seemed perfectly harmless IRL, people put up with her, and some even seem to enjoy her company. In SL though, she certainly goes beyond harranguing tries to silence, threatens to ban, and relatedly constructs fictions in order to attempt to influence a variety of opinions that help to maintain status, ego, and related matters.

    I think the record of any meeting of mine that you’ve crashed such as to troll and annoy will put paid to this bullshit. You have an extremist tekkie platformist point of view, that you animate with hatred toward anyone who sees SL differently than you. You bring the tekkie’s seething, violent loathing of anyone whom you see as calling for democracy or representative government or who takes an outspoke role in the community to raise the issues because you understand viscerally what they are about: restraint of YOUR powers and YOUR belief that you, the enlightened one, should get to rule. Guess what. We beg to differ. And I say “we” with all the confidence in the world.

    These issues that people try to portray as situational or personal or whatnot in fact are profoundly factional and profoundly political. Buridan represents a faction. He fights for his faction with all his being. I represent a faction, too, and I will certainly fight Buridan’s faction which represents curtailing of the possibilities of the very nature of SL for me and many others. Buridan loves to look at people like me and imagine they are “demagogues” and “populists” when I and others are merely calling tekkies on their astoundingly ignorant elitism.

    >Personally, I think far too many people at LL, in sl, and rl spend far to much time feeding the troll. Prok should have been expropriated and removed from SL ages ago on the basis that she wastes too much of other people’s time and resources.

    That’s how Buridan would run the world. Don’t like somebody’s critique of the elites of SL, of LL’s policies, of the policies their pets sway them to take on? Remove them. Kill them. Keep the elites in charge. That’s what it’s about. “Expropriated” is exactly the word that the Bolsheviks would use. “Expropriate the expropriators!” It’s really evil. And you see the hand of forces like this played big time when you see their solution to every problem: silence, ban, remove, eliminate.

    *I* don’t propose that as the solution to the political forces that *I* don’t like, whether the forces of Aimee Weber or Buridan. I don’t call for their removal, or claim they “waste resources”. I don’t have that deadly, malevolent Bolshevik attitude toward my political rivals or opponents. Yet they have it to me. They hide behind the concept of “troll” figuring that if you can pull out that label and stick it on someone you don’t like, you can get away with murder.

    Yes, ultimately, their solution isn’t just murder, it’s a solution that involves them deciding they represent “the people”. THEY can decide what does or does not waste other people’s times. Seriously, this is a class that needs to be smashed. Fortunately, in virtuality, we need not use violence, which is reprehensible, to smash it. We can use words, and persuasion, and press coverage to expose the evil of their concepts.

    >The Prok resource expenditure in LL meetings alone must be in the hundreds if not thousands of man-hours. However, Prok does keep the SL Herald well fed with controversy and related tripe, so there’s that

    If I didn’t exist, somebody else would invent me. Or somebody else would come along. Dissidents always come along. And in this setting, where the nerds who were always picked on are now in charge and picking on everybody else, you can be damn sure lots and lots of people will come along and say WTF.
15. 

    Prokofy Neva
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    David,

    I’m glad, despite your own personal sectarian hatred of me in SL, that you can at least attain some universality and understand that someone calling you at home in real life is just plain fucking creepy and scary. I can’t imagine any circumstances in which I’d EVER do that to someone. Indeed, even IMing people or trying to get them on their RL email is creepy enough.

    In fact, if I so much as IM someone who appears to be decent, and warn them that their association with the assholes of SC compromises them, the assholes of SC hysterically exaggerate that into a “stalking”.

    And I wasn’t called only once and I wasn’t contacted only once at home, and I’ve suffered many hugely nasty and vile and creepy emails and inworld harassments as well. I don’t even publicize most of them so as not to fuel the narcissism and sickness of the broken people who do this sort of thing.

    What’s even MORE scary than that there are sick fucks that do that, however, David is that YOUR friends the FIC *rationalize it*. They *justify* it. That’s always WORSE. Aimee Weber can sit on her blog and mock and deride and minimalize and rationalize Plastic Duck doing that to me and run headlines with the word “Holocaust” and show nuclear bombs going off merely because I used PROPERLY the word “assault” to describe what it feels like to have my innocent child, completely uninvolved in any of this, dragged into somebody’s personal vendetta against me. The sick way in which they would silence dissent is to say “let W-hat attack that person with impunity; we applaud it and we feel they’ve brought it on themselves”.

    What’s even more appalling is that some sick fucks are saying that this is some sort of “peace gesture” — that people calling me at home or stalking me and forcing a handshake on me in RL are somehow suddenly “good” and “on the right side” when in fact all they are doing is cunningly and viciously perpetrating MORE griefing.

    Joshua must have entire alcoholic blackouts, I guess, because his concept that he never stalks me and never attempts to contact me is demonstrably false and many people on SC and even Lindens grasp this. Over and over again, on Second Citizen, he ran posts like “I live two blocks away from Prokofy” (not likely) or “I saw Prokofy today” (not likely) or “It’s raining, and I saw Prokofy with an umbrella today” (something you could reasonably say even if you were in the same state as someone, let alone the same city, and help to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation around them.
    He did that to raise his street cred and portray himself as in some kind of powerful position — to actually stalk and intimidate and harm someone that everybody on that forums hates, or pretends to hate to fit in with the gang.

    Imagine. Creepy. Fucked up. Saying over and over again, bragging to your friends, that you had “sightings” of Prokofy. That you even went up and said “hi” but Prokofy didn’t hear you. That you could even see Prokofy had an umbrella. That wow, now there’s a day-old alt who has a picture of Prokofy’s door!

    What’s truly awful about this is that Urizenus Sklar and Walker Spaight and other figures of Second Life, who in other settings can see this very clearly about a figure like Kathy Sierra, cannot see this and judge it and condemn it unequivocally for what it is — wrong.

    Uri has to be obsessed about whether somebody gets the Herald shut down by accusing other people of crimes. Walker says he read the “emergent gameplay” thread on Terra Nova, he “didn’t see anything as bad as what Kathy Sierra got” (like…there’s a peer review committee we need to go to submit shit like this to have it approved? Like…it has to reach a threshold before we can be protected from it and get others to condemn it???)

    When the men in this community can stand up and condemn what is done to the women — and men — of this community in terms of griefing and “the insult culture run off the rails” then we’ll have a civilization.

    To the extent that we don’t have one, they’re responsible — as much as the griefers. The barbarians are not responsible for the inability for civilization to be made and to be protected. But those who keep the gates *are*. Nobody wants to keep the gates because they think gate-keeping isn’t cool and creative.

    I don’t understand why I have to jump up and down and turn blue to get this across. I’ve printed exactly one blog post in defense of myself against this rampant shit last December, and never pursued it as a cause. I shouldn’t *have* to.

    Why is it OK to take my real-life picture OFF THE HERALD for fuck’s sake, and force it on me inworld in the form of gross particle blasts, ugly busts, including even weird busts in blackface with grotesque lips?

    Uri and Tony can go meet the person who does this kind of shit in RL and just call it a lark?

    Why is it ok to send around a link to a picture of my door and trump up fake “removal of a day-old alt” for doing this?

    Why is it ok to goad and harass me in meetings on my own property? Just don’t come if you don’t like the subject matter and people.

    Because I say people shouldn’t be privileged over others? That the TOS should be enforced equally on the forums? That Aimee’s name is like a prom queen? That you shouldn’t put King Kong in the water and be inconsiderate of your neighbour?

    Everybody knows what I wrote. You can go read it. You will not fine one/one-hundredth of the hatred and vitriol directed at me on the SC or even the old forums that I responded to with in kind *afterwards*.

    I didn’t call people “wankers”. If I called them “fucktards” it was collectively — and not personally, and not for 12 hours while the Lindens were off duty and then sniggeringly pulling it out of a post after it did its damage.

    I didn’t publish an imitation of somebody else’s avatar icon with its head bloody and exploding.

    I didn’t put cut-off bloody furry heads on people’s lawns.

    I didn’t flood their sims with tubgirl particle rain.

    I didn’t put giant flexy penis prims spanning a sim in their rentals and scared away their tenants like some of the Lindens’ best friends did.

    I’m sorry, but nothing that somebody else says, even the most vile, justifies that.
16. 

    Prokofy Neva
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    In Prokofy land, being someone’s neighbor is implied stalking. Prokofy again makes up further lies, from a doctored chatlog to claims of a “notecard” I sent her.

    We have no way of checking if Joshua was ever even my neighbour. The idea that you can constantly see me on the street even if you ARE my neighbour is dubious at best in a city like NY. The idea that you would repeatedly see someone and live “two blocks” away is actually pretty preposterous given the actual layout of where I live. So it’s either fake, or it’s vindictive, but it’s not accidental.

    The idea that even if you do happen to live in the same city as someone and then also get to keep bragging on a forums that you keep spotting them, and making them feel stalked by claiming that you went up and they didn’t hear you or something — it’s sick. It’s juvenile, gross, vindictive sickness.

    >Where’s the screenshot of the notecard Prok? And I did name the alt to Coco, as I pointed out already, you conveniently chose to leave that out of your fake chatlog.

    My chatlog isn’t fake whatsoever, and the Lindens sure as hell know that. At the time I got the chatlog, when Cocoanut asked “What’s the name of the alt?” the question got no answer, and it got an indication that Joshua was offline. That’s all. He then answered later — evidently, but I’d like to hear Cocoanut confirm that. He came up with a name later, but he didn’t mention the name in the first contact.

    The chatlog is real, it circulates a picture of my door as a link and it was put on a notecard. There’s no way Joshua can wriggle out of this one. It speaks for itself.
17. 

    Cocoanut Koala
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    I wrote the following last night, but my first two comments hadn’t been posted yet, so I held off, but here it is now:

    ——-

    I’ve had some time to think about this now, and consider the two logs we have of the conversation between me and Josh. I’m pleased to see that my memory of it was pretty much as I recalled. I’ve also had time to notice the inconsistencies between the two logs, which I’ll talk about in a moment.

    Here are the two logs:

    1. Josh’s log. This was pieced together from the offline e-mails he still has.

    ————
    Hey Coco, I got an IM from someone who sent me a link to a picture of Prokofy’s door. I reported the guy and it looks like he’s banned, but I thought Prokofy should know about it. Would you mind letting her know? She has me muted I think and anyway if I try to tell her this she’s going to say I was trying to scare her.
    [here is where I sent the link to the photo and the chatlog from the alt]

    [10:15] Cocoanut Koala: Thank you, Josh, I will send this on to Prok.

    [10:16] Cocoanut Koala: P.S. What was the alt’s name?

    It was just made yesterday. Isn’t on search anymore. Griefer Acronym

    [10:19] Cocoanut Koala: thanks

    [10:20] Cocoanut Koala: too bad I didn’t see his front door when I was in NYC

    ———-
    2. Prok’s log.

    This log is extremely familiar to me, because it is in fact the conversation I copied and pasted to Prok about the url with the photo of the door.

    [10:13] Joshua Nightshade: (Saved Thu Jan 25 08:31:10 2007) Coco, I’m sending this to you, because if I send it to Prokofy she’ll scream at me for being a psycho griefer stalker. So please convey this to her yourself.

    [10:13] Joshua Nightshade: (Saved Thu Jan 25 08:31:32 2007) Yesterday an anonymous alt mapstalked me while I was working and sent me this link.

    [10:13] Joshua Nightshade: (Saved Thu Jan 25 08:31:32 2007)
    [there follows a tiny url of a picture of Prok's RL door with the address showing]

    [10:13] Joshua Nightshade: (Saved Thu Jan 25 08:32:28 2007) Presumably this is a photo of Prokofy’s front door. The alt was a day old, and wanted to know more information about Prokofy and Prokofy’s neighborhood etc. I told him to fuck off and to never contact me again, ever, and he disappeared. I AR’d the guy and contacted a Linden about it immediately and he doesn’t show up in search anymore.

    [10:13] Joshua Nightshade: (Saved Thu Jan 25 08:32:55 2007) Nevertheless I thought she should know about this. I’m not comfortable with what whomever this is was attempting to do. Thanks Coco.

    [10:15] Cocoanut Koala: Thank you, Josh, I will send this on to Prok.
    [10:15] Second Life: User not online – message will be stored and delivered later.

    [10:16] Cocoanut Koala: P.S. What was the alt’s name?
    [10:16] Second Life: User not online – message will be stored and delivered later.
    ————-

    I remember also the answer about the name of the individual who sent this photo to Josh, “Griefer Acronym.”

    The reason it didn’t appear in the notecard, Prok, is I hadn’t received that answer yet at the time I sent you the message.

    Of the two logs, the second is the right one – it is the one I copied. I specifically remember the phrase, “I told him to fuck off and never contact me again, ever…” since I thought that was a pretty strong statement to make.

    In NEITHER log is there any instruction to me to not say the information was from Joshua, and no agreement on my part not to say it was from him.

    What I do notice now, though, are the discrepancies.

    The lines from me are the same in each. The second log is the conversation as I remember it. Josh’s log – it would seem he pieced together the first part of it by memory, or is mistakenly looking at a draft of what he sent me that he didn’t actually send. He sent me the lengthier message, which I copied at the time.

    Nowhere is there any discussion or expectation that I would pass on this information and keep Josh confidential.

    That day was my birthday, and I wasn’t crazy about being in the middle of this in the first place, but I understood why Josh would be reluctant to approach Prok, and I certainly understood that it would hard to do so if Prok had him on ignore. I also felt that Josh did want Prok to know about this. I took him at face value.

    So I did ask I was asked to and that was all there was to it.

    That he would now come back and accuse me of lying, backtracking, or any such nonsense, when I simply did what he asked, and the chat log is right there for anyone to read, is just awful.

    What’s much worse is that several people assumed his word for things – that I had made a promise and went back on it – just on his say-so!

    I think those of you doing that would do well to remember from now on that maybe not everything Josh says is always the truth. Because I know for a fact this wasn’t, and that makes me doubt everything he says.

    coco
18. 

    Onder Skall
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    This is still going? Wow, congrats on the long attention spans guys… but haven’t you heard?

    ALIEN INVASION IMMINENT!!!

    So really, does any of this matter?
19. 

    Mark
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    __Why isn’t Aimee here herself? Why is she avoiding this thread? She’s probably heard of it by now.__

    What the fuck does Aimee have to do with this? She hasn’t gone to SLCC, she isn’t an organizer of it, she has nothing to do with it.

    God, your just another Aimee obsessed, putrid little drama queen. You’ll fit in just right here at the Herald.
20. 

    Joshua Nightshade
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Coco I find it amazing that you would first claim no memory at all about the conversation and can now come along and declare that yes, suddenly, you remember exactly what was said!

    The comment “fuck off and never contact me again” was what I said on SC, so that’s probably what you’re reading.

    I never sent you, nor Prokofy, a notecard.

    Prok, screenshot. You’re saying you have in your possession a notecard that I created. No such notecard exists. Prove it.

    Prokofy’s chatlog is a lie, and that you would go back on it is immensely upsetting; either way though Prokofy can’t even lie effectively. She kept the general bit and is harping that I lied about the alt name; thank you, at least, for telling her that you did get it. It was clear that I didn’t want you to tell her it came from me and it was obvious why I wouldn’t: because now we have this situation where Prokofy is wrongly claiming that I took the photos, now suddenly that I’ve been calling her house, or that it’s friends of mine– it’s all bullshit.

    We did live near each other; it’s hysterical that you, Prokofy, would claim otherwise when your address is listed in the phone book and mine is not. On what basis do you derive that? None at all. Time and time again I’ve made many offers to demonstrate my identity to you and you refused the offer and continued to lie. At least now that you’ve met me directly you’ll end this lunacy that I’m really Nolan Nash.
21. 

    Joshua Nightshade
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    And I reiterate again, in my log I did ask you not to tell Prokofy it came from me. It was pretty obvious why, Coco. Because she would act exactly as she has. Do you think I would take a photo of her door? Honestly? Do you think I would call up her house? Do you remember how indignant I was in the thread on SC where Plastic was bragging about it? I would never do any of those things. If you don’t believe that then you need to very clearly state, here, to Prokofy that you don’t believe I had anything to do with the photograph or the phonecalls at all beyond relaying the information she deserved to know.

    I haven’t lied about any of it.
22. 

    Tenshi Vielle
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    “__Why isn’t Aimee here herself? Why is she avoiding this thread? She’s probably heard of it by now.__
    What the fuck does Aimee have to do with this? She hasn’t gone to SLCC, she isn’t an organizer of it, she has nothing to do with it.”

    I only asked because her name constantly keeps coming up in this thread – and I half expected her to come and tell someone to shut up – but she hasn’t.
23. 

    Joshua Nightshade
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Prokofy banned Aimee from her personal website under the false comment that Aimee had threatened her in RL, when the opposite was the case. I assume Aimee doesn’t bother with the Herald because it’s Prokofy’s blog 2.0.
24. 

    Cocoanut Koala
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    SHOW ME WHERE YOU ASKED ME NOT TO TELL PROK WHERE IT CAME FROM.

    The stuff is SITTING RIGHT THERE ABOVE US for anyone to read.

    In addition, as I said, I had no memory of being asked to keep you secret, or of promising to do so, and went to some lengths to show that it would not have made any SENSE for me to promise that, and anyone could easily see that, including you. Read my posts above again.)

    Prokofy’s chatlog is NOT a lie – it is WHAT I COPIED AND SENT HIM. That is what it rings a bell as. I’m going to go into the game and look in my box of notecards (by boxing everything up as I go along, I manage to keep my inventory to under 6k) and see if I kept that one.

    In any case, Prok DID keep it, and there it is above you.

    And in any case, I know the truth and so – I think – do you.

    As I said, you may have THOUGHT what you were saying made your intention for me to keep the fact that it came from you secret, but it certainly wasn’t evident in the conversation whatsoever.

    I believed you at the time, and acted in good faith about it. As I said, I believed you wanted for Prok to know this info, and there was no reason for me NOT to believe that what you were telling me was the truth.

    Now, though – I’ve seen you lie baldfaced about me going back on some kind of a promise, and Cristiano and Io coming along to state that that’s “what happened,” though they don’t know beans about any of it.

    And now that I have caught you out in this (with your help, ironically), I really have less reason to believe you didn’t concoct the whole thing in the first place.

    For what it’s worth, I still don’t believe you did – I still believe it was someone else. But danged if I’m going to give that feeling much credence when I’ve seen you lie to me like this.

    coco
25. 

    Cocoanut Koala
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Let me make this just a little bit more clear, Joshua.

    I know you lied about this, at my expense.

    I will never trust a thing you say again.

    coco
26. 

    Artemis Fate
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Prokofy doesn’t need to lie, because Prokofy sees conspiracies in everything. He can see a situation like Josh saying “okay, I don’t like Prokofy, but this guy has gone too far” and help him out as “OMG STALKER” or Plastic calling once and talking to his daughter as “OMG RAPE!” I’m fairly certain he could see a house cat, and where a normal person would say “aw it’s a cute kitty”, he’d go “OMG IT’S A LION, SENT BY FLIPPER! TO KILL ME! I MUST WRITE A 30 PAGE BLOG ENTRY ABOUT THIS!”.

    Really I agree with Buridan Simon (whom apparently Prokofy thinks is lying and can prove it….except…all of his statement was opinion o_0) and Harlequin in that we are feeding this beast, Prokofy needs mental help, and unfortunately it’ll never happen. The second best thing besides that is just to ignore him, but again, this will unfortunately never happen, because Prokofy is a MASTER of taunting and goading, it’s one of those things where he spouts things that are SO untrue, and SO obviously lies, and SO insane, and really SO harmful, that you simply can’t help but be drawn into the trap for the sake of refuting it. I think besides a few people, everyone understands that Prokofy is a nutball and his opinion is generally ignored or laughed at, but that’s Prokofy’s mastery, even so, you just can’t help but feel compelled to run up and say “no no no”.

    So here it is, Prokofy, you’re banned from the SLCC? Uh…no, you’re not. You -may- have heard Flipper and Jenny say you were banned (although again, yet to see any real proof of this), but I do have proof, CURRENT OFFICIAL proof, that says everyone is allowed and no one is banned. Now let’s say that Flipper and Jenny unofficially stated somewhere that you were banned, the event hasn’t even happened yet, so you couldn’t even be banned from something you can’t even yet go to, especially since, as stated, the current official consensus is that you are NOT banned. I have proof of that, do you have proof of a more current official statement saying otherwise? If not then you’re not banned. I’m sorry, I know you loved the concept of being banned, so you had some kind of warbanner that appealed to people’s sense of Freedom, but you don’t. So put the flag down, silence the trumpets, you’ve got no steam to run your little battle off of.

    Or you could just continue lying and exaggerating, as you always do. I wouldn’t expect anything different.
27. 

    Io Zeno
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Cocoa, fine, if that is your side of the story, I accept it. I only heard Josh’s side. I don’t know who to believe but you know, it is really beside the point.

    The point is that, from your understanding, Josh gave you this information, the name of the alt and the link to the photo, to pass on to Prokofy to warn her of a possible problem.

    And yet, Prokofy still insists that this was nefarious, that Josh is stalking her.

    I know logic doesn’t mean a lot at this point, but why in the world would he come to you and give you this himself if he, in fact, was stalking Prok? Why have his name associated with the photo at all, let alone tell Prokofy’s friend about it? It would be easy enough, if his intention was to create some phantom stalker, to get an alt and harass Prok with photos or whatever. But instead he asked her friend, as himself, to pass on this information. He must be the worlds lamest stalker.
28. 

    Joshua Nightshade
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Well Coco, you’re wrong. You’re (I really hope) mistaken about it, and Prokofy has helped coax you along– “Are you suuure this doesn’t sound familiar, Coco? I mean, look at what he wrote on SC, are you suuure you don’t recognize this?” or you outright lied about it. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that, given your previous claim that you don’t have a great memory you’ve made a mistake about this as well.

    Either way, it’s pretty irrelevant, since all Prokofy’s chatlog does is make me sound more annoyed than anything else. That’s why I don’t get why she manufactured it, beyond her pathological inability to tell the truth. More importantly she still claims that she has a notecard created by me, which she refuses to post proof of up here because it doesn’t exist.

    I wrote above already that the chatlog I posted was missing an IM from me, which unfortunately was the key one. The full thing is posted here:

    http://forums.secondcitizen.com/showpost.php?p=212035&postcount=1

    But I’ll give it to you again:

    ——

    Hey Coco, I got an IM from someone who sent me a link to a picture of Prokofy’s door. I reported the guy and it looks like he’s banned, but I thought Prokofy should know about it. Would you mind letting her know? She has me muted I think and anyway if I try to tell her this she’s going to say I was trying to scare her.

    Please leave me out of it.

    [here is where I sent the link to the photo and the chatlog from the alt]

    [10:15] Cocoanut Koala: Thank you, Josh, I will send this on to Prok.
    [10:16] Cocoanut Koala: P.S. What was the alt’s name?

    It was just made yesterday. Isn’t on search anymore. Griefer Acronym

    [10:19] Cocoanut Koala: thanks
    [10:20] Cocoanut Koala: too bad I didn’t see his front door when I was in NYC

    I’ve never wanted to confirm 100% that we live near each other, but the person said that was her house. I was more unnerved that someone took the time to do that.

    ——

    It’s right there. “Please leave me out of it.” Whether you read it or not, it certainly seemed to me that you agreed to it when you said “I’ll pass this on.” You didn’t raise anything at all about how you couldn’t agree to something like that. If you had, I would’ve asked you not to tell her then, because I didn’t want to be associated with it.

    Why? For the obvious reason of her reaction now. If I didn’t care if she knew it came from me Coco why wouldn’t I contact her on an alt about it? Why wouldn’t I send her a message about it? Why would I go through you? Because I thought she would listen to you and I thought coming from you my name wouldn’t come up.

    Why would I even send it through the LL servers to begin with if it had come from me? LL monitors and saves all chatlogs. If it had been me and my account and I’ve posted the name of it here, the Lindens would have a record that, hey, this convo never took place. That would be mighty, mighty stupid of me, don’t you think?

    Prokofy’s lying, and I’m really, really shocked that you’re aiding her.
29. 

    Prokofy Neva
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    >I never sent you, nor Prokofy, a notecard.

    Nobody said Joshua send a notecard. *Cocoanut made a notecard of Joshua’s IMs* duh and those IMs show Joshua as the author.

    That is what is meant by “notecard” and Joshua’s obsession about looking for a “notecard” with his authorship and not admitting to *IMs of his authorship* is typical of the lying technique for which SL is famous. It’s like the time Aimee claimed she “gave her name to journalists” even though she didn’t give it *to be reported in a story*.

    It’s not “about” any “notecard” — it’s about WHAT JOSHUA SAID, in IMs, put on a notecard, that’s all.

    How fucked, that Joshua obsesses about “a notecard” when he is nailed — nailed to the wall here — by what we have, which is his IMs. And they are IMs sent to the Lindens, and of course they can verify them and did verify them.

    >Prokofy’s chatlog is a lie, and that you would go back on it is immensely upsetting; either way though Prokofy can’t even lie effectively.

    I have no reason to lie about a chatlog. I got a chatlog on a notecard from Cocoanut, and sent it to the Lindens in an abuse report, and also in support, and also talked to them live. Trust me, they got it. I’m simply reported it.

    The IMs she sent me evidently aren’t all the IMs she had at the time, because of the time sequence. But it’s abundantly clear what happened: Joshua cooked up a story about a griefer sending a link to a picture of my door, and then pretended he could be a “hero” in order to gain more attention for himself, and “rescue” me from this griefer. It’s a common pattern.

    Joshua assumes that because he does stuff like stays up late at night photoshopping in words into screenshots of other people’s blogs that everybody does this. But I have no reason to do this. I’m outing the sick story of Joshua and the door. He knows what he did, and if he wants to go on lying about it, that only exposes him.

    >She kept the general bit and is harping that I lied about the alt name; thank you, at least, for telling her that you did get it.

    Interesting that the alt name didn’t come right away? And we can’t tell if it is fake? And we can certainly ask how on earth, the Lindens, who never do anything quickly, could suddenly eliminate this alt as soon as they get a report from “the heroic good Samaritan Josh”?

    The Lindens know this is fake. And they can’t talk. But we know they know.

    >It was clear that I didn’t want you to tell her it came from me and it was obvious why I wouldn’t: because now we have this situation where Prokofy is wrongly claiming that I took the photos, now suddenly that I’ve been calling her house, or that it’s friends of mine– it’s all bullshit.

    1) I haven’t claimed that Joshua took the photos, because I have no idea where the photos came, but I do know that Joshua sent around links to my house. The photos could have been taken in person, or gotten in some other way from the Internet, who the hell knows. You don’t have to be the one physically taking a photo to use it to intimidate people.

    2) Plastic Duck identified himself in one phone call and it sounded like his voice. I have no comment about other phone calls as it’s needed for the investigation.

    3) We did live near each other; it’s hysterical that you, Prokofy, would claim otherwise when your address is listed in the phone book and mine is not.

    My address isn’t “listed in the phonebook”. It’s only “listed in the phonebook” if you stalk and link an avatar’s name to a RL person’s name by calling up people and seeing if my very common name, of which there are many multiples, goes with THAT address. And only people who have stalked and Googled and IP’ captured and come up with that, and put it on forums for others to harass me with, are “finding it in the phonebook”.

    >On what basis do you derive that? None at all. Time and time again I’ve made many offers to demonstrate my identity to you and you refused the offer and continued to lie. At least now that you’ve met me directly you’ll end this lunacy that I’m really Nolan Nash.

    Nolan Nash and Joshua Nightshade behaved in a very similar manner, and right when Nolan Nash disappeared from the scene, Joshua Nightshade appeared, and then it was also outed that Joshua was an alt to an older avatar. Few people bother to obsess with me in the same patterned way, and when they do, it is often the case they are alts of the same person. It’s a reasonable question to ask, and no definitive proof one way or another has been supplied. Nor is it sought, as unlike the SC assholes, I don’t stalk people.

    Ultimately, the record shows the usual prevarications and dodgings and feints. Joshua has been confronted with what he did: take, or get, or find a picture of my door in RL and pass it around. That he was even in a position to confirm that it *was* my door is already sick, and he is obviously not commenting on that. He also then pretended to discover a griefing alt. The entire thing is suspicious. Maybe there *is* a griefing alt, but the story of the griefing alt’s *immediate* disappearance from the people list is completely insane — I’ve been griefed on alts a million times, and the Lindens never remove people from the people list instantly, ever, just on the strength of an initial complaint.
30. 

    Joshua Nightshade
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Coco, I’m willing to concede that since I was at work and writing you via offline emails, there’s the possibility that perhaps you didn’t get all of my messages. I know they are futsy. I would rather not believe you’d be complicit in Prokofy’s actions. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe you didn’t get my IM asking me to not be mentioned because of an LL issue.
31. 

    Prokofy Neva
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    >What a difference a day makes.

    No, it doesn’t. It just makes a difference *in your little frog pond*. You don’t get to make overarching memes and stereotypes and Hallmark moments for other people. I’m really appalled that you could take the death of a person in real life, much less a friend, and use it in some kind of horrific way to whitewash yourself, thinking you’ll be able to trump somebody exposing your bad actions. It makes me physically ill.

    >Yesterday, Second Life lost one of its greatest residents to cancer… Feliciaa Feaver was a dear friend for many years to so many of us.

    I’m sorry so many people lost their dear friend. Why would that even be a factor in this thread, however? And sorry, but she’s not someone many of us have ever heard of, especially if they are new. It’s always sad when an online community with very intense relationships loses a person in RL. But she’s not everybody’s dear friend, and they can’t be expected to tune into the emotional wavelength and channel on demand, or be forced to drop all their issues — rightful issues — and “bury the hatchet” because some manipulative and cunning FIC tries to exploit it in that way. Ugh!

    It’s wrong to drag the death of a RL person into disputes with other people — wrong, wrong, wrong. And any decent person can see that.

    >It really put things into perspective for me and this whole issue of slcc banning pales in comparison and becomes downright irrelevant. Many of her friends are devastated by the loss we all feel.

    There’s no reason to take one event, as sad as it is, and use it to trump another event and try to obtain a pass for bad behaviour.

    It doesn’t put anything in perspective for me, and for other people who are concerned about principles, too. Why does someone dying in RL get to absolve the illegitimate and manipulative organizers of SLCC who tried to ban people from a community? Huh?

    Are you saying that real-life deaths are capable of legitimizing 17-th century shunning campaigns? That in fact *that’s what it takes* to legitimize a 17-th century shunning campaign and that *works*?!

    Real-life deaths of beloved avatars are always supposed to force people to drop their dissent and exposure of bad behaviour? They’re supposed to be “taking the higher road” so that each time, the lower road gets to prevail? I don’t follow that logic whatsoever. We can all be sad that someone died. If someone is a genuine friend, they can bow out of their forums wars for a few days *cough* if they have found that something is much more compelling to them — and rightly so.

    To have the *time* and the *temerity* to come back into a thread and use a death to try to seal an argument is absolutely appalling and takes really grim determination.

    >So lets just stop this nonsense and take to heart the things that really matter instead of quibbling dramatically over inconsequential things such as this.

    No. Fucking. Way. Sorry, but you don’t exploit the death of someone dear to the community to cover up your crimes and transgressions, Jennyfur. That is severely and deeply fucked.
    I’m shocked and appalled you would do that. The depths to which you and your little sick posse will go to remain in power over something in fact you have no power over is absolutely insane.

    If you were truly grieving and truly considerate of your friend, you’d never drag them into this thread. I don’t play ball with crap like this and I fear not if someone who is not very intelligent claims I don’t “accept an olive branch”.

    There is no olive branch, only the whitewashing of the sepulchre.

    You don’t take one thing, completely unrelated, and try to use it in an exploitative, emotionally-blackmailing, high-handed way to cancel out another thing.

    A great person died. It’s like the time Cocoanut’s mother died. That’s deeply sad. But it’s unrelated to your bad behaviour and doesn’t cancel it out.

    It doesn’t *whitewash* your bad behaviour.

    The idea that you can “call on everybody to think of the higher things in SL” and “think of the community” in Second Life is severely fucked. You can’t. You’re not in charge. You don’t even get to call the moments that everyone can agree on. They can’t agree on them.

    People like Cristian, Aimee, Flipper, and Jennyfur will stop at NOTHING to prevail. They’ll dredge up ANYTHING on any emotionally-manipulative way to try to prevail. And they can’t be allowed to.

    I don’t fall into place, lock-stepping and frog-marching with “the community” and bowing to these assholes just because in a completely unrelated development, somebody died in real life who was a great person. I refuse to allow such fake, phony, illegitimate and even sinister links to be made.

    I realize that by taking this stand, the manipulative and cunning Jennyfur can try to portray me as insensitive to the death of her friend, and in general an asshole. That’s fine. It won’t be the first time. It’s like the charade that Cristiano Midnight pulled on SC when Cocoanut’s mom died. It’s sick.

    That someone would in fact be grieving for a friend, and yet have time to come hustling back to a forums where they are exposed as incompetent and wrong to try to emotionally manipulative people into whitewash them is appalling.

    Second Life isn’t a community where one tiny clique of people can run the door, and even force people into mourning for those they don’t know, or force them into fighting for causes that have no meaning for them (like the American Cancer Society idiocy, where if I criticize the really bad decision of allowing the W-hat people to whitewash themselves by being handed a relay to raise money, I am on the side of cancer).
32. 

    Prokofy Neva
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    >This is still going? Wow, congrats on the long attention spans guys… but haven’t you heard?

    >ALIEN INVASION IMMINENT!!!

    >So really, does any of this matter?

    Yes, the uses of a tiny clique of people of 17-th century shunning techniques against dissenters who criticize them in an online world *does* matter, Onder. And you don’t get to whistle and try to round everybody up and play gym coach on this one, sorry.

    It’s not a game.

    And your inability to do the simple thing and condemn stalking and bad behaviour like shunning is what enables it to continue.
33. 

    Joshua Nightshade
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Your ability to backtrack is phenomenal, Prokofy.

    First you had a notecard that I sent you that you said specifically had my name as creator, now suddenly it’s not my notecard at all. Astounding.

    I didn’t know if the door was yours or not, I was going on the basis of what the guy told me. Considering the nature of the comment, I assumed the worst and assumed it is.

    -I- outed myself as an alt of an older account, freely and willingly. It wasn’t suddenly revealed.

    You did claim I took the photos, you did claim I called your house, you did claim that I sent them around to people. I know this because the people who were present in your home when you made these lies came to me and asked me about their authenticity. I know it because other people came to me to talk to me about it. That you’d go back and claim it never happened is further indicative of your delirium.

    The fact of the matter is I sent the link to one person; Coco. I didn’t send it “around,” I didn’t give it out to people or put it on prims or any of the other lies you’ve made up.

    Someone posted an address on Second Citizen that they claimed belonged to you, and instead of being smart and saying “That’s not mine,” you went on about how you were reporting the thread to the police for revealing your real-life information. It just so happened that the address was also near mine; I’d seen you in person before but that was enough confirmation that we lived next to each other. Any rational person who actually leaves the house runs into their neighbors frequently; at the grocery store, at the laundromat, etc. Why, I even ran into Kendra on the subway once completely by accident and we don’t live anywhere near each other at all. NYC isn’t as big as you think.

    You’re determined to see malice in everything, that’s apparent. Somehow it seems you’ll go all out to make up lies as well.
34. 

    Joshua Nightshade
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    You also make a lot of assumptions on the Linden’s abilities. You catch someone at the right time and they’re happy to do things. I sent an AR and got someone on Live Help right away and the account was gone when I checked several hours later. You can check it for yourself. Where’s Griefer Acronym at?

    I don’t get how even you can think I would be so stupid as to not only contact Coco with the link on SL’s servers, which are monitored and logged, but to also go and report myself if I was trying to harass you with a photo I didn’t take, don’t have, don’t know where it came from, and am not interested in possessing. I don’t even have the link anymore because I had no interest in saving something like that.
35. 

    Joshua Nightshade
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Aaaannd, additionally, if the link with the photograph is still active as you say, it’d be very easy to contact tinyurl.com and ask them if there’s any type of IP address linked to the URL. I don’t know if they’d store that or not, but if you told them it’s a photograph of your door in real life that someone was sending around, they might be able to help.

    You know, be rational about it. There are a lot of options you’d have rather than pointing fingers and declaring that I did something to you.
36. 

    Jennyfur Peregrine
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    Losing someone always puts things into perspective at least for me. I think it is a natural human reaction to take stock in your life when you lose someone in your life. We waste so many hours on meaningless stuff (like this) that we need to be reminded of what really counts. Our friends and families count more than our enemies and people we disagree with. Yet how many hours do we all spend frittering our lives away? Too many. Way too many.

    I’m sorry that it is hard for some people to see past their own egos and self-righteousness and realize that not everything is about them. This pales in comparison as we are all still alive and in good health, while someone else has passed on. Maybe its time to reflect on our actions instead of constantly spiraling through reactions on irrelevant issues. Nothing in this thread will cure cancer. Nothing in this thread will stop the genocide in Darfur. Nothing in the thread will bring back what was lost.

    It is utterly and profoundingly offensive to be accused of exploiting the death of a friend to spin a stupid internet argument in another direction.
37. 

    Tenshi Vielle
    

    Apr 3rd, 2007
    

    
38. 

    anon
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    “I’m sorry that it is hard for some people to see past their own egos and self-righteousness and realize that not everything is about them.”

    Ah, clearly you’re interested in extended an olive branch. And by “olive branch”, I mean, “go fuck yourself” branch.
39. 

    Prokofy Neva
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    >First you had a notecard that I sent you that you said specifically had my name as creator, now suddenly it’s not my notecard at all. Astounding.

    Joshua is the author of the IMs. If it mistakenly says “creator of the notecard” somewhere that’s completely immaterial and is not intentional. People can’t be expected to remember every little detail of how their stalkers menace them. There *is* a notecard, that is sent by Cocoanut that has chat logs on it. That’s what’s operative. To jam on the idea that there’s some claim about a name as a creator — when the claim is that Joshua initiated IMS which are in a chatlog — is to completely obliterate the fact that Joshua has stalked, made up a fucking ridiculous story, perpetrated it, then harassed the person some more with it over and over. It’s uncanny.

    The Lindens know who makes IMs, how they are stored, who goes to them. They get it.

    >I didn’t know if the door was yours or not, I was going on the basis of what the guy told me. Considering the nature of the comment, I assumed the worst and assumed it is.

    Rolls eyes. This is one of the more disingenous comments ever to be said by Joshua, given his lengthy discussion about my address published on SC. I’ll leave it at that, so as not to fuel further griefers. This is is phony as a 3 dollar bill.

    >-I- outed myself as an alt of an older account, freely and willingly. It wasn’t suddenly revealed.

    Suddenly revealed, when pushed into outing by many people on SC, asking lots of questions. Not my issue.

    >You did claim I took the photos, you did claim I called your house, you did claim that I sent them around to people. I know this because the people who were present in your home when you made these lies came to me and asked me about their authenticity. I know it because other people came to me to talk to me about it. That you’d go back and claim it never happened is further indicative of your delirium.

    There is no claim that Joshua *took* the photos anywhere. Not even as some mistaken memory of the incident (like the notecard thing, which isn’t material because there IS a notecard and on it IS an IM and it IS by Joshua). If somebody is saying that, they are simply not telling the facts of the story correctly. We don’t know who took the picture. But it’s more than likely Joshua did, or is buddies with whoever did. Anybody who can play gotcha around those kinds of things is just a sick fuck.

    You can’t lose sight of the fact that it is Joshua — not anybody else! — who is passing around an IM with a link to my RL house doorway. That’s the sick thing to focus on. Everything else is just sick manipulation, of the kind Hannibal Lecktor was in the movie.

    The people who were present in my home that are reporting to Joshua — like Frans Charming, for example — either are mis-stating the story, or not understanding the elements of the story. There isn’t any claim about phone calls related to Joshua, although, of course, I don’t have the powers to identify who calls me, and it’s reasonable to present to the authorities ALL people stalking to see if it matches anywhere across media.

    The fact of the matter is, my doorway was taken — and it is Joshua who made this a fact on the ground. Nobody else knew it, until Joshua distributed it. He distributed it to Cocoanut, and it is likely he distributed elsewhere. Are we to believe that suddenly, Joshua turned into a good Samaritan, and now is in the business of doing good citizenship deeds like taking pictures of his *own* victims of *his own* stalking prior to that, and now turning them over to the victim’s friends, and supposedly the Lindens? That’s fake. It’s just part of the whole melodramatic legend that Joshua builds, stories that he writes on Internet forums featuring himself in the leading role. Pathetic.

    Joshua did take this picture into his inventory and did spread it around. Proof of that is that Cocoanut got it! And sent it to me! And I reported it to the Lindens. Ask them. They know what went down. they aren’t talking. But they know exactly what went where and what was going from which inventory when.

    And note that it took less than 48 hours for stalker Joshua to revert to form: he needs to let us all know that at least one of the people who came to my house and supposedly talked to me in good faith then went and ALSO talked to him to undermine what I was saying, and fuel him — they may be his friend and confidente. He wants us all to know that he has “his spies everywhere”. That he can get somebody to laugh and gloat and smirk at whatever they find in my house to laugh and gloat and smirk about.

    I fear not, because the story is true, and I tell it over and over again, and the Lindens have the facts. I had absolutely no problem in convincing Lindens to accept the case.

    Frans, I understand as a scientific type dude, and as FIC, you’re completely skeptical and even hostile to what I say, and that for whatever reason, like Aimee, you’ve picked up this odious Joshua on the bottom of your shoe like bubblegum. ugh. Why? Who knows. But, whatever, that’s your prerogative. But I do hope you apply your scientific prowess to analyzing the basic facts here. Your friend Aimee claims that I issue death threats — and you understand enough English to understand that’s fake. Your friend Joshua issues false statements — and you can examine a card and take something on good faith — that he makes up stuff after the fact.

    If there’s somebody out there who has taken a picture of my door to intimidate me…then…why is it that they never send it to me or anybody…but we only get it from Joshua?

    Can you use reason and logic to think about that, please, Frans?

    >The fact of the matter is I sent the link to one person; Coco. I didn’t send it “around,” I didn’t give it out to people or put it on prims or any of the other lies you’ve made up.

    False. Because the entire story is made up. And this is a distraction from the fact that the entire thing is concocted.

    >Someone posted an address on Second Citizen that they claimed belonged to you, and instead of being smart and saying “That’s not mine,” you went on about how you were reporting the thread to the police for revealing your real-life information.

    No, it’s not smart to pretend that an address posted is not yours, when people have it — including Joshua and “his little friends” who take pictures of my door. ANd it’s absolutely correct to report it to the police, it’s a misdemeanor.

    And Joshua’s fake protective measures about this designed to imply that he “looks out for people” and “protects them” and then also “controls the gates as to whether they are stalked are not” are all just pathetic, lame, retarded, and fucked — deeply. It’s all part of the persona of the loser-stalker.

    >It just so happened that the address was also near mine; I’d seen you in person before but that was enough confirmation that we lived next to each other. Any rational person who actually leaves the house runs into their neighbors frequently; at the grocery store, at the laundromat, etc.

    This is all fake, and merely part of the stalking.

    >Why, I even ran into Kendra on the subway once completely by accident and we don’t live anywhere near each other at all. NYC isn’t as big as you think.

    Fake.

    >You’re determined to see malice in everything, that’s apparent. Somehow it seems you’ll go all out to make up lies as well.

    I don’t have to make up stuff when I’m not the one who sends pictures of people’s doors, describes myself as seeing them with umbrellas, takes their RL picture defaced within SL as an ugly giant bust and makes obscenities with it.

    I’m not the one doing those things.

    I’m the normal one here. In order to expose the sick and the abnormal, you sometimes have to go to a lot of trouble, having endless stomach to keep countering lies. And I do.
40. 

    Prokofy Neva
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    >Losing someone always puts things into perspective at least for me. I think it is a natural human reaction to take stock in your life when you lose someone in your life. We waste so many hours on meaningless stuff (like this)

    Some of us have had this sort of loss many times in life, and in such ways that make the loss of an anonymous online friend in a virtual world a total triviality. And that’s why we don’t get all weepy and start pontificating about generalties that are in fact merely the whitewashing of bad deeds. Anytime I hear the FIC trying to whip up sentiment about this or that death or tragedy or “larger issue” as a way to be able to sing “Can’t we all get along” and “conform to our tribe, and put aside your differences with us and subsume to our leadership” I *head for the hills*.

    The use of 17-th century Salem-Witch type shunning methods in the new media in the 21st Century, especially at large, public events, isn’t a trivial matter. It’s not about “being more important than the death of a RL human being”. It’s merely about an institutional problem that has broader implications that is not worth oblitering merely because human beings die. Someone is also dying. But you have to make institutions and not pretend they don’t matter, and only little friendship circles matter. Trust circles which are really distrust circles.

    It’s a precedent. It’s huge. It takes a real whack to stop things like that from gelling. So I whack. I should have more company in these things. This time I did. Quite a lot of people spoke up. It shouldn’t take that. This sort of banning shouldn’t even happen in an organizing committee level to start with, if the organizers are professional and have the accountability to the larger community they supposedly serve.

    >that we need to be reminded of what really counts. Our friends and families count more than our enemies and people we disagree with. Yet how many hours do we all spend frittering our lives away? Too many. Way too many.

    Hardly. Every single second spent countering people who try to choke off the possibilities of the virtual worlds is to the good. And it takes getting really nasty and persistent sometimes, and not fun, because there are some who are really organized, and realy determined chokers. People who want “ban” to be the social tool of choice. Enemies can destroy worlds and families and friends, so you don’t suddenly say they aren’t important. Never. People trying to embed the ban as a form of governance everywhere in Second Life and in the Metaverse need to get a huge pushback. And they do from me.

    >I’m sorry that it is hard for some people to see past their own egos and self-righteousness and realize that not everything is about them.

    Banning a dissident is about a larger issue and that’s something quite a few of us see at the meta level inaccessible to someone limited like Jennyfur. It’s not about this or that case or this or that fit of self-righteousness. This is a principle at stake. You can’t ban people from public events on speech grounds — that’s essentially what the rules of America entail. If you are some private club, even there, the general membership of the club would expect some rational reason for a banning that could be held up to public scrutiny as a principle, and not merely a whim.

    If you had some real police record on file, or some sort of really rational criteria to use against them, you might deploy it, but none of that is relevant here. Banning as a way of life, as a tool, as an institution, and THIS kind of banning — on speech grounds, on the grounds of somebody’s criticism — is wrong. And it has to be stopped.

    >This pales in comparison as we are all still alive and in good health, while someone else has passed on.

    Not every belief system privileges the living on the planet earth against the dead, who may be in a better place.

    >Maybe its time to reflect on our actions instead of constantly spiraling through reactions on irrelevant issues.

    Jennyfur needs to stop distracting and whitewashing her actions in the most preposterous ways. She is an embodiment of the worst tendency of SL: to ban people on speech grounds, for specious reasons, for subjective reasons, that cannot stand the scrutiny of the rule of law — just law.

    >Nothing in this thread will cure cancer. Nothing in this thread will stop the genocide in Darfur. Nothing in the thread will bring back what was lost.

    Yes it will. When tiny cliques of people, when self-appointed elites try to seize power that IS what Darfur is all about. That IS what the dynamics are all about in any situation of such evil. Cancer doesn’t only just require a cure; it requires a prevention. That’s about knowledge, about the freedom to research, about not rejecting this or that idea or method that might work for somebody. Those are principles that SL must hold dear: openness, freedom, tolerance. And banning is not about any of those things.

    >It is utterly and profoundingly offensive to be accused of exploiting the death of a friend to spin a stupid internet argument in another direction.

    Jennyfur has to eat this, because indeed, that’s what she has engaged in, the wilful, malicious, exploiting of the death of a friend to try to distract from an important matter of principle.
41. 

    Prokofy Neva
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    >You also make a lot of assumptions on the Linden’s abilities. You catch someone at the right time and they’re happy to do things. I sent an AR and got someone on Live Help right away and the account was gone when I checked several hours later. You can check it for yourself. Where’s Griefer Acronym at?

    Bullshit. The Lindens do not remove accounts within hours merely because they disclose real life information. And the Lindens know EXACTLY what went down here, and the only way that Joshua can keep lying about it is that they won’t discuss disciplinary actions, so he can rely on them to keep mum. But they know.

    >I don’t get how even you can think I would be so stupid as to not only contact Coco with the link on SL’s servers, which are monitored and logged, but to also go and report myself if I was trying to harass you with a photo I didn’t take, don’t have, don’t know where it came from, and am not interested in possessing. I don’t even have the link anymore because I had no interest in saving something like that.

    Every piece of this story points to Joshua Nightshade trying to keep people running in circles and keeping himself at the center. Either way, it’s about attention-whoring and stalking. Making alts with anonymizers is the easiest thing in the book. And even if it isn’t something Joshua made, but happened upon accidently or someone gave it to him, his getting involved, sending it to Cocoanut, trying to portay himself as the big do-gooder, is all part of a calculated and sick scheme to get attention, and to keep people tied up in knots — the gift that keeps on giving.

    Nobody finds it credible when a stalker suddenly stops harassing his victim and suddenly becomes consumed with concern that somebody *else* is stalking even worse. That’s just plain fucking stupid. Joshua always thinks if he seizes on the most outrageous thing to lie about, he’ll be believed. But his reputation as a liar is established fully even with his own odious peers at the scatalogical and obscene Second Citizen.
42. 

    Maxwell
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    Ah yes, yet another article where everyone seems to be an expert in something, despite the fact that no one on the planet can ever be an expert in anything – everything is always changing.

    Under normal circumstances I don’t make comments directed at anyone, but this time I have to: Prokofy? You just made me laugh. Normal? No one is normal, such a person that exemplifies all that Society accepts can not ever exist.

    That should have read that you’re more normal – closer to that state – than the person you are railing against, which is a judgment call. Personally I think you’re all insane.
43. 

    Jennyfur Peregrine
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    I’m sorry that you feel that way about it Prok.
44. 

    Inquiring Minds
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    Joshua,

    What is the name of the Linden you contacted via Live Help after you were sent the photo of Prok’s door?
45. 

    Joshua Nightshade
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    Prokofy, your lies are clear to anyone with sense. I’ve spelled out the case and exactly what had happened; notice how nobody else thinks I took the photo anymore? Occam’s razor; this is a concept you’ve always had trouble with. The easier answer is more often the true one. It’s simple enough that someone read our fights, thought I would be an ally, and contacted me. Your convoluted explanation that I staked out your apartment, took photos, registered a fake account, created a fake chatlog, contacted Coco, got the alt banned, etc is all just paranoia. I wouldn’t expect anything less.

    Jenny’s right. There are more important things in life, specifically, than talking to you. Go back to your cave.
46. 

    Artemis Fate
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    >”Banning a dissident is about a larger issue and that’s something quite a few of us see at the meta level inaccessible to someone limited like Jennyfur. It’s not about this or that case or this or that fit of self-righteousness. This is a principle at stake. You can’t ban people from public events on speech grounds — that’s essentially what the rules of America entail. If you are some private club, even there, the general membership of the club would expect some rational reason for a banning that could be held up to public scrutiny as a principle, and not merely a whim.”

    You’re not a dissident, you’re a crazy person. You rarely say anything that challenges any sort of power structure (even fictional ones), SLCC is not a public thing, they have in full right the ability to ban you, they didn’t. And if they did, they’d have EVERY reason to. You verbally assaulted multiple people at the last SLCC, and i’m sure if you were to go to this one, and do it again, i’d hope they ban you next time.

    I can’t believe that you are so absorbed in your fantasies, that you can’t even recognize that Jennyfur is not mentioning Feliciaa’s death as some kind of tinfoil distraction measure, but that she just MAYBE might actually be in grief, and MAYBE, just MAYBE one thing in Second Life done by a so called “FIC” might NOT be about you, or some conspiracy to get you or stop you?

    I think anyone who has seen you ranting about how the issue of you (kinda-sorta-not-really) getting banned is more important than someone’s grief or death, or for that matter, the whole thing of Darfur, which you so laughably related to this issue, as if they were anything alike, would know right off the bat that you’re not right in the head, and that you are overly obsessed with this issue (which I might add, isn’t even an issue, becuase you’re NOT banned). But as I mentioned before, you spout so many lies, attack people who’ve done nothing, and are so hatefully false, that it’s hard for people not to ignore you. I would hope, that we are able to do what should be done with a person as self-absorbed and crazy as yourself: leave them to rant and rave alone until they can finally realize that “wow, I might just be obsessed and may be crazy to think what I do”, but. You never will. Not even after comparing a death, not even comparing DARFUR, to this tiny little banning that never was that you went through.
47. 

    Cocoanut Koala
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    The chat log Prok posted is the log I sent him.

    The sentence made up after the fact by Josh and added on belatedly in this conversation here (“please leave me out of it”) was not in that log and was not a part of my conversation with Josh.

    The first paragraph of Josh’s log was not in fact the message I received from Josh.

    The lengthier message that I copied and pasted and sent on to Prok, which he posted here (and sent back to me ingame last night), is the correct, actual conversation.

    coco
48. 

    a-non-mouse
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    Wow, i have to say (and i have to first preface this by saying i only *skimmed* this incredibly long thread and i have a simple mind and lack of patience to read this enormous thread in detail) that this thread didn’t totally waste of my time but was rather fascinating to read while the grid was offline xD…

    Nothing changes the concerns that Prof is bringing forth … (interpreted, redigested, and regurgated by me) that there are others like me who demand that…

    … the Lindens fulfill their obligations to the social contract they have they created by by espousing that Second Life is “YOUR WORLD. YOUR IMAGINATION.”

    … the Linden’s Terms of Service is a farce in an attempt to break that social contract and free them from any obligations to do anything that SL residents i.e. the community, truly want and obligations to the early residents who helped make SL what is today in favor of commercial interests.

    and that the SLCC is farce and residents should stay away from any group that claims to represent the SL “community” and then ban a resident for his/her/its opinion and then lie about it.

    Prof makes some good points. And I wonder if his message and his attention is intentionally being attacked in an attempt to divert everyone’s attention away from whats at stake…

    …having the OUR WORLD, and OUR IMAGINATION be co-opted by the Linden money machine, big business, cookie-cutter Starbucks, mainstream old white male dominated sexist racist mainstream media targeting baby boomers and 18-26 white male alphabet soup crap that many came into SL escape.
49. 

    Cocoanut Koala
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    There was no “kinda-notreally-sorta” about Prok’s being banned.

    That is absurd. Jennyfur announced that he was banned. Flipper justified it, on behalf of the entire SLCC team. For months. It’s common knowledge.

    “Tiny little banning that never was” my fat ass.

    Trying to rewrite this now is as lame as it gets. Don’t make people have to drag out quotes. Leave Jennyfur and Flip some face. The problem is now rectified, and the SLCC has done the right thing.

    coco
50. 

    Artemis Fate
    

    Apr 4th, 2007
    

    >”There was no “kinda-notreally-sorta” about Prok’s being banned.

    That is absurd. Jennyfur announced that he was banned. Flipper justified it, on behalf of the entire SLCC team. For months. It’s common knowledge.

    “Tiny little banning that never was” my fat ass.

    Trying to rewrite this now is as lame as it gets. Don’t make people have to drag out quotes. Leave Jennyfur and Flip some face. The problem is now rectified, and the SLCC has done the right thing.”

    Now, I don’t know exactly what this Flip Jennyfur business is, I’ve asked repeatedly for sources, and never been replied to in there. However, whatever Flip/Jennyfur say as individuals, is no the overall decision of SLCC, as shown by the fact that the most recent and most official announcement, which I CAN source to (http://slcc2007.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/registration-will-be-open-to-all/) says he is not. I could say Prokofy is banned from Nexus Prime right now, but as an individual as part of an organization, that doesn’t mean shit until the entire organization agrees and we officially decide to ban him. So no, Prokofy isn’t banned from SLCC NOW, he never even WAS banned from SLCC, especially since you can’t necessarily be banned from an event, UNTIL it happens.

    I know Prokofy WANTS to be banned badly, because then he gets to attract all the people who misconstrue it as a breach of free expression, but sorry Prokofy, you have no war banner for this cause. You aren’t banned now, and as far as official means are concerned, you never were. You’ll just have to set up another lame boycott or keep lying.

Leave a Reply