Rebuttals Page No. 2

Oh, how tiresome to have to keep returning to this sort of page again, but I just happened to notice that psychopath Joshua Nightshade is at it again printing his malicious and psychotic fictions. You wonder why people think they can get away with this on the Internet? Because everywhere, they meet with a sense of impunity -- nobody ever stops it.

There was an interview with me over at SLNN after I ceased to post at the Herald over the Lisae Boucher affair and other chronic issues I had to protest. So after this rather thorough and accurate article was posted, got a certain amount of attention, and some positive comments, of course Stalker Number One had to show up and try to malign it. Here's the refutation:

>I was contacted by someone who claimed to be the guy who passed your RL phone number and address around, part of where Plastic Duck got it from. He assumed I was a sympathetic figure

Yeah, um, stop right there. He assumed correctly, because Joshua has spent months harassing me on various forums, answering every post, making nasty, vicious comments, the usual treatment that has earned him the scorn even of Second Citizen. Joshua even printed entry after entry claiming he had "sightings" of me in real life; that he lived "right near my house" and that "hey, it's raining today and Prok has an umbrella". It was ridiculous, and there was no such thing. When challenged, suddenly he said he "moved" and wasn't in that neighbourhood anymore LOL. Sick.

>given the fact that you make up malicious fabrications about me at every turn.

What I've done is report accurately this little pathetic dweebs fakeries, and exposed them lol.

Specifically around that time you had called me a "rapist" on your blog using MY real name and had the phrase taken down by Typepad. Despite photographic evidence of this, despite twenty eyewitnesses, you still claim you never wrote it. I digress...

This is one of those alarming concoctings that you wonder how anybody ever imagines they can get you to believe. I never called Joshua any "rapist" -- it just wouldn't make sense. Rapist how? He's never sexually attacked anybody on my properties or in SL. I'm happy to call him all sorts of accurate names, like "psychopath"; I'd hardly *deny* calling him a rapist if that's what I wished to call him. But...problem is...I did not call him any such thing lol. Furthermore, I didn't use or link to his real-life name, which is of absolutely no interest to me. And finally here he trips up and says essentially "you had the phrase taken down". Well, that makes no sense for me to a) be accused of writing a phrase and b) be the one having to ask Typepad to remove it if I wrote it ostensibly. This is perhaps a Freudian slip on Joshua's part that finally gets at what happened -- he must have wrote it or merely thought it. There was nothing of the sort coming from me. Typepad did not remove a damn thing from my blog. They're not going to remove something and not tell you. There is no "photographic evidence" whatsoever that any "20 people saw" (my this story gets wilder with each telling". I think Cristiano, merely to back up one of his little buddies, seconds this false claim but trust me, there was no such thing, and whatever "screenshot" there is, is doctored. I honestly have no reason to deny calling someone something; and Typepad hasn't removed anything.

>I did contact Cocoanut, yes, because I knew that you would react insanely if I came to you.

This is a good sign of proof that Joshua was out to get a reaction, and poke and prod and get either annoyance or fear or both.

>It wasn't about you muting me, you said months before that you had but much like you claim you never post at Second Citizen (when you do post, constantly)

I don't post at Second Citizen. Posting means making a post that starts a thread, comments on other threads. I come and respond to threads where I am attacked. I don't view that as significant posting. Joshua is on mute and has always been on mute since he started this shit.

>I didn't give it much credence. I contacted Coco because I thought you would actually listen to her and take appropriate action. I asked Coco to not say I was the one who talked to her, there was no "intimidation" at all.

Good evidence of how manipulative and malicious Nightshade is, trying to be more "plausible," trying to pretend that it isn't an elaborate and psychopathic form of intimidation, to feign getting something from a griefer; to suddenly be feigning a do-gooder concerned about somebody's RL number (which Nightshade never protested when it was published on SC of course *rolls eyes*); and to be cunning and manipulative enough to try to set up a friend to knock on me to try to get a rise out of me. Sick.

>I contacted a Linden, and yes, they do know it, and the account was banned and has been banned ever since.

Um, the Lindens have a lot more to say about this. But I won't be repeating it : )

>Regardless of the appalling way you've treated me in real life and Second Life (like harassing my friends in-world who refuse to stop talking to me because you've commanded it, threatening the site of a domestic violence awareness campaign because the founder is a friend of mine, the various lies and stories you've printed about me on any possible media whether it's about SL or not) I don't have any tolerance for anyone who wants to cause someone harm. Whether or not you might deserve it.

I've never harassed any friends of Joshua's (I'm surprised he isn't trotting out here his other lie, which claims that I stood in his store and prevented people from shopping -- a ridiculous claim if ever there was one!). I once IM'd a girl associated with this domestic violence campaign, and protested her use of Nightshade as a sponsor, precisely because he's a creepy stalker, who threatens people in this subtle and not-so-subtle way, like getting a picture of their doorway, sending it to one of their best friends, and pretending to be a do-gooder with it. Sick. There wasn't any "threatening of a site". It was an IM to a person telling them that they shouldn't be using as a published supporter someone who was clearly so sick and mysogenist.

>So drop the lies and the misrepresentation. I didn't do anything with your photo, I didn't take the picture, I didn't shop the picture around, I reported it to the Lindens and to you in the best way I thought would help you to do something about it. No good deed goes unpunished with psychopaths like you.

The picture was distributed to Cocoanut at the very least; and we have only the very suspect words of this malicious liar caught in lies over and over again that he didn't take the picture. If he didn't take it, he still made use of it; and likely he did take it given all the crap he had to put out on the blogs about stalking me. It's funny how each time he starts up this rant and false claim of innocence, he completely ducks the facts on the record illustrating all his reporting of "sitings" of me. Nobody has "sitings" of someone numerous times in a city with 7 million people, and just "happens" to live near somebody they hate on a forums. Sick.

It's funny, also how Joshua says guiltily here -- another little Freudian slip *chuckles* -- that "I didn't do anything with your photo".

That's because the big guilty thing he did was take the giant busts of me made by voted5/w-hat griefers and deface them obscenely, taking pictures and posting them to Second Citizen. Ugh, ugh. What a freak.

Comments

[Prokofy Neva]

What was great about SLNN's comments is that when Nightshade made that comment, somebody stood up to him. You never get that at the Herald. And that made me start to have faith in newspapering again, and wish to start a new newspaper. Somebody named Sari I've never heard of stood up to him, said it was hateful, and when he tried to beligerently stick up for himself and say "it's not hateful, it's a diagnosis" (gosh, how clever), this Sari used the argument Uri has used -- if you're a real doctor, you wouldn't make diagnoses online; if you had made such a diagnosis in RL, you wouldn't use it to try to humiliate someone in a forums and best them. Great!

He then lies baldfacedly and says all he did was "take a picture of a bust that wasn't his". ROFL. What he did was make 2 busts in a pose where they were disgustingly French-kissing, as if to say, oh, Prok is in love with himself -- or some such sick thing. The busts are ugly and stupid. He then took a picture of this obscene defacement of an already obscene defacement and posted. Even for him, it caused a guilty conscience and he took it down later. Sick, sick, sick.

Maybe he imagines himself to be a rapist for doing sick shit like this; whatever. The fact is, he's back to whitewashing the story again. Sick!

[Solar Legion]

"Posting" is any sort of response to any part of any thread, as well as any comment made to any system which appears to either the public or general membership of a forum or blog.

I should know, I used to run a forum.

[Prokofy Neva]

Did you now, Solar, that must have made you feel *special*. Yes, I do realize that "posting" means putting any sort of comment on a forums in the literalist sense, but generally, when people of think of blogs and forums that are on their bookmarks or RSS feeders that they visit regularly, and they talk about "posting," they mean their contribution of material, opening of threads, answering substantively in discussions, etc.

Merely coming back to set the record and rebut attacks isn't meaningful contribution. It's not participation, it's not being in the community, it's not significant. While technically a "post," it doesn't sum up what people mean when they talk about posts and posting.

If it's important to someone to play gotcha, they'll do it regardless. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds.

[Solar Legion]

There is nothing 'literalist' about what I have said Prokofy. If you type up a response and hit the send button, you're posting.

Yes, 'responding to an attack' is participating in a thread. It adds another thought to be discussed, refuted or any number of responses.

Who is this elusive 'they' you mention? who are the people that take such a laid back view of 'posting'? Are they people who wish to distance themselves from a Forum? Are they people who need an excuse to keep coming back after they've left?

I've dealt with such people before Prokofy. My personal response has always been the same: You said you were leaving and no longer posting - If you cannot hold true to that then you'll have the ability to post removed.

Of course, when someone left my old forum, the rules stated that no one was allowed to talk about them at all - not even masked in any possible way.

Your sarcasm is not appreciated Prokofy: If you have a beef with me, put it on the record.

[Dimitrio Lewis]

I've never met Joshua in real life but I *know* that deep down he is a good guy. That's a view shared by his friends and people who know him a lot better than I do. It might not always be evident online, particularly on forums and particularly when you're the topic of discussion, but it's something I genuinely believe. When I first started posting at Second Citizen I was attacked by him mercilessly, ridiculed and harassed across dozens of pages when I wasn't even responding, and called the most serious of names (which I later discovered was based on false information he'd been given). Despite it all we were eventually able to talk things through and became friends.

I know that you and Joshua will never be friends, and if I'd been subjected to some of the things you mention above I would find it very difficult to think anything but negative. However deeply you hate him though, and in spite of everything that's happened on Second Citizen, please consider that he might not be the "psychopath" you've pegged him to be. For whatever it's worth, I don't believe that he took that picture of your door, and I do believe that he gave it to Coco because he was genuinely concerned for your safety and thought it was the best way to warn you that somebody else was posing a threat to you. Can you blame him for assuming that you would not be willing to discuss it with him rationally based on your past exchanges? My opinion may not carry a lot of weight, but I am absolutely confident that his intentions then were good and honest.

Whatever you think of me, I hope that you would at least consider me to be level-headed. I've had a lot of negative experiences with Joshua in the past, and you may even have witnessed some of them, but it's the positive experiences that really outweigh it all and assure me that underneath it all he's not a bad person or a threat, to you or to anyone else. It's the discussions we've had about real life that gave me a glimpse of who he really is, putting Second Life and everything else out of mind. Whatever you think of him, remember that behind the internet persona is a human being, someone who cares about the well being of other human beings, including you. I wish I could demonstrate how strongly I feel about this. I can only hope that these words convey an honesty and sincerity deep enough for you to reconsider your beliefs and open your mind to the possibility that in reality he may just be a regular, polite, and compassionate person like anyone else, as presumably are you.

Take care.

[Prokofy Neva]

Dmitrio, sorry, I just don't buy it. Stalkers often do this counterintuitive thing, and suddenly pretend to be terribly concerned about their prey -- it's merely another form of manipulation. Whether Joshua is lying about this business of the door picture or not, it's immaterial; the point is, he is trying to *manipulate* and trying to *control people's reactions*. It's not helpful, it's manipulative. That's the main goal of someone who is psychopathic in this way, to get reactions, to keep goading and goading and get at least some negative relationship hooked into someone, since he can't form normal relationships.

I'm not interested in playing. He continues to lie -- and lie more pathologically each time he tells the story.

He's no mute, and I don't accept inventory, so his sending it to Coco isn't some brillian maneuver, it's just a manipulative attempt to enlist a friend into worrying, agitating, getting Lindens involved, etc. Trust me, they see right through this.

I'm not interested in remembering that behind the Internet is a real person; not when they use the Internet as part of their pathology to try to manipulate and harm people. Again, I'm not interested in playing. You've obviuosly been hooked in, and you're now part of the apologists' corner.

He's not a regular and compassionate person; he's a sick kid doing sick crap on the Internet. Normal people don't do that. It's demonstrable. Again, no sale.

[Ace Albion]

"There is nothing 'literalist' about what I have said Prokofy. If you type up a response and hit the send button, you're posting."

That's exactly a literalist thing to say.

I think Prokofy can say he doesn't post at SC in the same way I can say I don't watch TV. Not that I shut my eyes in panic when the idiot lantern happens to be lit for one or two programmes in a week.