Tapati (tapati) wrote,

In Response To Kalki on Gaudiya Repercussions

Skip if you aren't involved in GR, I'm responding to an ongoing thread mentioning me and since I'm not a member now I can only do so here. :)

Kalki writes: I am probably not the right one to fill you in because I have been off the board for more than 6 months until just recently. But when I asked the question to others on a thread, I got a PM explaining that Tapati had interfered with another board member's relationship with another board member. I don't want to get it all wrong, but I think it had to do with Meta? I am not sure. I can check my PM for details later. Something about a court case where she used her admin privlege to find stuff that he wrote in the "mens only thread" and it was used against him in court even though it was private stuff. I think Brainiac referred to it also and said he didn't like that very much.

My response:

Word filtered out to me from other members who participated in that topic that I was being talked about in the men's forum. Dave asked for the password (frankly I created it but just couldn't remember) to see what was being said. He was outraged when he read it, as any husband might be. So he emailed me a copy. Meta had just unfriended me on Facebook after reading private correspondence between me and his wife and after I challenged him when he decided to keep their daughter 4 days in a row despite her still needing to breastfeed. He asked for more milk but said he wouldn't allow his wife to see or visit with her when he picked it up. He had already been bashing his wife on Facebook and now to other members on GR, where she is also a member.

So you had Meta bashing his wife, criticizing me, other members joining in, and the mod Brainiac giving his stamp of approval on this behavior by joining in the topic. Members are supposed to treat other members with respect but it's just fine to bash them and lie about them in a secret forum where they can't even defend themselves. That's not what I created those forums for, the men's and the women's, not for bashing other board members. I thought that sensitive things might be discussed, like medical problems unique to their sex, or issues in general with relationships.

So far as I know, this material wasn't even needed to be used in court because frankly, Meta supplied reams of material with his mean-spirited emails to his wife over these past several months. Anyone with common sense knows there is no true privacy on the internet and Meta remains responsible for his own words. If he wanted support he should call people on the phone or see them in person. Any email can be forwarded and any forum can be seen. He knew at the time that some forum members also knew his wife, including some who were reading that topic legitimately. I also did not have admin privilege at that time. Men should know that any man might show a post in that forum to his wife and likewise with the women's forum. Likewise, any "hidden" or "member's only" forum might be subject to a screen shot or copy and paste. We warned members about these possibilities all along and urged them to keep any sensitive information about themselves offline if they truly didn't want to share it with the public at large.

As to why I'm involved--I was a close friend of both divorcing parties. I started out being a sounding board for each of them. Things went south between Meta and I as described above and so I ended up supporting his wife as he became more and more verbally abusive towards her in emails. You might say that is my perception or version and I would answer that the court agreed with me on many points.
Tags: divorce, gr

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.