Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I think the chipotle lady accusations/witch hunts are just as annoying as the chipotle lady's posts. Is it the same person accusing people of being the chipotle lady all the time?

I've accused and I know I'm not the only one as I've seen lots of posts accusing her that aren't mine.

She's disruptive and obnoxious.

Honestly I think the derails about whether a person is CL or not is disruptive - especially in cases when it's not her.

It's gotta be her on the "what's going on with DCUM" thread in off-topic.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I think the chipotle lady accusations/witch hunts are just as annoying as the chipotle lady's posts. Is it the same person accusing people of being the chipotle lady all the time?

I've accused and I know I'm not the only one as I've seen lots of posts accusing her that aren't mine.

She's disruptive and obnoxious.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:She did not start the Horrible Situation thread.

I worry that you are setting a precedent here, and hope you do not respond to everyone that asks you to check to see if person who started thread X also started thread Y. It's a little stalker-ish on the part of the OP if you ask me.

I think we can all agree Chipotle Lady is a special case. I've been on DCUM longer than I care to admit and I can't think of another poster who has been so identifiable and generated so much controversy for so long. Maybe Adequateparent, but that was like 2 years ago. Give Jeff some credit. He very rarely gets into the sandbox and when he does it's for a good reason. Just because he does something once or even twice doesn't mean he's not going to continue to use his judgment about whether to keep doing it.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I think the chipotle lady accusations/witch hunts are just as annoying as the chipotle lady's posts. Is it the same person accusing people of being the chipotle lady all the time?

It's a good question which I can't answer because I haven't been paying attention. I can say that I have followed CL all day and haven't seen anything objectionable from her.

Jeff, I think the chipotle lady accusations/witch hunts are just as annoying as the chipotle lady's posts. Is it the same person accusing people of being the chipotle lady all the time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:She did not start the Horrible Situation thread.

I worry that you are setting a precedent here, and hope you do not respond to everyone that asks you to check to see if person who started thread X also started thread Y. It's a little stalker-ish on the part of the OP if you ask me.

I second that vote. Either that, or we might as well gather the pitchforks, set up the Star Chamber, and enlist the Truth Police (pick your allusion). I was going to suggest that you only respond if a particular poster seems to have crossed the line in terms of offensiveness or maliciousness. But as I was thinking about it more, felt that I would have a hard time defining that. If anything, Jeff's conclusion seems to confirm the danger in rushing to judgement. Just my 2 cents.

I had not read the other thread, so I didn't realize people were calling her out as the chipotle lady.

I see no problem in knowing if a particularity annoying poster is here for her amusement. I visit the site to exchange advice and don't want to waste my time on someone who makes up shit. I still wouldn't know her if I saw her on the street so who cares. Just give me the heads up that a post is BS and I'll move on.

I agree. I want to know who the trolls are so I can decide how much time to spend on their fake problems.

Anonymous wrote:I see no problem in knowing if a particularity annoying poster is here for her amusement. I visit the site to exchange advice and don't want to waste my time on someone who makes up shit. I still wouldn't know her if I saw her on the street so who cares. Just give me the heads up that a post is BS and I'll move on.

I'm here for amusement (in reading the often funny posts) as much as good practical advice (which I get here more than anywhere else!).

I've actually found that some clearly made up shit generates some interesting responses, and even someone's made up shit is someone else's reality.

I see no problem in knowing if a particularity annoying poster is here for her amusement. I visit the site to exchange advice and don't want to waste my time on someone who makes up shit. I still wouldn't know her if I saw her on the street so who cares. Just give me the heads up that a post is BS and I'll move on.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:She did not start the Horrible Situation thread.

I worry that you are setting a precedent here, and hope you do not respond to everyone that asks you to check to see if person who started thread X also started thread Y. It's a little stalker-ish on the part of the OP if you ask me.

I second that vote. Either that, or we might as well gather the pitchforks, set up the Star Chamber, and enlist the Truth Police (pick your allusion). I was going to suggest that you only respond if a particular poster seems to have crossed the line in terms of offensiveness or maliciousness. But as I was thinking about it more, felt that I would have a hard time defining that. If anything, Jeff's conclusion seems to confirm the danger in rushing to judgement. Just my 2 cents.

I have always addressed this sort of request on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it's better to eliminate suspicions about the other thread since it's already being disrupted by people claiming the OP is CL.

jsteele wrote:She did not start the Horrible Situation thread.

I worry that you are setting a precedent here, and hope you do not respond to everyone that asks you to check to see if person who started thread X also started thread Y. It's a little stalker-ish on the part of the OP if you ask me.

She did not start the Horrible Situation thread.

Can you see if Chipotle lady (ie, "DH unpaid vacation" etc) also started the ("Horrible situation!") thread in off-topic?