Potential lawsuit against Park Slope Parents group?
Looks like somebody has threatened the moderators of the Park Slope Parents Yahoo Group with a lawsuit related to something that a member posted.
They have shut down the Message Archives until further notice, and are seeking an "expert in Internet law" to help:
"The PSP Moderators and Advisory Committee have already spent hundreds of hours trying to resolve this situation. It is important that we resolve this quickly and with integrity -- if we do not, the entire PSP list may be in jeopardy and may have to be closed down entirely..."
They have shut down the Message Archives until further notice, and are seeking an "expert in Internet law" to help:
"The PSP Moderators and Advisory Committee have already spent hundreds of hours trying to resolve this situation. It is important that we resolve this quickly and with integrity -- if we do not, the entire PSP list may be in jeopardy and may have to be closed down entirely..."
Comments
-
i hate that message board. good riddance
-
Subject: dying to know
what was the posting?? -
The worst part is anyone can start a lawsuit. Whether they win is another thing but by that time you have spent numerous hours, cash and sleepless nights on it. Even for a BS lawsuit you can waste about $1500 on fee and lawyers alone.
-
If anyone from that board is reading here...
New York Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, New York NY 10004
212-344-3005
Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
Phone: 415 436 9333
Fax: 415 436 9993 -
I hate it too. I liked living in Park Slope more before I started reading it. What a bunch of whiny, self-obsessed people.
-
Subject: Come on, now.
Why do you people always have to be hating on the Park Slope parents? The PSP group occasionally has some annoying posts by annoying people, but the vast majority of the 2900 (!!) members are just trying to share parenting tips, ask for help or recommendations for stuff, etc. How does that hurt you, exactly? I mean, if such a thing actually inspires hate in you, maybe you shouldn't read it, huh? Jesus.
BTW, sometimes people post on the PSP list about bad experiences they've had with local businesses -- seems a little bit mean/vindictive to me, but there has been some truly horrifying stories -- anyway, I'd bet it's one of those posts that spawned the lawsuit. Either that, or there was this weird exchange recently about the head of some local school, and she didn't pay a tab at a pottery-painting place, or something? I don't even remember, the case is that stupid. Either way, I'm sure it's a libel/slander/defamation case (whichever one would apply here on the internets.) -
I personally dislike that site because my application to join was peppered with condescention before being rejected. At the time we were long without children but still trying, and PSP's "well, no kids, no dice" approach (flavored with plenty of phrases like "i'm sure you understand") underscored for me it's self-satisfied elitism.
That said, good luck to them. They are, of course, free to be any kind of club they'd like to be. But drumming up sympathy for their troubles would be a stretch.
We're lucky: we're expecting. But i'd no sooner look for advice from the shills on that site than get it from random people on the street. -
What was the lawsuit about? Has anyone heard?
-
I got word that one of the local papers is following up on it.
-
Anonymous wrote: I personally dislike that site because my application to join was peppered with condescention before being rejected. At the time we were long without children but still trying, and PSP's "well, no kids, no dice" approach (flavored with plenty of phrases like "i'm sure you understand") underscored for me it's self-satisfied elitism.
The point of the boards is a PARENTS BOARD--if you aren't a parent why did you want to join??? and why did you get pissed to be rejected? They are trying to screen out SPAM. I don't really see how that aspect is obnoxious. Why would you want to be reading about pediatricians and teething pain without kids yet?? It is boring until you are in the thick of it.
That said, good luck to them. They are, of course, free to be any kind of club they'd like to be. But drumming up sympathy for their troubles would be a stretch.
We're lucky: we're expecting. But i'd no sooner look for advice from the shills on that site than get it from random people on the street.
Good luck with your pregnancy -
Subject: Re: Come on, now.
Sarah from the Slope wrote: Why do you people always have to be hating on the Park Slope parents? The PSP group occasionally has some annoying posts by annoying people, but the vast majority of the 2900 (!!) members are just trying to share parenting tips, ask for help or recommendations for stuff, etc. How does that hurt you, exactly? I mean, if such a thing actually inspires hate in you, maybe you shouldn't read it, huh? Jesus.
What a typical Park Slope Parents reaction, to respond with outrage to the fact that someone has a different opinion than you. No, it doesn't "hurt" me that the list exists, and yes, I still skim through it because once in a while amid the self-obsessed whining and over-sharing, there is a tidbit of useful information. -
Kensingtonmom wrote: [quote=Anonymous]I personally dislike that site because my application to join was peppered with condescention before being rejected. At the time we were long without children but still trying, and PSP's "well, no kids, no dice" approach (flavored with plenty of phrases like "i'm sure you understand") underscored for me it's self-satisfied elitism.
The point of the boards is a PARENTS BOARD--if you aren't a parent why did you want to join??? and why did you get pissed to be rejected? They are trying to screen out SPAM. I don't really see how that aspect is obnoxious. Why would you want to be reading about pediatricians and teething pain without kids yet?? It is boring until you are in the thick of it.
That said, good luck to them. They are, of course, free to be any kind of club they'd like to be. But drumming up sympathy for their troubles would be a stretch.
We're lucky: we're expecting. But i'd no sooner look for advice from the shills on that site than get it from random people on the street.
Good luck with your pregnancy
hey, you're in kensington -- maybe you should be excluded too, not being in park slope and all -
Kensingtonmom wrote: [quote=Anonymous]I personally dislike that site because my application to join was peppered with condescention before being rejected. At the time we were long without children but still trying, and PSP's "well, no kids, no dice" approach (flavored with plenty of phrases like "i'm sure you understand") underscored for me it's self-satisfied elitism.
The point of the boards is a PARENTS BOARD--if you aren't a parent why did you want to join??? and why did you get pissed to be rejected? They are trying to screen out SPAM. I don't really see how that aspect is obnoxious. Why would you want to be reading about pediatricians and teething pain without kids yet?? It is boring until you are in the thick of it.
That said, good luck to them. They are, of course, free to be any kind of club they'd like to be. But drumming up sympathy for their troubles would be a stretch.
We're lucky: we're expecting. But i'd no sooner look for advice from the shills on that site than get it from random people on the street.
Good luck with your pregnancy
Um, call me crazy, but if they were trying to get pregnant it's not at all unreasonable to understand that they might want to be able to talk to other parents in the area and get tips for when they DID have a kid, which would be fairly soon. Jeez. I'm not even trying, but I expect to have them someday in the relatively near future, like a couple of years, and I think reading about pediatricians and teething pains is interesting! I just file the info away in my brain under "good to know for the future."
:roll: -
Kensingtonmom wrote: [quote=Anonymous]I personally dislike that site because my application to join was peppered with condescention before being rejected. At the time we were long without children but still trying, and PSP's "well, no kids, no dice" approach (flavored with plenty of phrases like "i'm sure you understand") underscored for me it's self-satisfied elitism.
The point of the boards is a PARENTS BOARD--if you aren't a parent why did you want to join??? and why did you get pissed to be rejected? They are trying to screen out SPAM. I don't really see how that aspect is obnoxious. Why would you want to be reading about pediatricians and teething pain without kids yet?? It is boring until you are in the thick of it.
That said, good luck to them. They are, of course, free to be any kind of club they'd like to be. But drumming up sympathy for their troubles would be a stretch.
We're lucky: we're expecting. But i'd no sooner look for advice from the shills on that site than get it from random people on the street.
Good luck with your pregnancy
After careful analysis, I have come to the conclusion that Kensingtonmom is the devil. :evil:
and not in a good way. -
pitu wrote:
I'm just glad this board isn't filled with hostile hyperbole like that nasty PSP.
After careful analysis, I have come to the conclusion that Kensingtonmom is the devil. :evil:
and not in a good way. -
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so rude but I really do understand that the PSP board needs to screen out SPAM and reporters. There have been a few articles written by various writers taking people's postings off the board--with and without permission. It is not an anonymous board like this one so there are both privacy issues and also people are held accountable for being hostile or obnoxious. I know the PSP board can be really way too much at times but it is a resource of information. And the moderators volunteer their time and were probably just trying to make sure it stays a parent board. I mean, hey, a lot of you are trying to have adult only sidewalks and adult only restaurants and adult only grocery stores so I think we parents should have some places without being scrutinized and judged.
The Devil -
Kensingtonmom wrote: Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so rude but I really do understand that the PSP board needs to screen out SPAM and reporters. There have been a few articles written by various writers taking people's postings off the board--with and without permission. It is not an anonymous board like this one so there are both privacy issues and also people are held accountable for being hostile or obnoxious. I know the PSP board can be really way too much at times but it is a resource of information. And the moderators volunteer their time and were probably just trying to make sure it stays a parent board. I mean, hey, a lot of you are trying to have adult only sidewalks and adult only restaurants and adult only grocery stores so I think we parents should have some places without being scrutinized and judged.
There you go, kmom, no need to go after the lady trying to get pregnant (getting pregnant! congratulations anonymous pre-mom)
The Devil -
The Devil (Kensingtonmom) wrote: I mean, hey, a lot of you are trying to have adult only sidewalks and adult only restaurants and adult only grocery stores so I think we parents should have some places without being scrutinized and judged.
I think most of us just want common courtesy only sidewalks and grocery stores, and adults and children old enough to behave in a restaurant only restaurants. -
Kensingtonmom wrote: It is not an anonymous board like this one
This is only an "anonymous board" insofar as people like you choose to make it one. -
still nobody's said what this is about. what kind of local business would sue a parents' chat group? even if it is periodically annoying so some.
-
EmilyM wrote: [quote=Kensingtonmom]It is not an anonymous board like this one
This is only an "anonymous board" insofar as people like you choose to make it one.
Uh, I think that was her point. At PSP, you have to to register a screenname. Here you can opt not to. Since that's dailyheights chose to offer that option, I don't see how that's such a sinister act on the part of "people like [her]."
Maybe I haven't been reading this board enough, but jeez, did kensingtonmom kill somebody's dog or something? -
linusvanpelt wrote: Maybe I haven't been reading this board enough, but jeez, did kensingtonmom kill somebody's dog or something?
Yes. His name was Captain Nibbles and he was my bestest friend.
-
daveb wrote: [quote=linusvanpelt]Maybe I haven't been reading this board enough, but jeez, did kensingtonmom kill somebody's dog or something?
Yes. His name was Captain Nibbles and he was my bestest friend.
No but I have two children and have to use a double stroller which apparently puts me in the class of evil pariah on this board. I also defend the right of parents to exist in Brooklyn (and act as politely as anyone else in Brooklyn should act) and use the streets and stores. Oops I do think I am wasting my time though -
linusvanpelt wrote: Maybe I haven't been reading this board enough, but jeez, did kensingtonmom kill somebody's dog or something?
No, it's just that she only ever seems to show up to take umbrage at things other people say; she, and a number of other users, hang around without seeming to want to participate fully.
My point about the "anonymous board" is about the character of it. You can either have a board where you force people to register or you can have a board where you frequently and politely request that people register, for the sake of etiquette. If people ignore that and take advantage of the ability to post anonymously, they shouldn't be the ones saying that the quality of the board is somehow not up to snuff, like somehow the entire board is contaminated by the anonymous posting and the helpful comments of hundreds of registered users don't count. It's odd to say that she thinks people aren't being "held accountable for being hostile or obnoxious" when (a) many users are and (b) I find her comments consistently hostile in light of only participating in the argumentative threads rather than the site as a whole. -
EmilyM wrote: [quote=linusvanpelt]Maybe I haven't been reading this board enough, but jeez, did kensingtonmom kill somebody's dog or something?
No, it's just that she only ever seems to show up to take umbrage at things other people say; she, and a number of other users, hang around without seeming to want to participate fully.
My point about the "anonymous board" is about the character of it. You can either have a board where you force people to register or you can have a board where you frequently and politely request that people register, for the sake of etiquette. If people ignore that and take advantage of the ability to post anonymously, they shouldn't be the ones saying that the quality of the board is somehow not up to snuff, like somehow the entire board is contaminated by the anonymous posting and the helpful comments of hundreds of registered users don't count. It's odd to say that she thinks people aren't being "held accountable for being hostile or obnoxious" when (a) many users are and (b) I find her comments consistently hostile in light of only participating in the argumentative threads rather than the site as a whole.
What is the difference if I register as EmilyM, Pitu or Kensingtonmom? It is all anonymous? Although you see my comments as consistently hostile, I see myself as defensive and tend to jump in to defend parents. I am too busy to participate fully. I jumped in on the thread about how rude double strollers are (not sure how parents are supposed to lug two children under the age of 3 around) and this one which started out with SOME dishing about the PSP board. My voice is not meant to be hostile because I don't agree with a percentage of the board but to defend normal parents trying to get through the week. But people love to attack my posts. If you are the moderator and don't want the alternative viewpoint, you can ask me to leave and I will. -
Most people who register give websites and other profile information about themselves, which is nice. But what's required to register is an email address. And that gives people a way to contact each other privately, which is the best way of resolving differences. Registering is a gesture of good faith.
-
Subject: park slope parents
face it- park slope parents are obnoxious, privileged yuppies who don't give a rat's ass if their precious tow-head is screaming and running while you're trying to hang out. The mom's are viciously judgmental and dress strangely similar to their three year old daughters. It's creepy. Isn't it time to buy that place in Maplewood? -
Kensingtonmom wrote: No but I have two children and have to use a double stroller which apparently puts me in the class of evil pariah on this board. I also defend the right of parents to exist in Brooklyn (and act as politely as anyone else in Brooklyn should act) and use the streets and stores. Oops I do think I am wasting my time though
It's not your defense of "the rights of parents to exist" in Brooklyn that pisses people off. It's your defense of the most obnoxious sort of selfish entitled Park Slope parent behavior (i.e. not removing screaming children from restaurants and movies, playing "chicken" with their SUV-type strollers, and not thanking people who hold doors for them). -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=Kensingtonmom]No but I have two children and have to use a double stroller which apparently puts me in the class of evil pariah on this board. I also defend the right of parents to exist in Brooklyn (and act as politely as anyone else in Brooklyn should act) and use the streets and stores. Oops I do think I am wasting my time though
It's not your defense of "the rights of parents to exist" in Brooklyn that pisses people off. It's your defense of the most obnoxious sort of selfish entitled Park Slope parent behavior (i.e. not removing screaming children from restaurants and movies, playing "chicken" with their SUV-type strollers, and not thanking people who hold doors for them).
I don't believe that is true. When have I ever defended obnoxious parenting? I can't stand people who think their children own the world but I think there have been quite a few posters who lump all parents who live in Park Slope into one category. I don't particularly care for a certain high octane parenting and left the slope for that and financial reasons. If kids are "normal" and not spoiled there will be times you cannot control a toddlers melt down. It is part of their development phase and you do your best to get them away as soon as possible. But why can't parents and non-parents co-exist? I listen to many of you on cell phones and don't glare with disgust. Non-parents have to understand that there is a degree of difficulty navigating in the city with two kids and cut us some slack.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds