"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