Slander

No. 58 Reply: Re: Slander
By: texascowgirl283 Gender: F Age: 50 on Oct 23, 2016 at 1:51 PM

The only thing I see with Tom is that he believes all those bad things about trump which all those things are against God. So naturally he is angry. It doesn't matter who believes it's true or not, the only thing that matters is Tom believes its true and I don't know trump on a personal level to know whether it's true or not and I do not believe anyone here does either so its not worth fighting about. I do know if it's true trump certainly doesn't want it known. Most have dirty little secrets they don't want known. Point being it's not right to attack Tom due to his understanding about trump no more than tom attacking you all. For all we know it could be true. Tom has the right to feel the way he does without being attacked for it just like the rest of the voters. I know Tom is mad but I think people are being to hard on tom and not giving a hoot about his reasons. But I think Clinton is worse and I have not read what tom thinks of her. Its like having to choose between two evils. Oh after I wrote this I found where he don't like Hillary either.

No. 59 Reply: Re: Slander
By: Mission_Specialist Gender: M Age: 55 on Oct 23, 2016 at 2:11 PM

I appreciate your thoughts TCG, but let me set a few things straight.

1. When I said anyone, I meant ANYONE, not just the ladies. I don't think his malicious intentions are limited to the women here. I don't care if it is man or woman, young or old, or even if he chooses someone whom I don't like or get along with. In this regard I make no exceptions.

2. I did not specify my recourse. It could be anything from burying him in the legal system or burying him in the ground or anything in between.

3. I had considered the fact I could be a suspect in a crime I did not commit, when I wrote that. I figured the safety of the members was worth that risk.

Having said that, let me convey a two true stories from my life:

At one time, I had a reputation for being involved with the local youth on the street level. I solved many cases of burglary, vandalism and even auto theft. However, the sheriff did not always like me for it, because sometimes I advocated for these young people in court, even though they often came to me with unsolved crimes from the neighborhood when they expected the local youth were involved. Not only did I keep some of them out of jail, but after sitting with the prosecutor I even got some cases dropped altogether.

At the same time, for those who were not reticent or who were dangerous, I did the reverse and got them substantially longer sentences. Considering my position of honest and calculated advocacy, the prosecutor and judge put a lot of weight in my opinion.

But at one time the sheriff was pretty upset with me because they were knew I had knowledge of a particular burglary and I would not help them clear the case. My reason was quite simple, the kid was already on probation for burglaries he had committed AFTER he had done this one. He was VERY cooperative and reticent, but if he was arrested again with his record, he was facing at least three years. Since he was no longer committing crimes and this burglary happened BEFORE he got his most recent sentence I felt that he deserved a chance. Furthermore, if he got three years, he would be put into a system with hardened young criminals an the course of his life would be set on a dark path.

In any case, while I generally admire the police, the political system sets policies that often work against society instead of helping it. One of those policies is to meet "case clearing" ratios. Since the police were under a lot of pressure from their controllers, they put a lot of pressure on me. They offered me "reward" money and they threatened to charge me as a accessory. I was not dissuaded.

About this time a young man came to me to ask for help. One of the local boys had gone a bit nuts. He started by slicing the tires and leather seats on his mother's car. Later he took a hammer and ripped the sheet rock from his mother's home.

I sat down with his mother and urged her to turn him in, but she refused saying, "I took his father from him. I can't do that to him." She said that because she had successfully had most of the the boy's father's parental rights removed. That is REALLY hard to do in Florida. The boy's father was a real creep and was a primary reason this young man was out of control, but for some reason the woman blamed herself.

Sometimes I just don't understand women.

In any case, the boy spun further out of control and started beating his own mother. She still refused to call the police.

Once this happened I made a decision that some people will not agree with. I waited for that boy [he was 17]. I confronted him and asked some questions.

"So you like cutting up your mother's car."
"Yeah, what about it?"
"And you have torn up the walls in your mother's house."
"Yo man, I do whatever I want."
"And you are now hitting your mom too?"
"If she don't fall in line, I have to put her in line."

At that point I snatched him clean off the ground. I put his face to mine and with a calm but deep voice I told him, "It is not my business what you do to your mom's house or car, but when you start hitting her it becomes my business. If you touch your mother again I am going to put you in the hospital. Let me make that clear, I am not going to just kick your *ss, I am going to put you in the emergency room."

Then I threw him down, I looked at him and said, "Go ahead. Test me on this." He stood up and said, "If you touch me you will go to jail." I replied, "Yes I will. But let me make it clear now I will be out of jail a long time before you are out of the hospital."

He never touched his mother again.

A few weeks later a deputy had a 'conversation' with me about the event. I was completely honest about it. But the deputy knew what I knew, that without the mother's testimony there was nothing they could do about the situation and that tragedy was a certain conclusion with this boy.

The deputy looked at me, nodded and then told me to have a good day. I never heard from them again on this issue.

A few months later, on a tip from another young man, I approached this same troubled boy and took a handgun from him. A few weeks later I connected him to a string of burglaries and an auto theft. I turned him in and he got 7 years of which he served 4 years. Had he been 18, his sentence would have been much longer.

The sad truth is I had to take a course of action for that boy's mother that put me at personal risk. In regards to an unknown risk like Tom, I feel I must be willing to do the same. I would not be able to sleep if I chose to be passive and a man or woman on MC was harmed physically or emotionally by an unstable individual who had become unhinged.

My second story is shorter.

When I got my second degree in aviation science I had a couple of classes with the department head who happened to be a retired Air Force colonel. In a couple of my classes during discussions it came out that I had worked for the government on classified material. When I was queried about my particular job, I could not provide an answer.

Soon rumors abounded that I had worked for the CIA . Eventually it became a sort of thing with the class to provoke me on it. I suppose the colonel and the students were curious, but it got irritating. So one day I decided to do a probe on the colonel in revenge for all of the teasing and prodding I was getting.

One day I came to class with my file. It included the colonel's entire life history:

Where he was born
His duty stations
His educational history
What clubs he belonged to including those he enjoyed in high school
School field trips he went on
The names of his friends and associates from high school to current
His parents names, birthdays and address [Both were still alive!!]
Political donations
The cars and real estate he owned and property tax records.
Photographs that dated all the way back to his high school days
A complete copy of the paper he wrote for the Air Force in War Powers College.

Now I did not want to violate his personal space so I did not get his medical records or his credit report - which may be the very easiest things to get anyway. I just wanted to make a point.

I brought it to class and shared most of the information and had a discussion with him about the War Powers paper.

I concluded with this statement, "Now that we are clear about certain things, I want it understood that I don't, nor have I ever worked for the CIA. There are numerous agencies that keep files on individuals, especially individuals such as the colonel who have high clearances." Nobody gave me any more grief about telling them what I once did after that point.

Now the point of this is that though I have extensive resources and I know the names of most people here on MC, the total number of people I have checked out is....ZERO. I am not going to do that. It is creepy and an invasion of privacy. For someone to do that without due cause is a sign of intimidation and possibly instability. I have not even checked out Tom... yet.

Now in the case of Tom being checked out by Kari's husband [who is in law enforcement] I am in full agreement. I believe Tom has earned the scrutiny of someone in law enforcement, if nothing more than to see if he has a record of mental instability. However, nobody here has deserved inspection by Tom, though if he has my full name he is free to try. I don't care. (Though I am afraid Tom will find certain parts of my distant past completely missing in regards to my work - as even Kari's husband would encounter if he checked me out).

One final point: I know some people have found it entertaining to do background checks on people. I know some women will do that before dating a man. Frankly, I don’t agree with either. If you need to do a background check on someone you want to date you don’t know them well enough to date them. Checking out someone for fun is simply an invasion of privacy. But it should be noted that people who do it for fun don’t tell people they are doing it. Why? Because it makes people feel violated and everyone knows that.

So why would Tom tell people he is checking them out? Because he WANTS people to feel violated. When I checked out the colonel, he felt violated, though he knew darn well he deserved it and he never complained about it.

I have met well over 100 people in person from this website and I never checked out a single one of them. NOT ONE! Because I couldn’t? No, because I believe in privacy and respect. In truth there are darn few people that don’t have SOMETHING they don’t want people to know. Maybe it is a bad decision even if it does not amount to much. Maybe it is a failed business or bankruptcy or a medical issue or an ugly divorce.

I find if you are trustworthy, are not judgmental and you show genuine concern for others, that most people will tell you about their past as they get to know you. There is no need for background checks in MOST cases.

Anyway, TCG, I truly appreciate your sentiments, but as you can see I have fully considered the possible implications. It would be safer to keep things to myself, but I sleep better letting the likes of Tom know that severe consequences would result if he decides to go on some kind of power trip and do somebody harm.

I have been on this site almost longer than anyone except just a couple. I have personal relationships with many people here. I have camped with Stormchaser, I visited Randal and stayed in his home for nearly two weeks, I have met over 100 people here over the years and have had ongoing phone conversations with countless others. I don’t take this lightly.

People like Tom have come and gone. Some of them make a lot of noise. Some of them are looking for attention. Not many have their own websites they use to attack others and have REAL fantasies about being president of the United States AND find the time to stalk and threaten others. In fact in all these years I can think of only one other time where I was concerned about the physical or emotion safety of MC members.

Oh and Tom, if you happen to be reading this, just two quick points: First, your threats about posting to Twitter and Facebook is yet another similarity you have with Trump. Second, where does a man so important as to be considering a run for president find the time to post about a small website like this on his own website. I mean don’t you have policies to influence or souls to save or something? Why do you keep coming back here? It seems to me a mental giant like you would simply have more important things to do with his time.

Just sayin’.

No. 47 Reply: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slander
By: Mission_Specialist Gender: M Age: 55 on Oct 22, 2016 at 10:12 PM

If you just want to prove you can do research, Tom, I can give you plenty of topics to research that don't involve people on this site.

Just showing her you can "research" her is a form of intimidation, Tom. Again, you are behaving like Trump.

You were worried about getting banned? THAT is one thing you can do to get your wish! But do me a favor, when you get banned don't run off to your website and play victim again. Tell the truth this time:

"Yeah, this is Tom. I started intimidating the ladies by suggesting I would look into their personal lives and they took it personally. I got kicked off for violating the TOS and about a dozen crimes."

One more thing, Tom, I want you to research me. If you are successful you will not doubt what I am going to write next [and I don't care if I get banned]:

You can say what you want, think what you want, write what you want, be anything you want, but if you actually mess with the life of anybody on this site, ANYBODY, I will make it my mission in life to make you wish you had never heard of this site.

You can interpret that any way you want, Tom.

No. 60 Reply: Re: Re: Slander
By: Mission_Specialist Gender: M Age: 55 on Oct 23, 2016 at 2:22 PM

TCG,

People here argue about everything. Many people here like Trump. I don't like him. I think he is pathetic. But I don't think he is half as pathetic as Clinton and I also believe he could be good for economic policy, so I am voting for him in spite of my other views on him.

Nobody is being hard on Tom for his views on Trump any more than they are had on me for mine. My OPINION of Trump is based on how he acts NOT on rumors of indiscretions which are unproven and possibly baseless. But whatever.

The reason people are hard on Tom is because he is hard on them, because he lives in a fantasy world that gives him the right to threaten and intimidate other.

People here no more care about his OPINION of Trump than they care about mine, which is to say they will argue with me and maybe even call me a name or two, but nobody wants to run me off for it. They don't want to run him off for it either.

In fact, I don't think anyone cares if Tom stays of goes so long as he does not try to intimidate anyone.