Ok, OK, It was me, But How do I fix it

Boy this is embarrasing...

I am the black female in the disputed review. I am not sure how this gentleman could have been confused as to whom he was seeing because while both African American, lets be real here you couldn't confuse us even in the dark...lol.....


So Mod's how does this one get fixed?

He is telling the truth just about the wrong person.....


KJ

no, it was Genesis, she has the email, the date of the session is different than the date specified on the review. Katherine, you only helped me out one time on one day and it wasn't with Tx Dreamer.

I am the black female in the disputed review.

So Mod's how does this one get fixed?

KJ Originally Posted by KatherineJones

no, it was Genesis, she has the email, the date of the session is different than the date specified on the review. Katherine, you only helped me out one time on one day and it wasn't with Tx Dreamer. Originally Posted by TaylorMaiden

Well, this is an interesting dilemma....

In the "old" days, this kind of post woud be pulled, as the facts seem to be muddled and it generally is not serving any usefull purpose.

I requested a copy of the afore mentioned email and have read it.

The reviewer (TxDreamer) stated (to Taylor) he was not sure who was in the session and asked if it was ok to mention her name.

Taylor said she was uncertain and suggested two names; one - an Asian lady, one, an African American lady.

The AA name suggested was Genesis.

TxDreamer said he does not know the ladies name.

Genesis states she was NOT THERE.

Katherine states that SHE WAS there.

Taylor states it was Genesis and that is because TxDreamer has listed the wrong date in his review.

TxDreamer states the session occured on 4/5/2010

Taylor states the session occured earlier.

These are the disputed "facts".

In the meanwhile, an Administrator reviewed all of the above and has pulled (in accordance with ECCIE guidelines) the disputed name from the review.

I have sent a PM to TxDreamer asking for some information.

Is there any useful purpose in leaving this thread open?

Respectfully,

OldSarge

No reason to leave it open as the date is now the only issue.

Is there any useful purpose in leaving this thread open?

Respectfully,

OldSarge Originally Posted by OldSarge

NO

The reviewer (TxDreamer) stated (to Taylor) he was not sure who was in the session and asked if it was ok to mention her name.

Taylor said she was uncertain and suggested two names; one - an Asian lady, one, an African American lady.

Genesis states she was NOT THERE.

Katherine states that SHE WAS there.

Taylor states it was Genesis and that is because TxDreamer has listed the wrong date in his review.

TxDreamer states the session occured on 4/5/2010

Taylor states the session occured earlier.

These are the disputed "facts".

I have sent a PM to TxDreamer asking for some information.

Is there any useful purpose in leaving this thread open?

Respectfully,

OldSarge Originally Posted by OldSarge

Sure, two reasons. First reason is, involved parties might be able to come up with more information to resolve the question. Second reason is, a policy of closing threads unless there is a compelling reason to keep them open is certain to have a chilling effect on posting.

Ok, the NOs and the YES have been heard, and I appreciate your points of view.

I have locked the thread, for now.

All of the parties involved have the ability to reach me and I am waiting to hear back on one question.

In terms of a "chilling effect" on posting, frankly, this is not a "discussion thread" where the promotion of the free flow of ideas and information is being squelched, rather it is more of a question as to how to handle disputed information.

That process has been explained and explored here. As I have more facts, I will add to this post, so as to keep all informed.

Thanks for your time and understanding!

Respectfully,

OldSarge

Ok, the "facts" are in and this thread is unlocked for comment.

Thanks for allowing the moderators to work with the members involved and get things straightened out.

The review in question was posted 4/19/2010 at this link: http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=41287

At the heart of the dispute is the fact that the reviewer listed 4/5/2010 as the session date.

Genesis, was definately NOT working with Taylor on that date (or for several weeks prior to that date).

Katherine was working with Taylor on that date.

PMs and emails have been exchanged, three different mods have looked at the informaion. It was determined that the actual session took place on 10 February NOT 5 April, a difference of nearly 8 weeks.


Given the extreme time difference, it is easy to understand why the review was questioned.

Respectfully,

OldSarge

Ah, and now we have all witnessed the inherent danger of a glory hole.

Ah, and now we have all witnessed the inherent danger of a glory hole. Originally Posted by JennsLolli

This has been an interesting conundrum! While a glory hole might have inherent dangers, if it is so good that you can't remember within 2 months when it happenned, I need to be visiting more glory holes!!!!!!!! LOL!