We had to kick Ethan out

[Lloyd Danforth]

Mike is right, the baseball bat was overkill.

Not if you didn't swing it.

[Kat Kanning]

I did, but not very close to him.

[41mag]

 

I have a hard time imagining Kat swinging a baseball bat at someone. 

[dalebert]

I have a hard time imagining Kat swinging a baseball bat at someone.

I'm having a hard time imagining what I'd have to do to inspire that kind of behavior from Kat.   

[Radical_Teen]

I have a hard time imagining Kat swinging a baseball bat at someone.

I'm having a hard time imagining what I'd have to do to inspire that kind of behavior from Kat.   

I certainly haven't seen her take out a bat to anyone before. It's kinda scary to see. 

[Mike Barskey]

Interesting... I got a completely different story from Brigitte and the kids. I'm glad someone is looking out for them.
Thank you for being forthright and communicating this to the community instead of trying to withhold information.

Hey Mikey, let Brigitte defend herself, k? I wasn't talking to you 

Shyfrog's first post, quoted above, was on a public thread in a public forum and was not addressed to anyone. I responded. I guess I couldn't tell shyfrog was not talking to me.

For anyone who cares, I have almost completely stopped communicating with Lou. He has repeatedly threatened me and insulted me, made untrue statements about me to people I know, participated in rumors about me that were untrue, and insulted and threatened Brigitte and done and said things to make Brigitte's life more difficult. Keep in mind that it is possible that I (or Brigitte) might have done something to Lou first (though I deny it for myself), but that's not my point; if I had done something to him first, he chose to respond as I described, instead of simply not communicating with me, as I'm doing with him. His threats and attempts to make me uncomfortable or angry or hurt or whatever don't affect me very much - in fact, sometimes they're quite funny - but I've personally witnessed him being not a nice person and I choose not to deal with him any more (as much as is possible with the dynamic of the other relationships I've chosen).

So to everyone who continues to use their own judgment and research all sides of each story before accepting one as the truth, thank you.

[Mike Barskey]

I forgot to say that I have also witnessed Lou being deceptive in some conversations with Brigitte. I think everyone lies sometimes, and sometimes it can arguably a good thing. But my opinion of the untrue statements I have witnessed him make is that he's not a person I want to deal with.

[shyfrog]

Oh Barskey. You're so cute when you twist..twist...twist 

Because I have only told the truth regarding the matter, I am considered mean. Because I threaten to protect my rights, I am somehow the bad guy. I've witnessed plenty of really good, honest, truthful, respectable people being "not nice" in situations where it was absolutely and completely acceptable.

Fact is, you knowingly and willfully committed an act of aggression on my private property. I told you repeatedly not to set foot on the property and you chose to ignore my warnings. And because I out you on it I'm the bad guy. Talk about hilarious. Seriously??

As for Brigitte. I pointed out that she was using the threat of state violence against me. Is that mean? No, I think threatening to use the state against me, as she has done with others in the past, and followed through with, is actually the mean thing and goes much further than just threatening. Action would be the key word here.

And now, enter a situation where I feel I should know what is going on with my children. What is her response to my inquiry?

Here: "Why? Who told you? What do you know? Nothing is going on! You tell me what you know first!"

This is not communication. Barskey, let Brigitte speak for herself. Don't be her shield. The only thing you seem to really be able to communicate is who's friend you'd like to fuck next. Aww..was that mean? Or was it truthful?

If you would like to escalate this to the next level, I'd be more than happy to oblige

[AntonLee]

.

[shyfrog]

"So to everyone who continues to use their own judgment and research all sides of each story before accepting one as the truth, thank you."

And as most people in the Shire and throughout the Free State know, I'll even sit down with people face-to-face, eat dinner with them, pay their tips if they're unable and/or too cheap to do it themselves, and spill all manner of personal information to them as if they were a brother-in-arms. It's been known to happen. And I'll continue to do so and be someone you can count on when the shit hits the fan...unless you prove yourself dishonorable.

[MaineShark]

Guys, would it be possible to convince you two to sit down for some sort of mediation?  Even if you can't solve your differences, maybe you could agree to some sort of rules of conduct regarding these forum interactions?  "You ignore me and I'll ignore you," or "you ignore me unless I say X, and I'll ignore you unless you say Y," or whatever?

Or at least actually post whatever happened between you two?  Even if any of us should be ostracizing either of you, the innuendo isn't helpful in determining that.  All I can gather is that you dislike each other, and each feel the other has acted in some ways immorally.  You've each said or hinted at some details beyond that, but nowhere near enough for this back-and-forth to even be meaningful to observers.  I'd suggest a separate thread, and each of you post your story, without responding to the other (you obviously each feel the other is being dishonest in certain ways, so let's take that as a given).  Then allow others to ask questions, and respond to them (but, again, never to each other).  That might at least help shed some light on all this, because when you address each other, you're obviously going to be assuming certain things as known, that the rest of us don't know (hence addressing questions from the audience, only).

I like both of you, and I'm optimistic that that won't change substantially.  Nor do I expect you guys to become bosom buddies.  But it would at least help those on the outside of all this, if you guys could either agree to some mutually-acceptable method of explaining what's going on, or to some mutually-acceptable terms under which you can ignore each other.  Because it's just all-fired confusing, right now.

Joe

[shyfrog]

I've stated in other posts before that I'm all up for mediation.
I welcome and invite it.
Finding an unbiased mediator will be fun.
Getting everyone involved to agree to it will be fun too.

[George Donnelly]

A suggestion: Each of you pick a mediator and those two mediators in turn pick a third.

[shyfrog]

Wanted: One mediator. Preference for the blind, tone-deaf, agnostic, apolitical, and celibate. 

[MaineShark]

Like I said, you may not be able to solve all your problems.  But the standards for a mediator to at least help develop a "truce" would not be as high, so there would be more available.

Joe