Note: The links no long work. It appears that the entire Transparency thread has been deleted. However, I have previously made a copy of the entire thread.
Page 23 07-18-2010 08:49 PM
Page 23 07-18-2010 08:49 PM
In post 887 (08:59 PM), UKSusanfanAnn suggested that there might be a “mole” reading the thread, LEM, and directed members to her name at the bottom of the thread. I find it interesting that she used the familiar “LEM”, rather than “Lovin’ Every Minute” as it appeared on the page.
One minute later (09:00 PM), Hulapig announced that “banned and resigned members” were being let in and complimented UKSusanfanAnn on her “astute” observation. (#891)
In post #900(09:06 PM), Hulapig declared that LEM was a “banned” member and stated that “YOUR staff” was not doing it.
Citroenlady said she was delighted to see LEM in post #903(09:09 PM). In post #907(09:11 PM), Bubblegum remarked on the appearance of Luz in the thread list and asked who was “letting them in”.
Hulapig posted that the “Job Faire” had begun. (#909, 09:11 PM)
It was explained by WAMcKinley that LEM was a former mod and had resigned, and then was banned. WAM suggested that perhaps LEM had been “accorded amnesty”.(#910, 09:12 PM)
In post #916(09:13 PM), Hulapig asserted that the 24-hour waiting period for new members had changed and no one told her. She posted that people should “wake up!”
Page 24 07-18-2010 09:15 PM
In post #921(09:15 PM), Hulapig said she thought Citroenlady had a clue about who was letting in the banned members.
I have included the time on the above posts because I think it is interesting. UKSusanfanAnn “noticed” a banned member and one minute later, Hulapig announced that banned and resigned members were being let in. Wouldn’t the normal reaction be to check out the situation before making such an announcement? One minute hardly gave Hulapig time to do that.
Sixteen minutes after LEM was noticed, Hulapig suggested that Citroenlady had “a clue” to what happened. But we know that Citroenlady was not involved. It is easy to prove she was not in any moderator or admin panel at that time. She did not become a temporary moderator until 20 hours later. We also know that the supposed “takeover” was not true. So why would Hulapig say that?
As you read the rest of the thread, keep in mind that there was never a plot by anyone to “takeover” the forum.
After Hulapig suggested Citroenlady would know, a couple of members asked CL what was going on. She replied, “This is as much of a surprise to me as you to Hulapig, but I am extremely pleased to see good people come back here, as I am sure most of us will be!” (#929)
In post #942, a “new” member posted to say “he” could tell what was going on. He said he knew who the “troublemakers who keep asking the same questions over and over” were. It is obvious that larryF was the fake ID of someone who was there under another identity. No one new to posting would have been in on the “attack” storyline. Even members who had been there a long time had a hard time figuring it out, unless told. I think larryF may have gotten the email from Lonni. In fact, he practically could have written it……
In post #946, Hulapig began to go completely off the rails. She said she was going out with a bang. In a sort of looking glass reversal, she claimed that the staff (who believed in a takeover hoax) were giving honest answers, but the ringleaders of the “fiasco” were not. Knowing that there was no takeover fiasco puts a different light on this assertion. Beware the “new hulapig”, indeed.
In post 956, UKSusanfanAnn declared that the forum had “split” and three old members had appeared. She noted Clix Pix, LEM & Luz were there.
Page 25 07-18-2010 09:43 PM
Discussion of the “banned” members continued. Jayhawk fan said they were coming in by the “busloads”. (#966) Others welcomed them back.
Hulapig posted the reasons for Clix Pix’s banning, including the time she got a warning for something the cyber-stalker had actually done. (#972, #974) I believe that sort of post contravened usual staff policy.
Hulapig began posting insults. (#977, #984, #988, #996)
BrooklynBlessings made a post about reconciliation and reinstatement that would have been helpful had it come before the cyber-stalker troll did his damage. Because staff thought they were already under attack, it was not even considered. (#982)
In post #995, d’artanian stated that it was obvious this was all “prearranged”. In hindsight, I wonder if there wasn't some truth to that, though not in the way d'artanian meant it.
In post #1000, Hulapig thanked UKSusanfanAnn for asking the “correct questions”.
Page 26 07-18-2010 09:59 PM
In post #1001, lchris said that she did not know what was going on and that Tink had not approved any formerly banned members. She asked Hulapig if she was doing it?
Hulapig’s posts continued to deteriorate, She told UKSusanfanAnn that they were in “Truthland” now and that there would be a place “for all of us”.(#1015, #1023)
In post #1019, UKSusanfanAnn joined in saying it looked prearranged. Hmmmm..... What if it was prearranged, but not by any attackers?
Members expressed concern about Hulapig’s uncharacteristic behavior. But Trennie proved to have been an astute observer. She said that Hulapig’s actions were not out of control, but were designed to sow “more discord”.(#1028)
In post #1029 Hulapig denied letting in the banned members. She then seemed to accuse both lchris and Citroenlady of doing it.
In post #1031, UKSusanfanAnn described what appears to have been the game plan: allow banned members in, split the forum in the ensuing chaos, claim it was all prearranged (most likely by those “same people”).
Page 27 07-18-2010 10:28 PM
Hulapig said she was leaving, but that “we” would find a place for Tree. (#1043) “We” were gone, but she hoped to see RIK soon. (#1055) UKSusanfanAnn posted that there was more to this than meets the eye.(#1066). Does Ann knows what that “more” was? It wasn’t the DJGers.
In post #1071, WAMcKinley pointed out that good members had been punished for far less than Hulapig had done.
While these things were happening in July, I found them confusing. Now I find them disturbing. I do not like the questions they raise. Why did Hulapig try to pin the blame on Citroenlady only 16 minutes after the banned member was noticed? She could not have had any evidence at that point (nor later, because there was none). Being happy to see LEM is hardly proof that she had somehow gotten into the control panel.
It is clear that Hulapig was among those who believed in the takeover scenario. But until now, the only ones mentioned as trying to “take over” had been those “same” people and the DJGers. In spite of the claims of some that they know who those “same” people are, I cannot quite establish the parameters of the group. But I do know that Citroenlady was not a member of DJG’s forum at that time.
Citroenlady had been concerned about past bannings under less than fair circumstances. She was not operating in secret. She had held discussions with both admins towards possibly finding some means of reconciliation. Just what was so threatening about that?
Why did Hulapig suggest that Citroenlady might know about the readmission of the banned member? Why did the Board report falsely name her as the one who readmitted Clix Pix? Was it was an attempt to discredit Citroenlady and turn members against her? This smear campaign was started by the cyber-stalker months ago. What disturbs me is that members of susan-boyle.com seem to have been aiding and abetting him in it.
