Categories
announcements comments policy

New Comment Policy

Cutest mod ever!
Cutest mod ever!

As promised, here is the new and I think improved comments policy.

It’s a bit long, but that’s in part because I’ve included sections that are designed to hopefully eliminate some of the contentious and often repetitive debates that have erupted in the past over the issue of ableism — in particular the use of words like “crazy” and “psycho” and the like. In the future, I am hoping that we can simply link new commenters to the policy (in particular, the “notes on ‘crazy'”) section and avoid a lot of the drama.

This policy is stricter towards those who “dig in” and insist on using problematic terms even though they’ve been informed of the rules about them; if they’ve been linked to the comments policy and persist in arguing or behaving badly, they will be banned. I’m also asking regulars to rein in their language in criticizing first-time offenders, and to not argue back with them if they persist. (There’s not much point to it, because offenders who persist will be banned.)

Not all of the changes and additions to the comments policy are in response to the ableism debates; I’ve also taken into consideration other controversies here, as well as comments policies on other blogs and broader discussions online about the best ways to moderate sites.

One other change: I will also put regular reminders in posts that all new commenters should read the comments policy before posting.

I am very much cognizant that many people who regularly read this blog — some of them who comment here regularly, some of whom are lurkers or only occasional commenters — are frustrated by the flame wars that have erupted here from time to time. I am frustrated as well, and troubled by the personal attacks I’ve seen in these discussions, directed not at trolls but at other commenters here in good faith.

I hope this new comment policy can end some of these flame wars before they start. If it doesn’t, I will (reluctantly) have to resort to shutting threads down and even suspending some commenters.

So here is the new comments policy. Discuss. Suggest improvements. Be civil.

Welcome prospective commenters!

Unmoderated internet forums quickly become shitheaps, so we have a few rules here. One thing to remember right off the bat: this is a feminist blog, designed (mostly) for a feminist audience. You don’t have to be a particular kind of feminist to post here, or even a feminist at all, but you do need to keep this in mind.

First comments from new commenters – or old commenters changing their name – automatically go to moderation. Regardless of your politics, if you start off here with a jerky or tediously argumentative comment, or if you trigger some other red flag for me, your first comment will never see the light of day.

MRAs, MGTOWs, PUAs, Red Pillers, “Equalists,” #GamerGaters and the like: you will be allowed to post here, if your first comment is amusing and/or not especially egregious, and if you more-or-less behave.

But I reserve the right to revoke your posting privileges at any time for any reason. You have a right to your opinions, but you don’t have a right to our attention. I am especially not interested in hearing your thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian (or some other target of angry dude harassment online).

Oh, and I sometimes set aside threads here as “no troll, no MRA” threads. If you post in one of them, even politely, you will be banned.

If you’re NOT an MRA or a troll, welcome!

You’re who this blog is really meant for. The comments too, provided you can participate in a generally constructive manner and can treat those you disagree with here with a certain degree of respect. Snark is fine; attacks and accusations and namecalling, not so much. 

If someone – whether a troll or a regular commenter — is acting badly enough to possibly warrant a suspension or ban, EMAIL ME OR THE MODS. That’s the fastest and most effective way to get it taken care of.

Some slightly more specific guidelines.

No bigotry (misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, body shaming, and so forth). No slurs. I’ve put the worst ones in the mod filter, so comments containing them won’t appear. If you want to discuss someone else’s use of a slur, disguise the word so your comment won’t get caught by the filter – though if you do this as a “clever” way to use a slur yourself, you may well find yourself banned.

No threats or violent comments. That includes telling someone to “die in a fire” or remarking that so-and-so would probably be better off dead. This rule is in effect even when you are talking about vile misogynistic shitbags.

No gratuitously nasty personal attacks. Yes, discussions can sometimes get a bit contentious. You’re not required to be perfectly nice all the time. Just don’t be a total asshole. And don’t drag your disagreements with someone into every thread.

No doxxing or posting of personal identifying information. Don’t spread rumors or speculate without evidence on the possible criminal activity of anyone else, whether this is another commenter or a misogynistic shitbag.

No rape apologism, pedo apologism, victim blaming, and so forth.

Don’t misgender anyone. If you do it accidentally, apologize and get it right the next time. If you do it deliberately, you’re out.

Don’t attack anyone for their sexual preferences or kinks, so long as they involve consenting adults. Refrain from weird or creepy sexual oversharing. Whatever your opinion of sex work, don’t disparage sex workers, or use words like “whore” as a pejorative. (Feel free to talk about MRAs who are using the word pejoratively.)

Don’t attack people for their religion or their lack of religion.

Don’t be a mansplainer or indeed any kind of ‘splainer. That is, don’t lecture anyone on something they know better than you, particularly if that thing is their lived experience.

Don’t post too much or try to make threads all about you. Try to avoid drama.

If you have personal issues you want to bring up, that’s fine! Use the troll-free open threads set aside for personal stuff. I’ll post a new one every couple of weeks. (I also start threads regularly to discuss big events in the news that people here are concerned about; feel free to email if you think something has happened that warrants one.)

No sockpuppeting. No lying. No misrepresentation of yourself or other people. No posting in bad faith – e.g. posting friendly comments here while trashing the site and/or the people on it elsewhere.

No pile-ons. If a number of people have already offered the same criticism of another commenter, don’t add more comments to the pile.

All this said, you don’t have to be perfect to comment here. As sociologist Katherine Cross (@Quinnae_Moon) has noted, very few people arrive “fully formed to the world of activism, the perfect agents of change, somehow entirely cognizant of the ever shifting morass of rules and prescribed or proscribed words, phrases, argot, and thought.”

I want this blog to be open to all those who genuinely oppose misogyny and bigotry more generally, even those who may slip up from time to time.

Still, if you’re new here, or new to feminism, and the regulars here are telling you to avoid certain words, or pointing out something that you’re doing that’s problematic, don’t take it as a personal attack (unless it is couched as a personal attack, in which case email me). If they tell you to avoid particular language, uh, avoid using that language, and don’t explain that in your country calling a person a something-or-other is perfectly fine.

You don’t have to agree with all the rules and/or cultural norms here; but while you’re commenting here you are expected to respect them. If you think a rule is really, really wrong or ridiculous, don’t argue about it in the comments; send me an email about it.

And this brings us to the issue of ableism, which has been a contentious one here.

NOTES ON “CRAZY”

Avoid “crazy” talk. That is, using words like “crazy,” “psycho” and the like to describe the terrible ideas and actions of people you don’t like. It’s stigmatizing to those dealing with mental illness, who really don’t need the extra indignity of being compared to MRAs. Try using words like “ridiculous” or “absurd” or “terrible” instead. Call someone an “asshole” instead of a “psycho.” Try to avoid internet diagnoses of mental illness, and don’t use autism or Aspergers as an excuse for someone’s shitty behavior.

Saying someone is “paranoid,” “delusional,” or “narcissistic” is fine, if you don’t mean it as a diagnosis; these are useful descriptive terms.

If there is evidence that someone you are discussing does indeed have a mental illness, and this is relevant to the discussion, it can be appropriate to bring this up, though you should keep in mind that a hunch is not evidence.

All this said, words like “crazy,” “psycho,” and the like are extremely common, and plenty of people (including feminists, progressives, and people dealing with mental illness themselves) use them casually without intending to stigmatize those with mental illnesses. There’s a difference between saying “crazy people should all be locked up” and “boy, Eraserhead sure was a crazy movie!”

If you’re someone who uses these terms casually, and doesn’t actually want all “crazy” people locked up, it doesn’t make you an evil person, but you need to refrain from doing it here. (Again, if you disagree with this policy, and feel a need to make this disagreement known, DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT IT IN THE COMMENTS, send me an email instead.)

If you are a regular commenter here, and someone uses a problematic term like “crazy” or “psycho,” remind them gently that this is not how we do things here, and send them a link to this comment policy (and possibly the Welcome Package as well). Unless what they have said is particularly egregious, do not insult them or question their motives.

If they argue, remind them that arguing about this rule is also not allowed. If they continue, do not argue back; send me or the mods a note and they will be banned. (This may take a little while, so be patient and please do not give in to the impulse to argue with them.)

If others have already reminded them of the rules, move on.

Again, if someone is acting really shitty in the comments, whether a troll or a regular, SEND THE MODS (or me) AN EMAIL.

One other thing to keep in mind:

MRAs read this blog. So I would strongly urge you to comment here using an anonymous handle that cannot be traced to your real identity. And to be very careful about revealing any sort of personal information on this blog. If you inadvertently post something using the wrong account, or that otherwise reveals personal information, let the mods know so we can remove those comments.

Oh, wait, one other other thought:

Enjoy yourself!

458 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Luzbelitx
9 years ago
Drezden
Drezden
9 years ago

If this is too general for you, and/or does not apply to you, just move on! Know that you don’t do that, and won’t be doing it.

I really do not like this line of thinking. It seems largely problematic. The most likely offenders are likely unaware that they are problematic, so they will continue to be problematic under this cover.

Further, it sets up the implication that anyone concerned with the problem but not actively calling it out is the problem. Unintentional or not, I don’t think that’s cool.

There are many of us who, for various reasons, have been affected by cliques as members of the outgroup. The implication that we may be affecting others in ways that we were (are) is concerning. Simply telling us to ignore the accusations if it doesn’t apply to us without any indication of whether or not it does apply to us isn’t going to work

katz
katz
9 years ago

I heard it from many people with whom I conversed on various feminist-friendly discussion sites over a few years, and it is my experience as well.

If you’ve heard it from people who left this site to comment elsewhere, there’s a self-selection bias at work. People who felt welcomed here aren’t hanging out on other blogs going “Ugh, those WHTM people are really cliquish.” And you’re only getting their side of the story. Sometimes the whole story turns out to be “I was behaving badly and people didn’t like it,” like that person upthread who was all “I wasn’t being ableist, I just said that you’d have to be mentally disordered to think that.”

And I still don’t quite get how “cliquish WRT mental illness” means anything different from “posters don’t allow derogatory comments about mental illness,” which many people have said is the exact reason they feel welcome here.

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

Also, quoting this thread won’t do, because you claimed we reacted to your perfectly reasonable/mild/merely disagreeing remarks.

Ok, we’re asking you to prove those remarks were indeed harmless and not thinly-veiled assholery.

Go quote what we reacted to, and let’s see if that agrees with the rules either old or new.

Go back before anyone called you anything and show us what it’s like.

The truth shall set us free.
—-

By the way, how about rules on requesting quotes and consistently get derailing?

booburry
9 years ago

I appreciate the new rules. I am pretty cynical though, for sure. I don’t comment a whole lot. Partly because other people say what I am thinking but way better. Partly because of this “clique” thing, but I recognize that is just me projecting and being scared of rejection from people I think are pretty cool.
I agree that there should be a discussion on trans issues. Or at least something put into the rules about it, as was mentioned.

And just a side eye to the randoms coming from the woodwork saying how they were so mistreated and chased away, without giving any context whatsoever. For all I know, you came in here acting like a total fool and got treated like one. It seems pointless to bring that up and try to guilt trip people if you’re not providing any context.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@indifferentsky:

Hmm… Yeah, I probably came across as more defensive than I am with that. It’s not that I want people to name names per se, I just want there to be specific examples. I personally am not comfortable saying “oh yeah, I’ll do better from now on” when I don’t really know what to do better. Even if I’m not one of the people being accused of being cliquey (though let’s face it, I probably am), an example would show something that I personally could look out for and try to call out when I see it.

I get that when people are upset and they start demanding unreasonable evidence or demand a list of names or some other garbage, it’s usually a sign that they aren’t actually interested in any of that, they’re just being angry and defensive. I’m trying not to do that. My purpose is just to bring the discussion from “people are being cliquey, they need to stop” to “people are doing these things in these contexts when they shouldn’t have.”

This will be fun to bring up, but I’ve been accused of bullying and eagerly lashing out at innocent newbies before. In the actual thread in question, I was one of about three people that responded to someone using the word “crazy.” They doubled down, a couple people responded pretty mildly, and then they left.

We, and I in particular, was accused of hounding this person and gleefully piling on until they were reduced to tears. By someone commenting in that same thread, when it was easy to actually point back to how the discussion really went. I did so, which is why I’m a bit more trusting of my memory of the event than I would be otherwise. That same person then accused me of the exact same thing a while later, when I couldn’t find the thread again.

It’s just a fact that everyone remembers events differently. It’s why I’m a tiny bit hesitant to talk about the cliquishness of this community in the abstract; I’ve been (dare I say it?) a victim of an accusation that really was baseless.

Someone, somewhere, at some point is going to have to point to a situation and say “you were behaving too cliquish and too unreasonably here.” It’d be nice to have a better sense of what people are talking about before that happens in the future.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
9 years ago
EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
9 years ago

I would not wish to behave in a way which furthers cliquery, or a reputation for cliquery.

It has been said that our habit of assuming further bad faith where we’ve seen (or feel we’ve seen) some already is a cliquish one. Okay. I appreciate that, and will work to alter my own behaviour as a result.

Which other things do you feel I could do to make this site less cliquish?

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
9 years ago

Oh, he’s still here?

@Has To Be Danced On

http://i.imgur.com/wLYq07Y.gif

booburry
9 years ago

SFHC, you are great. That is amazing.

Auntie Alias
Auntie Alias
9 years ago

Seconding this:

What 2aimai said, to a T.

As to the blog’s reputation (re: Falconer’s inquiry), it is consistent with the friendly critical observations offered here already: that while David’s posts are invaluable, the cliquishness and trigger-happiness of the commenting body with regards to certain issues, most notably mental (un)health and ableism, has driven people away, either from commenting or the blog itself. I heard it from many people with whom I conversed on various feminist-friendly discussion sites over a few years, and it is my experience as well.

I’m getting really annoyed by all the denials and demands for proof. Instead of accepting the word of several people that this place gets too harsh, people are straining to rationalize it; e.g., you must have been arguing about ableism, you must have “fucked up”, you must have been a newbie, etc. (No, WWTH hasn’t debunked all the claims.)

As for the clique accusation, the fact that newcomers announce themselves and are ignored might have something to do with it.

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

@booburry

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

I was reminded of old-ish times just a few comments ago, and now you also remind me when I just got here my impression was the people here are so cool.

As in I’ll never be that cool cool. They had wonderful thoughts and opinions and insights and personal and cultural stories! They smack down trolls with a laugh! They take care of each other!

And even though the people changed through the years (we always do) my feeling remains the same, only suddenly I am one of them *gasp*

That’s not to say I’m extra-cool (I have my shiny moments, though) but I found this community healthier than any other I participated in, and feel real love and appreciation for everyone here.

I am concerned my latina blood betrays my manners and I really, really, really don’t want to drive people away who could share this experience and this love (and I never had really good manner to begin with, ouch).

Don’t we love each other, dammit? I love you all, and I mean it in a love-love way.

You’re my friends and this is a corner of my virtual home where I hang out and grow up with you.

And I’m sure it is because we love this place so much that we want to defend it from ableism, but also from driving away good people and from letting trolls have their way. It’s not easy to balance those three.

We’re in a turning point in my opinion, in which we have the opportunity to make a balance about it.

I am not a 100% sure of my position right now, because that’s the point of making a real balance and an insightful reflection.

I think maybe we could have clearer rule on calling out, for example? A beginners guide? a 101 course? No?

I promise you I’m taking this conversation very seriously, am thinking about this a lot and am willing to do everything on my part to make this community better.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

*sigh* Alright, I’m out of this thread. I’m really not trying to demand people prove their personal experiences to my satisfaction. Believe me, I know what that’s like. When it comes down to it, I think I have a reasonably good idea for what to watch out for in the future based on what people have said in this thread, and my requests for examples are being taken in a way I didn’t intend.

See you all in the future.

AltoFronto
AltoFronto
9 years ago

I dunno guys. I’m not familiar with HTBS and zir commenting history, so how much benefit of the doubt should we give to HTBS?

Ze at least admitted that zir first comment was deliberately offensive… whilst having to be tone-deaf to the culture here to have made it in the first place, if I’ve heard right.

And ze probably had a legitimate concern if ze thought we were intending to report JB to the police, but expressed it as a confrontational accusation and at no point put zir hands up to say “whoops, my mistake”.

Were others quick to assume bad faith? I think that has a lot to do with HTBS’s past comments, so I can’t tell.

Assuming HTBS has a valid complaint to make it’s:
The community is not quick to forget trolling behaviour / confrontation / slip-ups, be they naive or knee-jerk. It can be hard to regain good favour once trust is called into question.
Anyone deemed to be sufficiently trollish becomes fair game for rude or snarky responses from any and all other commenters, and this will always be considered justified. (Although I still can’t decide if HTBS is really an injured good-faith commenter, or a sealion).

Maybe we are a clique? But the standards for being a member seem to be pretty much “don’t engage in behaviour harmful to entire groups of people, and try to respect what we’re trying to do here”… so I dunno if this place really needs to bend over backwards to be more accommodating when the rest of the internet is freely available.
We could try policing the space less fervently, and give newbies/ borderline trolls more benefit of the doubt, maybe? Issue more mod challenges? I don’t know if that would make anything better, since most complaints seem to stem from a conflict in perceived level of hostility more than concrete issues where a clear line can be drawn, to be honest.

AltoFronto
AltoFronto
9 years ago

Was ninja’d a lot whilst typing that out.

I am very fond of all you lovely people.

And I will go to bed before I break the comment policy by posting too much.

Looking forward to another thread.

Good night, all. <3

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
9 years ago

@Alto

Had To’s first post was a “Haha virgin lelz” remark aimed at David and he’s posted nothing but “You’re being too mean to MRAs/Redditors/random trolls/meee” over and over and over again since, in probably half a dozen threads by now. Dude’s just an /r/MRA member trying to harangue us into being quiet.

Sorry, Had To, but I don’t do quiet. I dance. 8)

Auntie Alias
Auntie Alias
9 years ago

@kirbywarp

FWIW, you weren’t the only person demanding proof. Not by a long shot.

Hambeast, Social Justice Road Warrior
Hambeast, Social Justice Road Warrior
9 years ago

New comment policy sounds great, but does Katie approve?

Plus, rethinking your vocabulary and creating new, exciting words and phrases that do not rely on tired clichés and stereotypes (and consequently perpetuate said tired clichés and stereotypes) is actually quite fun!

I agree!

berdache from a previous life

First, David,

Thanks for all the hard work with both the new comment policy and the blog itself. It provides a very useful service. The MRAs deserve to be mocked mercilessly. I think laughing at them is the best way to dis-empower them.

Reading the heat death discussion makes me realize how deeply imbedded ableism is in my vocabulary and how difficult it is to avoid. Not talking about my first comment here-that was just a gross error in judgement on my part. The really sad part of that was I HAD read the comment policy/welcome package and thought. “This will be good discipline for me to follow this policy and unlearn ableism like I unlearned racist and sexist language.” Sigh.

I’m doing my best to avoid ableist language, if it’s included in any of my posts, it’s simply because I missed it when I was putting the post together. I never intend for my words to be harmful, I was abused too much growing to wish to do that to anyone else.

I think that one of the problems the new commentators who use ableism may have when they come here it that they simply don’t understand the manosphere’s rules. What would be terrible [checks allowed words] absurd behavior in most public places on the net or IRL is simply Tuesday for the manosphere.

If someone comes to WHTM from a place where they haven’t experienced the anger, the lies and the relentless demeaning comments about women from the manosphere; it seems overwhelming. I think it’s easier for some people to throw a stereotype out there rather than try to parse out what’s happening.

It might help to, as well as point them to the policy, to explain, that, no that’s not unusual behavior, that they aren’t ill, simply angry assholes.

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

@AltoFronto

Thanks for that, I like your levelheadedness and I agree with how you read the conflict.

Assuming HTBS has a valid complaint to make

Assuming that, and I speak only for myself here, I believe they gave enough proof of not wanting to hear, willfully misunderstanding and constantly trying to turn the tables with attempts of gotchas.

I am concerned at the possibility of jumping on a person who’s actually in good faith. In that sense, when in doubt I keep quiet and see what happens (and also get to find out if my hunch was correct without interfering).

I agree simultaneous answers can become involuntary piling-on and I agree we chould be a bit more careful about it.

However, I think a person who consistently displays abusive behaviors, even if they were first atacked for something they said in good faith, should not be tolerated.

Even the regulars. Especially the regulars. And especially the non-regulars.

As for You Know Who Said, they’re trying to present a scenario in which no disagreement is allowed because someone said no one likes people who show up only to disagree.

Just to mention one of their recent attempts at bad faith. I’m sure we agree this stuff is pretty basic, and you don’t twist the words of people just because you weren’t welcome with open arms.

I’m not afraid to be hard on HTBS because even though I didn’t agree with every single call David made, I’ve been following HTBS story and I’m confident the Overlord won’t tolerate them any more than we did.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
9 years ago

@berdache

Oh yeah, I should apologise to you; I think that was the one and only time I really did jump to “Troll” on the first mistake. I thought your avatar was aimed at us and misjudged badly. Sorry about that. ^^;

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

Mammoths are busy today, huh? Only the first line of that Blockquote was supposed to be in it.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 years ago

A few random snippets; people have covered most of the points pretty articulately already.

I don’t think that this board is particularly hostile. I make fuck ups on a fairly regular basis and people have generally put me straight but been quite forgiving about it.

As to snark etc. Well, ‘mockery’ pretty much is part of the mission statement of this site.

I’ve already said about the dangers of misinterpreting comments by people who may not express their points in the most clear fashion for whatever reason or where their may define terminology differently and people seem to have taken that on board. As to that, I think people can recognise from posting history and context when someone is honestly naïve or asking a genuine question rather than trolling. Perhaps I can use this analogy:

If this was a board about, say, evolution and someone raised the issue about the controversy surrounding different hypotheses for gene drift. That may well trigger a discussion about the various arguments in favour of the different schools of thought. Some people may even be quite passionate about defending one proposal over another. But it would probably start a dialogue.

If however the questioner had also, whether in that post or a previous one, used terms like ‘evolution is just a theory’ then they might just get told to sod off. It would be a valid inference that they weren’t really interested in the answer.

I think that similar principles can be applied in regard to this board.

Had To Be Said
Had To Be Said
9 years ago

Luzbelitx,

You started getting name-calling after you lied, gaslighted, sealioned, were deliberately obtuse, and a bunch of random etc.

All of this is false. And it illustrates why personal attacks are such a harmful way to argue.

A common way for people to abuse others here is to just constantly make baseless accusations. If enough people in the clique do it, it just becomes “common knowledge” even though all of the accusations are false.

Luzbelitx, I have never lied here. That’s a really serious accusation to make. Do you have anything to back it up? If not, why are you so casually making this accusation? When someone calls you a liar, isn’t that a big deal to you? Is it not such a big deal to call me a liar?

I have never gaslighted anyone. Here or anywhere else. I’ve never tried to trick a person into believing that they are delusional in order to manipulate them. I simply have never done that. I don’t do that to people. It’s extraordinarily cruel. Yet you casually accuse me of it — no links, no evidence — because that’s how people communicate here right now.

You accuse me of sealioning. Sealioning is a thing. It’s annoying. I have never done it. “Sealioning is an Internet slang term referring to intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility and incessantly requesting evidence to back up their claims.” I’ve never tried to engage any unwilling opponent here. I’ve never asked anyone to debate me who didn’t want to. And my few requests for evidence have been entirely reasonable ones like this: Luzbelitx, will you please provide any evidence at all to back up the personal accusation of sealioning you made against me?

You say I was deliberately obtuse. Where? When? I can’t stand it when people are deliberately obtuse. It’s dishonest and frustrating and disrespectful. I wouldn’t want anyone to do that to me, and I don’t do it to others. I have never done it here, and if you think I have please show me where.

To justify name-calling, you accuse me of four different offenses, none of which I have committed. i>In what world is it okay to argue this way?

This is exactly the kind of thing the new rules can fix. You dashed off a single quick sentence that I had to address at length because it included so many false accusations. It’s not right for you to force another person to do that. It’s abusive.

1 7 8 9 10 11 19