Keith & Patrick??

[Doug Loudenback]

Thank you, Easy, for remembering.

Okay, so I'm not being fair. But this whole thread isn't fair...and I'm pretty sure Mid is right in saying that this whole thread is a violation of the TOS, if we're going to get all technical about it.

Everyone here seems to have completely been in love with these two, and I saw a different side. That's all I'm trying to say. I can't back that up without giving some personal experiences, although they were on this public forum. This forum will continue with or without them.

I did a search for you, Doug: http://www.okctalk.com/okc-undergrou...gift#post73903

Actually, Patrick asked Mid for the wedding gift money back, not me, but since we are married, I was a little more than insulted. I didn't really say that on the forum, but it was said for me.

I'm pretty sure if you all want to keep in touch with Patrick and/or Keith, you can find their email addresses pretty easily.

And Doug, I didn't necessarily mean you weren't listening to what I had to say, but that my opinion is obviously SO different on this topic, and everyone is going to be protective of these two ex-mods, that I really don't see any point to me posting much more in this thread, because everyone's minds are already made up.

Thanks, Bandnerd,

Well, I now see that there is a good reason that I don't visit "The Underground"! What Patrick said there was clearly in the "tacky" category and the whole discussion of "family" in that thread (which I've just completely read) is as dumb as a can of worms, imo.

I think that you may have a misperception, though, about what I'm saying or, at least, trying to. My intent is not to "defend" either Keith or Patrick in the sense that I'm "in love" with either of them and I certainly don't stand up for remarks like Patrick made in "the Underground," which I gather is something like a no-holds-barred place to go to by definition -- I guess one enters "the Underground" at one's risk! As should be evident enough from comments I've made, in this thread and elsewhere, I'm certainly not a Christian conservative ... I'm not inclined to be a religious person at all. Ethical, I hope, but "religious", not.

But, banning someone from a public forum who I disagree with or who I don't like is not where I'm at, either. Of course, that's not my call to make. As for being "protective", all I would add is that is was just as protective, in this sense, of Midtowner, when he was banned here, if you were not aware.

[PUGalicious]

I've desperately tried to stay out of this discussion because there are no winners in what's taken place.

However, since so many members here are aware of and reading the running commentary on Keith's blog, I wanted the opportunity to set the record straight on some specific mischaracterizations he has made, since he decided to specifically single me out in one of his posts yesterday. It's obvious someone is passing along the information back to Keith, so here's an opportunity for him to correct his mistakes. I sincerely doubt he would give my comment on his blog the same exposure he's allowed his own mischaracterizations.

First, his mischaracterizations specifically about me:

PUGalicious: Wow, I could write a book about this member. He has changed his name many times on this forum. He was Scribe, 111_brad_street, and now PUGalicious. He was a moderator at one time, but he couldn't handle the pressure of having to enforce the TOS. Again, we would try to enforce the TOS, and he would disagree with us. So, he had a short stint as a moderator. One thing that many of the veteran members know is that if you disagree with Pug on anything, it makes him very upset. He doesn't like to be proved wrong on anything (like Midtowner). Three times, he has gotten mad on the forum, and three times he has tucked tail and gone into "exile." He is also very abrasive in his posts. He is also very good friends with the female moderator, Midtowner, bandnerd, and Easy180. If you ever make him mad, watch out. He will either attack you or he will get mad and go into exile.


The reason I single out these certain members is because they are partly the reason why Patrick and I are gone. As you notice, there are only about 4-5 members that we have really had problems with. They never liked us because we enforced the rules, and they have always wanted a forum that was "rule free." Now, they have one. These are the types of members that have no respect for others' opinions, and they will do whatever they can to intimidate anyone that disagrees with what they say. Anybody can agree to disagree in a respectful manner, but these posters can't.


I know all about these members because of the years that I have been on the forum. I don't tell you all of this to be mean or to show disrespect to anyone. These are the facts, and this is the type of behavior that you will now experience on the forum.

First, some clarification to put this fact into context: "He has changed his name many times on this forum. He was Scribe, 111_brad_street, and now PUGalicious."

It is true. I have changed my name — twice, which hardly qualified as "many times." I changed it from Scribe to 111_brad_street when I started a family blog by that name and was inviting others to get to know more about me and my family. I subsequently changed it from 111_brad_street to PUGalicious when I shut down that family blog to protect the privacy of my family after discovering that there were viewers of the blog with sinister intentions and I didn't want to expose my daughters to that any more. I chose to switch to PUGalicious rather than back to Scribe for two reasons: first, because I had just gotten a second pug and I absolutely love my pugs; second, because I was hoping to separate myself from the early days when I tended to be much more abrasive. I wasn't trying to hide anything, because my old posts weren't deleted and the new names were attached to the old posts; I was hoping that a friendlier name would reflect a sincere desire to be less abrasive. Apparently, some interpreted as trying to hide who I was, no matter how ludicrous that is. If I was trying to do that, I would create fictitious accounts and post under false identities, something Keith knows about all too well (calling Rev. Bob and 1Adam12). And I certainly am not the first or only person to have his/her member name changed; I could recount handful off the top of my head. So I'm not sure what Keith is trying to say or prove with this "indictment."

Issue 2: "He was a moderator at one time, but he couldn't handle the pressure of having to enforce the TOS. Again, we would try to enforce the TOS, and he would disagree with us. So, he had a short stint as a moderator."

I was a moderator at one time. And it was quite eye-opening to see the behind-the-scenes stuff going on. Does Keith really want to air out all the dirty laundry? People who live in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones. There's a paper trail, after all.

Couldn't handle the pressure of having to enforce the TOS? That's simply not true. I resigned for three reasons:

1. It's not that I could not or was unwilling to enforce TOS. I certainly enforced them a few times with a handful of agitators whose mission it was to attack Todd, Patrick and Keith and to troll the threads. However, I had distinct differences in interpretation of alleged violations of TOS and a profound disagreement as to the heavy-handed and oft-unbalanced approach by Keith. I never really had an issue with Todd or Patrick in how they were handling matters on the board at the time.
2. I was uncomfortable with some of the practices of two particular moderators that most members on this forum would likely be disturbed by; for now, I'll leave it at that, unless Keith wants to continue to mischaracterize the "honesty, integrity and trust" of the various players in this drama);
3. The final straw was my own actions. I resigned out of principle as a form of self-policing when I allowed my emotions to cross a line and another member called me on it — I resigned because it was the right thing to do. If Keith had operated with the same principle, he would have resigned long ago.

Issue 3: "One thing that many of the veteran members know is that if you disagree with Pug on anything, it makes him very upset. He doesn't like to be proved wrong on anything (like Midtowner)."

I plead guilty, at least in part. There are very few people who like being proved wrong. However, I never objected to people disagreeing with me, until they made it personal. I've had respectful, even heated at times, disagreements with other members — MadMonk, Easy180, Curt, Midtowner and others. And a simple review of recent posts will demonstrate that Keith certainly is guilty of that which he indicts me of.

Issue 4: "Three times, he has gotten mad on the forum, and three times he has tucked tail and gone into "exile.""

Again, this is partially true. I did go into a self-imposed exile on three different occasions — it was a self-imposed banishment when I let my emotions get the better of me and I needed to step away, take a breather and get some perspective. Is a self-imposed exile the same as tucking tail and running or is it an honest attempt at diffusing the situation and trying to stay with in the TOS? I suppose that's open to interpretation. But Keith himself has gotten mad on the forum and "tucked tail and going into 'exile'," two times which he openly admits on his own blog! Again, why does he chastise and indict me of actions that he himself has done?

Issue 5: "He is also very abrasive in his posts."

At times this is true. But any disagreement can be classified as "abrasive" by someone sensitive to that; and certainly anyone who strongly disagrees would find is "very abrasive." Again, I ask you to review Keith's most recent posts, especially in the religion thread, and ask yourself if those posts aren't themselves "very abrasive."

Issue 6: "He is also very good friends with the female moderator, Midtowner, bandnerd, and Easy180."

This indictment is probably the most entertaining of all. I don't know what classifies as "very good friends;" however, with all due respect to each of these members, by my definition we are not "very good friends." I only know these members from my interaction with them on the forum. I don't interact with these members on a one-to-one basis (like PMs) on a regular basis. I don't talk with these members outside of this forum. I've never met any of these members in person. And, honestly, I don't always agree (and sometimes even strongly disagree) with some of these members. I know them, I generally respect them, but by most reasonable definitions, we are not "very good friends."

Issue 7: "If you ever make him mad, watch out. He will either attack you or he will get mad and go into exile."

Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you ever made Keith mad, watch out. He would stalk you, threaten you with a ban and bitterly and hatefully attack you when you dared to disagree with him or hold him to the same standard he held others — again, I have a paper trail should he decide to disclaim it.

And, his accusations against me are indictments of himself. "He will either attack you or he will get mad and go into exile." Sounds like what he just did, as evidenced on his blog:

I can�t continue on with this forum. I have not officially resigned from the forum, but I do know that I will no longer be posting.
...
Actually, Patrick and I could start our own and have a really good one�..I just don�t know if we want to devote our time to it or not.

Either way, we are through posting on this certain OKC message board.

If that's not getting mad, tucking tale and running, I don't know what is.

Issue 8: "I don't tell you all of this to be mean or to show disrespect to anyone. These are the facts, and this is the type of behavior that you will now experience on the forum."

He is, in fact, being mean and showing disrespect in his blog posts. He's disrespecting Malibu, he's disrespecting Karrie and mmm, and he's just plain being mean to those who ever dared to disagree with him.

"These are the facts..." No, they are mischaracterizations. But I really have no doubt that this is Keith's reality, even if it isn't the truth.

There is so much in Keith's posts that are misleading and outright false, and there is so much that is unfair to many involved, that it would take pages to tell the "other side" of the story. And it's not because I'm privy to anything that transpired in the last week. It's solely based on my personal experiences on this forum and interactions with some of the players involved. There is indeed more sides to the story. I've offered one more piece to the puzzle and only after I was called out on Keith's blog, which was then referenced in this thread.

I wanted to offer the "other side" on those things that Keith directly accused me of. I'll let the other players offer their side as they see fit. But for now, I'll leave it at that.

[Midtowner]

I sent a PM along those lines to Malibu.

I did make the top of his list though.. even after being gone for sixish months..

..which is awesome.

obsess much, Keith?

Oh.. and in honor of the Keith's list of infamy, the wife found this smiley:



I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish by doing that. It really is quite petty and childish.

[Pete]

Okay, I think everyone has had their say and it's time to close this thread, as I don't want posters here to get in a retaliatory mode for what they might read elsewhere.

All of us affiliated with the site are going to stay on the high road and frankly, the way this has been handled on both sides provides you a small hint of the underlying problems.

If you have any more questions or concerns please send me a PM.

Thanks.