Shelly,
I couldn't agree with you more.
I know that for many of you this is a
"business", either because you are sellers,
restorers, or because you collect as
investors. However, collecting movie
memorabilia or simply having an interest in it
is still essentially a hobby, something meant
for ENJOYMENT. How can anyone wonder at the
declining interest in this hobby when the people
participating can be constantly surly and
negative not to mention nasty and downright mean toward one another.
If owning a poster from a much loved film is a
way to bring back delightful memories of a fun
and entertaining experience, it only takes a
couple of months reading some of these bitter
disputes to erase any pleasantness you might associate with any of it.
Gordon
---- Shelly Whitworth-King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Andrea and all
>
> I'd prefer not to speak about another group here and I'm sure this will
> force a groan from many, but all those B-Style members who hadn't posted /
> contributed to B-Style in the last few months
were removed as members. They
> were given the chance to renew membership, if they fancied it.
>
> It was not person specifc, in case you thought it was .. honestly.
>
> I don't think one person should ever be the reason you leave a group as it
> is a 'group'.
>
> I'm quite saddened by this.
>
> Shelly
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Freedom Lover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Freedom Lover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
> Subject: Re: [MOPO] This does not go
unanswered -- long out of necessity,
> I'm afraid
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:29:17 -0400
>
> I don't blame you, J.R. When reading your post and re-reading hers, it's
> clear you were not to blame.
>
> Susan is the reason I left style-b. Actually, I just stopped the emails
> like you're doing here. She recently
booted me off. I received two emails
> the same day, one right after the other. The first said something about
> needing to post or renewing...I didn't bother
reading, quite frankly. When
> I realized who was behind it, I automatically deleted it. The other said I
> was booted off. Quite a relief!
>
> I couldn't care less. Personally, I want nothing to do with her. Scott
> suggested I simply delete or ignore her messages; which I shall do.
>
> But truly,imo, Scott should have tossed her. IMO, she's just seeking
> attention and I find that pathetic.
>
> I don't think Susan has it in her to abide by the rules. We should have a
> bet to see how long she can make it!
>
> I'll bet she can't resist pounding me now. I won't know though, because
> anything from her will never again make it to my eyes.
>
> As my grandmother would have said, "Feh!"
>
> Andrea
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: JR
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:29 AM
> Subject: [MOPO] This does not go
unanswered -- long out of necessity, I'm
> afraid
>
>
> 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
>
>
> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
> Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
> The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
>
> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
>
> Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
>
> The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!
> http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb
>
> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
>
> Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
>
> The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.