|
To those who care to read it, I'm sorry for the
length of this post, but I need to set the record straight before
departing:
Recently, in a 24-hour period, Susan Olson
sent 5 separate public messages to this list in which she violated the
long-standing rule of no personal attacks. In each of those messages she
personally attacked me with foul-mouthed, abusive language and accused me
of things which are outright lies. I held off answering those attacks because I
didn't think it would be a healthy thing for this list to fight with her on MOPO
(and because I would have had to violate the personal attack rule if I did).
Instead, I left it up to Scott Burns, the moderator of this list, to deal with
this blatant violation of his rules. I thought this would be the
appropriate thing to do.
Scott has now made it clear to me that he will not
take any action against Susan for violating his rules so egregiously...
over and over again... in message after message. I do not understand Scott's
decision and am disappointed in it. But since he
won't intervene, I believe I have a right to defend myself and respond
to Susan's blatant lies and will now do so, since Scott has left me no
choice in the matter. Those of you who have no interest in any of this should
skip what follows and read the last paragraph of this message. This is for the
record. Since I am left which no alternative but to answer in public Susan's
very public lies about me, here goes:
I did not "attack Susan first" as she claims. The
facts: A few days ago Susan sent her very first message to MOPO
since rejoining the group after a 2 1/2 year absence. She left back then in a
violent huff, blasting the entire membership of this list as a bunch of
asshole and singling out Scott as a sniveling little weasel on her way out the
door. So, what does Ms. Olson do in her very first message
upon returning to MOPO? She leaps to criticize those people who had
asked if anyone knew what was happening with Frank Santos -- they were worried
about the 53 valuable movie posters they had sent to him after receiving no word
from him for 45 days and after seeing his eBay account tagged with "No longer a
registered member of eBay". She said to Frank:
"these people wont have a triple bypass or need
stints if they don't get theyre posters tomarrow! and if they take theyre
business elsewhere try to view it as a good thing!"
I thought her criticism of these people - who had a
very legitimate concern and were only asking what was going on with
Frank -- was a strange way to re-enter the MOPO community and I said so. I
seems if Susan she has a right to criticize those people for simply
asking about Frank that I have an equal right to question her for doing so.
Yes? Or is Susan Olson the only one allowed to criticize what other people
say on this list? But I guess the deal is that she can complain about us, but we
can't complain about her -- is that the new rule on MOPO? If so, I sorry,
but I didn't get that memo... so I replied to her unwarranted criticism of
those concerned MOPO members with this observation:
"For Susan to pop up like this and offer criticism
of a dozen justifiably-concerned people on one hand while ostensibly
"supporting" someone who didn't do the right thing seems like a funny way to
reenter a community to me.
"Susan, I am a bit disappointed that this is the way you choose to announce
your return to MOPO... seems like you're still willing to fire off an emotional
blast without considering ALL the aspects of a situation, something that
you became known for in the past but which I would have hoped you might have
mellowed out about. Look, it's been years... life is too short -- shorter than
it was a few years ago... so... how about dialing down the purely emotional
reactions and about sheathing the claws? Peace."
Susan claims this was an attack on her. But it was a simple
observation of facts... Or does anyone who knows her going to honestly stand up
on this list and claim that Susan does not sometimes get very emotional in
her posts? What I said above was certainly no worse... was in fact less harsh
and judgmental... than what she had said about those who had merely
asked about the status of their posters. What I clearly and VERY sincerely said
above was express hope that she would have mellowed out over the past
couple of years... that life is too short for this kind of emotionally-charged
leaping-before-one-is-looking kind of thing... and suggested in a friendly
and constructive way that maybe it would be a good idea to "dial down the purely
emotional reactions and sheath the claws" while getting back into the flow on
MOPO. Finally, to make it very clear that I was being sincere and friendly, I
finished my comment to her by saying: "Peace".
Peace. That's a word with a specific meaning, I believe. Not generally open
to misinterpretation.
So, it was no personal attack that I wrote and I would like to know how
anyone reading those words -- exactly as written -- could consider it an
"attack". You people (and Susan herself) have read enough of my writing to know
when I'm being sincere and when I'm being sarcastic. I was clearly being sincere
in this case. That's the tragedy of all this.
But rather that stop and think about the friendly suggestion I had offered,
Susan immediately did the *opposite* and let her emotions run wild and launched
into a vehement attack in reply in her second message to this list:
"JR what ever you says holds no water for me, You have no credibility
with me sir, Mr defender of Eugene Hughes, Joe Deprenda and the Physcopath
Amanda who you tried to get me moderated for after she posted my
private emails and our private fight to Style-B list? You are relentlessly
negative and flip flop like a fucking hooked trout, and unfortunately,
I have let you troll me. I would love you to rejoin Style-B, so that I
would have the pleasure of kicking you ass out for the second time!"
Note how she claimed, while viciously attacking and lying about me,
that I had *made* her do it -- that she what she was writing was all
somehow MY FAULT -- that I had somehow "trolled her" and she had not control
over what she was writing -- that mean old JR has maliciously
*tricked* poor helpless Susan Olson into attacking him (which was the very
last thing that she ever, ever wanted to do... really and truly it
was...). Right.
When she wrote that, I realized nothing I could say would do anything but
fan the flames, so rather than get into it, I simply replied to her:
"Thanks for making my point." (...meaning she had done exactly the opposite
of what I had honestly and constructively suggested might be a good approach to
take while getting her toes wet in MOPO again).
But rather than engage in a fire fight on MOPO, I thought the
appropriate thing to do was let Scott deal with such clear violation
of his rules, so I finished that message with:
"Scott... does this message constitute a clear violation of your guidelines
for no personal attacks on MOPO?"
To which Susan publicly replied with her third message titled "What's
the matter, poor baby!" :
"You started it don't get your panties in a knot and cry for a moderator,
is the moon not in your favour JR"
I believe I have already demonstrated that if anyone started anything,
Susan did with her unwarranted criticism of those who had merely
asked what was happening with Frank Santos. But I did not respond to her
childish cat-call and so she followed up a little bit later with
a fourth public message where she said:
"Personally I am laughing my ass off. this pussy is just
incredible!"
But still, I did not respond and engage her in a shouting match
--which is clearly what she wanted. Frustrated at my unwillingness to play, she
then decides to change her tactics and sends a fifth public message where
she pretends to apologize to Scott and *volunteers* to leave the list for
having disrespected his rules. A few hours later, before Scott could even
reply, she flip-flopped on that and decided to stay after all, due to "public
demand". But check out the content of her so-called apology:
"I apologise Scott for disrespecting your Forum... " OK...she says
she apologizes... but ... in the SAME message just 3 sentences later she
CONTINUES to disrespect Scott's forum by continuing to attack me! Referring to
me as "negative TinfoilCap wearing forces with hidden personal agendas."
She also went on a few sentences later to say of me: ""He reminds me of the Pink
Panthers Kato! too bad its not as funny as it appears on the screen."
I love the logic of this particular message: Apologize to the list owner so
he doesn't kick you off for violating the rule against personal attacks a
full 4 times in 24 hours -- and then CONTINUE with the personal
attacks in the very same message where you apologize for engaging in personal
attacks! Unbelievable.
But you know what? Scott fell for it. Apparently so did quite a few others,
who rushed to her side, begging her to stay. More on this at the end of this
message.
That's the sad history of this completely one-sided flame war where the
only person throwing fire around was Susan Olson. But in the process she told
several lies about me which I thought were so laughable that I didn't need to
defend against them... until I realized that there are now a lot of new people
on MOPO who will not know what I *really* said years ago about Joe DePrenda or
Eugene Hughes and the other stuff she mentioned. So, in self-defense I need
to set the record straight on her specific accusations, least her lies be taken
as truth because of my silence. She claimed I was:
"defender of Eugene Hughes, Joe Deprenda and the Physcopath Amanda who you
tried to get me moderated for after she posted my private emails and
our private fight to Style-B list? You are relentlessly negative and flip flop
like a fucking hooked trout"
1) I *never* defended Joe DePrenda's thieving and fraudulent actions at any
time, anywhere. I defy Susan or anyone else to dig up a message from the MOPO
archive or any other archive that shows I did. Quite the opposite, I condemned
him in no uncertain terms.
2) I *never* defended Eugene Hughes' thieving and fraudulent actions at any
time, anywhere. Same challenge as # 1 above -- find a message of mine where I
defended Eugene Hughes for ripping off people. Again, I condemned him in no
uncertain terms. What I did do was defend someone calling himself "Randy Pillar"
when he was kicked off Style B by Donnie after saying something Susan
didn't like. I thought Donnie's action was uncalled for and said so. That was
the extent of it. Many weeks later it turned out "Randy Pillar" was a
pseudonym Eugene Hughes was hiding behind, but NOBODY knew that at the time
Donnie kicked him off and I protested the action -- not Donnie, or
Susan or me. And all this happened before Eugene did his big flip-out and ripped
off so many people. Oddly, I still maintain that a person should not be
kicked off of a list for saying something Susan Olson doesn't like -- but
apparently I am in the minority in this belief.
3) The Amanda thing happened on Style B. No point in going into the gory
details, besides explaining that Amanda dragged a private-email fight
between herself and Susan into public on Style B and Susan got so upset
about this that she unwisely carried on the fight in public and *escalated* it
in a really major way, saying some of the most virulent and hateful things I
have ever seen anyone say to another person on any list. Donnie suspended Amanda
for fighting, but not Susan. But then Susan *suspended herself* temporarily from
Style B when she calmed down and realized what a frightful mess had been made --
I had nothing to do with that. But is there a theme emerging here I
wonder?
The truth of the matter is that, in a private message to moderator Donnie
Sullivan I wrote to him on Susan's behalf -- and I can quote
this because it is MY OWN private message -- I wrote:
"I completely agree that Susan's outburst was a one-time event and that she
apologized quickly (though not exactly immediately) and "punished" herself into
10-day suspension. I believe in my 1st the post on the subject I
suggested she should be "paroled early".
I have date-and-time-stamped copies of this and other messages on the
subject on file and can prove that's what I did and what I said at the time.
Since they purge the Style B archives of all "off-topic" messages every once in
a while, I may be the only one who actually does have file copies of what was
*really* said and done at the time.
Susan knows full well that I did not try to get her kicked off of Style B.
She knows it, but she chooses to remember it differently and talk about it
differently. Now who's TinFoil Cap agenda is showing?
4) I do not believe anyone could demonstrate statistically that I am
"relentlessly negative", although I do adopt a curmudgeonly persona from time to
time, as much for a lark as anything else, which I believe most people on this
list understand. Sure, I'll say something critical if the situation calls for
it. But I believe the vast bulk of my posts to MOPO over the years have been
positive.
5) I do not "flip flop"... not like a "fucking hooked trout" or
anything else. I consider personal integrity to be a valuable possession -- one
of the few meaningful things a person can truly own for themselves. I have
maintained the integrity of my beliefs and opinions even when it meant getting
people irritated with me... when it meant losing business on MoviePosterBid that
I really could have used... when it meant getting kicked off of Style B for
daring to be a heretic and question the omnipotent wisdom of Donnie Sullivan
or the unsullied beneficence and truth-telling of a certain self-proclaimed
Voodoo Woman. Yes, I *have* changed my mind on occasion, but when I do it is for
a good reason... like when people who claim to be your friends stab you in the
back. I usually change my mind about them being my friends at that point. I pick
up on little clues like that... But usually I change my mind because I have
come across new information that forces me to change my opinion, rather than
ignore the new information and continue to cling to my old opinion. When I
do this, I acknowledge it and explain why I have changed my mind. I believe it
is permissible for someone to change their mind occasionally without being
labeled a fucking flip-flopping hooked flounder? Or did I miss that
memo as well?
THE LAST PARAGRAPH --
Because I am so disappointed in the way Scott has chosen to NOT handle
this situation... and because there seems to be quite a few on this list (at
least the vocal ones, which is what counts on a list after all) who seem to
think I *did* viciously attack poor defenseless innocent Susan for no
reason and therefore deserved every single foul-mouthed, abusive thing she said
to me... well, in light of this I'm thinking... what's the point, then? I've
just spent a weekend fretting about this stupid scenario and 4 hours
of my life that I won't get back writing this attempt to document and
examine rationally what really happened -- but I doubt that it will make any
difference. Rationality doesn't seem to be in vogue this season. So, like, I
have to ask myself: Who needs this? I'm not exactly pulling a Bruce here... for
the time being I will keep my subscription to MOPO... but I will set
it not to receive emails for now. I'll check in at the archives from time to
time to see if any interesting in on-topic conversation is going on. But
I've no interest in the petty personal psycho-babble jive type of discussions
that now seem to be about to infect MOPO... spreading over from Style B and
NS4GE like some kind of touch-feely virus... fostering a
prevailing attitude of "I'm OK... you're OK (so long as you agree with
me)". Nah. Just not my scene. But it seems to be what Scott wants to encourage
and it's his list, so I'll catch y'all on the flip side.
-- JR
|
- [MOPO] This does not go unanswered -- long out ... JR
- Re: [MOPO] This does not go unanswered -- ... Freedom Lover
- Re: [MOPO] This does not go unanswered ... JR
- Re: [MOPO] This does not go unanswe... Sean Linkenback
- Re: [MOPO] This does not go unanswe... Freedom Lover
- Re: [MOPO] This does not go unanswered ... Shelly Whitworth-King
- Re: [MOPO] Voodoo Woman Returns to Gotham -... Richard Halegua Comic Art
