|
|
 |
Miriam |
+ |
Tuesday, October 7, 2003 at 7:02 PM I just heard the samantha call a bit ago and have to say that if they really did just hang up on her at that point it was a very bad decision. I know what it is like to get absorbed in a call that isn't real, and it's bad enough then when they hang up. that girl could have been dangerously upset judging from the emotions she displayed. I could be wrong and maybe Anne or Tarah spoke to her before they hung up on her. I am not saying they can help it, they aren't a talkline, but it would help if they reccommended one or something. —Miriam |
|
|
|
|
Logo Lou |
+ |
Tuesday, October 7, 2003 at 7:30 PM I didn't hear the entire show, did she turn out to be bogus? No matter, Samantha was wayyyyy nuts, real or no. NO time to her was gonna be a good time to cut her off. They already told her their thoughts and what she needs to do, anything more is completely at Adam and Drew's descretion. Sometimes a person want to almost read off a laundry list of trials and tribulations to Adam and Drew somehow thinking the next one, or the one after that, etc, will change their advice (which they mostly knew but didn't want to hear, like the pain killer addict girl). And anytime is a good time to dump a bogus call, disturbed person making it or no.... or Miriam... Wait, I already said disturbed person:) —Logo Lou |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous |
+ |
Tuesday, October 7, 2003 at 8:41 PM Why don't you just shut the hell up, Miriam? You have no room .. NO ROOM to bitch and moan about the show after all of your BS calls. Whether you deluded yourself into "feeling the character" or not, you're a part of the problem. — |
|
|
|
|
BeatUofA |
+ |
Tuesday, October 7, 2003 at 9:08 PM Was Samantha the one who had the bullet stuck and all that the other night? And is Miriam the infamous "Sylvia" who made those series of calls about being abused by her grandfather that turned out to be bogus? —BeatUofA |
|
|
|
|
Kevin U. |
+ |
Tuesday, October 7, 2003 at 9:16 PM Miriam had lots of fake calls under different names, but the one that she was busted under was "Sophia". —Kevin U. |
|
|
|
|
BeatUofA |
+ |
Tuesday, October 7, 2003 at 9:32 PM Thaaaaaat's what it was...wow that was crazy. Did she give the story on the boards at any point? —BeatUofA |
|
|
|
|
Kevin U. |
+ |
Tuesday, October 7, 2003 at 10:51 PM If you read back in the archives of the forum, you will find that this board is directly connected to her being caught... I suggest to go back and read the related posts if you are curious. —Kevin U. |
|
|
|
|
BeatUofA |
+ |
Tuesday, October 7, 2003 at 10:58 PM I already went back and looked...that's just crazy. As long as I've been listening to Loveline and as much of an internet junkie as I am, how did I never find this place before last week?? —BeatUofA |
|
|
|
|
Miriam |
+ |
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at 5:31 AM If you want to take this as an excuse to bitch at me fine, I was not idolizing my calls just observing this one. —Miriam |
|
|
|
|
Joy |
+ |
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at 5:52 AM I thought I heard the entire call---did the blind suicide girl turn out to be bogus? She sounded real to me---very deeply disturbed and kind of annoying, but real. —joy |
|
|
|
|
Thomas/Frope |
+ |
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at 12:11 PM She was real, I dunno how we got started talking about her being bogus. —Thomas/Frope |
|
|
|
|
Logo Lou |
+ |
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at 2:28 PM Miriam began the bogus talk (ironically) when she stated sympathy for Samantha because Miriam "know(s) what it is like to get absorbed in a call that isn't real" herself, implying, whether she meant to or not, that Samantha was bogus. Miriam's observation of the call was flawed, partially, not completely, due to her own calls. —Logo Lou |
|
|
|
|
Darkfloyd |
+ |
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at 3:42 PM Stealing Sophia's name from the golden girls was a bad move. Estelle Getty will never forgive you. —darkfloyd |
|
|
|
|
Miriam |
+ |
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at 5:45 PM I said I knew what it was like to get absorbed in a call even if it was bogus. I thought that was real and was just clarifying that it would feel worse since that was the case. Anyways, that girl definitely had some bad brain damage. —Miriam |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous |
+ |
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at 7:13 PM Shut up, Miriam. — |
|
|
|
|
Mike (not-the-first) |
+ |
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at 8:26 PM Hey folks, If you're going to say or do anything here, stand behind it and sign your name to it. Don't be such whimps, cowards, chicken shit by popping in with anonymous signatures. If you are concerned you will tarnish your persona here maybe you ought to honor yourself with some integrity. Perhaps none of us are as pure and well-intended as we want to be. At least Mirriam is consistent and forthright about being bogus ;) —Mike (not-the-first) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous |
+ |
Thursday, October 9, 2003 at 7:59 AM Shut up, Mike — |
|
|
|
|
Thomas/Frope |
+ |
Thursday, October 9, 2003 at 3:52 PM Couldn't agree with Mike more. Thats one thing this forum desparately needs -- sign in. Well said, Mike. —Thomas/Frope |
|
|
|
|
Joy |
+ |
Thursday, October 9, 2003 at 6:00 PM I don't get the anonymous posts. At least make up a name and stick to it, instead of hiding behind a random anonymous name. I agree with Mike (n-t-f), if you're going to say it, have the guts to own up to it. And thanks for the info on Sam. I was confused by all the references to bogosity because Sam seemed very real. The saddest thing is I don't think she'll ever get any better. She just seemed so disturbed. —joy |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous |
+ |
Thursday, October 9, 2003 at 8:15 PM Yes, it's important to use absolutely accurate information when you post. Please include your full name, address, social security number, and favorite color. What a crock. There is no more credibility to a post by using a standard "handle" then there is using your actual name or no name at all. The entire community of the internet is based on selective anonymity -- what is there to "own up to"? —You |
|
|
|
|
Cracked |
+ |
Thursday, October 9, 2003 at 8:48 PM You can answer that question yourself. What goes through your mind as you decide not to use your usual name when you write something you are afraid of taking credit for or you want to call someone a name or criticize but you have to change your signature because you are afraid? Clearly you don't know who this "Cracked" person is but after a few posts, a personality emerges. There is anonymity. There are also degrees of integrity to communicating online in a forum like this. —Cracked |
|
|
|
|
Silent Virgin |
+ |
Thursday, October 9, 2003 at 9:57 PM I'm curious what people think about this topic... Logins and passwords are planned for the forum. However, this may not solve as many problems as people think. It bugs me when people impersonate another poster. For example, bogus Miriam posts have appeared in the past. This is one problem which is solved by logins: a login allows you to create and protect an online identity. Unfortunately, that's about all it does. Another thing that bugs me is when someone creates another identity to help "win" an argument. E.g., "Bob" writes, "yeah, I really agree with Jake" when, in fact, Bob and Jake are the same person. But logins wouldn't stop this; there is nothing to prevent people from creating bogus logins. If fact, I'm planning to still allow anonymous posts -- even after adding logins -- since people would create bogus logins anyway to achieve the same end. I.e., you would get "Shut up, Miriam" from the poster "shutupmiriam". What are you gonna do? Anyway, I'm on my second glass of red wine now, so I am losing the ability to think clearly. :-) Does anybody have any ideas or comments? Bear in mind that if you make it too difficult to post, nobody will :-( —Silent Virgin |
|
|
|
|
Trig |
+ |
Friday, October 10, 2003 at 6:28 AM Cool =) If nothing else, having a nickname reserved for only one person adds credibility for that name. If JohnDoe "joins" and posts something ridiculous, it would at least raise suspicion being JohnDoe's only post. —Trig |
|
|
|
|
Trig |
+ |
Friday, October 10, 2003 at 6:36 AM Yeah, I really agree with Trig ;-)
-Trig —Bob |
|
|
|
|
Miriam |
+ |
Friday, October 10, 2003 at 11:18 AM It would be good, but how would it be set up that specific people who post now get their names and they can't clear bogus posts on themselves? Like for example someone other than Trig got the name first and said a bunch of crap but he couldn't post on his name saying it wasn't him. —Miriam |
|
|
|
|
Silent Virgin |
+ |
Friday, October 10, 2003 at 12:59 PM Not to worry. I will arrange it so that everyone gets the names they are using now. Everyone who has posted in the past will get the first crack at registering, so that they can beat the "gold rush". Of course, I can't guarantee anything for those who post under the name " " (spaces). :-) —Silent Virgin |
|