Back to the drawing board, doofus. BB tried the same maneuver less than a month ago. And, frankly, given your less than even vapid contributions to Blogcritics, you are in no position to complain about other members.

Don't we all know it RJ.

BB has already said it for us.

this is pathetic people, as josh pointed out, this has been discussed already. and even the need for that discussion i question.

don't you realize how this crap makes blogcritics look?

there is this thing called email, go discuss your differences there. this site is no place for personal attacks. it makes the place look bad.

If any story ever deserved to be deleted, it might just be this one. Next time you get the inkling to do a post like this, go listen to an album you have never listened to before. Write a review of said album. Go post it in the music section. It will serve as a reminder of the primary function of this website.

The vitriolic nature of some of the converstations going around in here recently are part of the reasons that I don't post nearly as much any more. Being called a racist, bigot, Aryan Nation type really starts to wear thin on you.

And I agree this post does not deserve line time. It makes Blogcritics look petty.

Mac Diva, Mac Diva, the Cat Woman of Blogcritics. She's fiery and loveable. My only question is.....

...does she do black flips and wear a black leather suit?

Did you mean "Back Flips"?

My apologies. That's what I get for being a smart ass....

Sheesh. How embarrassing. (Is there such thing as a digital Pacifier? 'Cause somethin' about this sucks.)

I vote for "TAKE IT TO E-MAIL!"

Oh, wait, I don't get a vote?

Nevermind.

I guess I don't even understand where this is coming from. It feels like a very delayed reflexive reaction to things that happened weeks ago.

Dirtgrain had an excellent post about taking offense:

I prefer this simple definition that I also found on the Rutgers site: "verbal assault is the verbal threat of physical harm." That leaves out psychosocial abuse and hurt feelings, but despite the research about hurt feelings, I don't feel people should be punished for using language that may be construed as offensive--it's too much a relative concept. What offends one, may not offend another. So we intervene only when the language is clearly threatening physical action. As for people who seek out a certain person repeatedly to force some offensive language on them, I think anti-stalking laws would apply.

....The First Amendment requires a certain minimal toughness of citizens. It is understandable that speech would be 'chilled' if people felt they risked arrest every time they opened their mouths. However, when people claim they have been 'chilled' by the speech of others, simply because it conflicts with their views or casts them in a bad light, they are only saying they are cowards and would like to live in a world where everyone agrees with them.

If I have a vote it is to keep posts like this from ever being posted. What a waste of valuable resources.

Also, Mac has just as much right to post as anyone, and when she is not feeling particularly "fiesty" she has some amazingly intelligent and interesting things to say.

As for the inter-fighting: we can all make an effort to keep our comments and posts relevant and move back towards being a really fine group blog.

Dawn, while I do agree that Mac Diva has often made good points, your vote to stop posts such as this one is just as bad as this one you are trying to stop. RJ has as much right as anyone to post; the fact that his ideas may be irrelevant or not very intelligent is beside the point.

As for inter-fighting, I haven't seen a single person here who hasn't made pretty below-the-belt personal attacks on people, insulting people's literacy or intelligence mostly. That includes everyone.

What valuable resources are being wasted by this post?

Eric, there is a difference between not agreeing with someone and personally attacking them. It's "I don't agree and here's why" versus "I don't agree, how could you believe that you narrow-minded racist idiot, and here's why."

For instance, read the blog on Poll: Greatest Guitarist of All Time. A certain Anthony G didn't just disagree with people, he posted under many, many names, including other peoples', and in general screwed the whole place up. That is what is not acceptable.

I agree that is totally unacceptable. I have said anyone commenting under someone else's name will be banned. If he made p a bunch of different names, that is stupid and unhelpful, but we can't kick people off for pseudonyms, that's half the comments. But using someone else's name is completely forbidden.

After coming into this room a month ago, I discovered (thanks to Shark, and a few others) that I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground. The arguments and the comments are great fun, and I've learned a lot in the last month. New books, new ideas, new films, new authors, different opinions. It's as fascinating as one wishes it to be. I was slammed by Mac Diva after my very first post, and it was a blast. She, and many others in here will keep you on your toes. It's a lot of fun if you allow it to be.....

Taking things personal just ruins this room for everyone else....

Thanks Chris, an excellent perspective and we are very happy to have you here.

Instead of shooting the messenger we should be focussing on the perpetrators of the crime. If Eric won't do anything then it is up to we Blogcritics to police ourselves and we should not be surprised with posts like this.

Let's be honest, there are mean spirited bloggers around here that intentionally instigate verbal altercations. Until the matter is fixed I predict there will be even more similar posts and good blogcritics will be leaving.

If y'all are so concerned with professionalism, then pray tell what is more professional - posts that bring to the fore these problems or comments such as this? If anybody finds this sort of stuff entertaining then I suggest there is something very (very) wrong.

As much as anybody I want to see this group succeed but in order to do that there has to be some guidelines that will put a stop to degenerate commentators.

What I learn from experiences like this is that people who can't do things love to complain about people who can. It is something I've observed all my life. I think most people with talent at anything have too. I've never made any kind of attack on RJ Elliott. I barely know he exists. Same for BB until he started following me from thread to thread harassing me. Feel free to read all 29 of RJ Elliott's entries by clicking on the list of entries above. You will see a complete absence of anything worth reading. So, he is not someone I've paid much attention to. It follows that he would be the sort to attack someone who can do what he can't. The vanity of the incompetent, one could call it.

Not that I believe the likes of RJ and BB are really behind these assailings. They are too inept and clumsy. For example, whoever coordinates this knows when Eric is less likely to be around and has his underlings put up the threads then. He or they keeps a low profile while the attacks are occurring. Furthermore, the person(s) has been at BC long enough to know he can get away with being more of an abuser than a contributor, which would get him ejected from other sites. My email tells me some Blogcritics know who the puppet master(s) is. Others will figure it out, as well. Just think about it.

To MD: Please consider the possibility that the single common factor in all your dysfunctional relationships is you!

To all else: If we haven't banned MD by now, why do you think that would change? I'm neither going to boot MD nor scratch out this post. I think her comments and your post speak for themselves. If people can't make up their own minds about people based on their posts and comments here, I don't know what else to say.

You could always try pretending you don't see her posts and see if that makes you feel better.

Welcome to the wild west!

P.S. I have been following the post Red referenced for a while, and I did ban "Anthony" today for a deliberate attempt to crash the site, as well as an extensive history of posing as other existing people.

Given the above I must be the first to congratulate Mac. This is the first comment that she has referenced me without making a defamatory comment. If that is the shape of things to come then perhaps posts like this are proving their worth.

I must however correct one point. You can believe me when I say that I have much better things to do than follow you around dear. Please however be so kind as to allow this humble blogger to disagree with you upon occasion. :-)

Keep up the good work and I look forward to further constructive discussions with you.

One further matter that is of extreme importance. A warning. You may think this is the wild west but eventually the hanging judge arrived to bring law and order. If things do not settle down, (and as people start taking blogging more seriously), somebody will get pissed enough to call a lawyer and then the shite will hit the fan. As the publishing mechanism, unless BC takes steps to curb the abuse it may find itself in the unfortunate position of being a party to the proceedings. Take heed and remember where you heard it first because trust me when I say that it can (and will) happen.

(Snickering.) Not unless BB intends to sue himself. It is telling that he does not have the gray matter to realize he created the most abusive thread ever put up at Blogcritics.

There is a solution to this dilemma. The dimmer members of BC can set up a group blog of their own. There they can post pabulum to their hearts' content. There will be no bright participants to cause them to feel threatened. Since dimness and bigotry often go hand in hand, they can hold forth as much as they like with racism, misogny and anti-gay railing. If only they were smart enough to do it. . . .

OK, we've now officially entered The Twilight Zone...

*cues theme*

Chris Kent, that was a very nice thing to say. I must add that reading the variety of opinions on BC has been rewarding to me also, including yours.

Some of these folks really know their stuff, and it's rare when one can participate in a discussion (live or digital) and actually learn something.

That, btw, is an unsolicited testimony to Eric et al.


Anyway, I think it's obvious to anyone who reads BC for a day or two that this MacDiva is really stark raving mad, starved for attention, has a massive inferiority complex, and nothing is ever going to change her. NOTHING. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Her state of mind is so obvious that it sort of becomes funny if one can step back and take a few deep breaths when she does her thing.

My suggestion is the age-old, universal one you've heard before:

Ignore (which is probably the worst thing that can happen to her)
or
fight back (especially w/humor and/or a lack of the kind of epithets she is so famous for.

My two cents. And I leave you with a quote from Phil, my new hero:

To MD: Please consider the possibility that the single common factor in all your dysfunctional relationships is you!

~Bingo.

Sigh!

Now there's the Mac Diva we all know and love (notice the tongue on my cheek). Need anymore be said people?

Pushing for round 2 are we Mac? Confucious says those who "snicker" now eat crow later. Here's some pablum for ya. You reap what you sow. So read and weep. If you can't take it then don't dish it out.

Gee I could trade witticisms with you all day but I have more important matters. Unlike some I actually have a job, a life and responsibilities.

Will someone please make a post about me in ETC... I want to be criticized. I mean this is Blogcritics... Which means to criticize people who blog, right?

PLEASE MAKE A POST ALL ABOUT ME AND HOW EVIL, STUPID, AND CHEESY I AM!

I NEED SOME ATTENTION TOO!!!

I have decided from this day forward, I am only going to write blogs about other bloggers. This blog by RJ has received so many comments I'm jealous!

Coming soon:
Controversy surrounds Ms. Tek's Halftime Performance!

Passion of the Mac Diva receives rave reviews!

and of course....

Anthony: Not Worth Defending!

Okay, Ms. Tek, try this:

Ms. Tek, you are an evil whore. I despise all of your racist tendencies and I hope you burn in hell. And didn't you mention studying German at one point? Nazi, I suspect. There was something about being a security guard, as well, and about the Girl Scouts. Gestapo? Hitler Jugend? And all this talk about cheese? Limburger, no doubt--Hitler's favorite. Take your Nazi crap and shove it up your ass. . . arse, you bloody Chamberlain-style Hitler kiss-up.

Overall, I value the contributions and comments of Mac Diva. Yes, some get annoyed with MD's labeling of others as racist, but I have been surprised a few times at how right she was. On the entry "'Lucifer's Hammer' takes no prisoners," MD pointed out all this stuff about Jerry Pournelle and his racist background. At first, I thought to myself, "Please, not again, MD. Surely this time you have gone overboard." But she was right. MD was also right about that racist dude whom Al referenced (and later invited) to a Blogcritics discussion. That was valuable information to have, and we wouldn't have had it without Mac Diva.

But MD may have gone overboard at times. There are varying degrees of racism--although I don't condone any of them. The definition of what is racist may vary from person to person. Furthermore, some people may not realize that something that they have said is racist. Someone who thinks that affirmative action is bad is not necessarily a racist, and they for sure shouldn't be grouped with scum like David Duke for holding that belief. It's not always productive to label someone a racist, anyway. It would be more productive in most cases to put a racist label on a person's claim as opposed to putting it on that person. All of a Blogcritic's claims and arguments should not be discredited because he or she made a racist or seemingly racist remark at one time. Obviously, a person can be wrong on one issue and right on many others. However, in the case of Al's buddy, I think we can label him as a racist and disregard all that he has to say--I don't particularly want to hear from him again (Am I being inconsistent here? I suppose I could still have a discussion with such a person. But his comments made me want to puke).

There is plenty of labeling and name calling at Blogcritics. I try to avoid this unless I'm trying to be funny and I think that the recipient will laugh at it (e.g., "Al, you ignorant slut," which, now that I think about it, is an asinine cliche (maybe that just sums up my sense of humor)). I slip up sometimes, too--labeling someone as stupid instead of labeling his or her argument as stupid. But let's try to use reason over labeling and name calling. Argue the facts logically--don't attack character (unless character is the point of discussion).

I am appalled that some people have the audacity to defend the Mac because she is capable of making the occasional pseudo-intelligent remark. Or they find some sort of perverse comic relief from her vile rants. I'm personally leaning towards what CW has said and it all boils down to these choices:

a) Ignoring her has unfortunately proven NOT to work;

b) We can let her continue to defame and flame anybody that chooses her fancy, and everybody will lose;

c) We can leave Blogcritics (which some have already done);

d) We can fight back and join the fray (which I have personally done and not proud of);

e) We can create a policy to prevent trash-talk;

e) Or, sooner or later there will be a lawsuit.

Unfortunately when you fight back there are those who would say poor Mac Diva. Shame on you for picking on her. To quote the Shark, "psycho" Diva is "stark raving mad" and to those who like her antics I recommend intense counselling.

We have already lost Blogcritics such as Chris Arabia et al, and we may now lose CW Fisher. CW has more intelligence and writing talent in one pinky than Mac could ever hope for and is worth a thousand MD's. If that is the cost Blogcritics is willing to pay for her then y'all deserve each other.

Diva's got me: I am the puppet master. [comment 18] BB, RJ, Shark- all my minions. I say "jump" and Shark asks "How high and over what, master?"

I fax them their marching orders (QUICK, SHE'S ONTO US! GET THE DIVA BEFORE SHE BLOWS THE LID OFF OUR RACIST PLOT!), and off they go. Take that, Diva!

I am SO sure that she is getting private emails from Blogcritics discussing who is really behind The Conspiracy Against Mac Diva.

Or should I say the Confederacy of Dunces against Mac Diva. She's like our own angry black chick version of Ignatius J Reilly leading her own special Crusade for Moorish Dignity.

Perhaps she's getting emails from some of her various pseudonymous blogs, emailing herself confirmation of her suspicions of the nefarious right wing plots against her brave, lonely civil rights crusade.

Meanwhile, she's been unfairly fired from her job as a hot dog vendor for Atrios, and is skating on thin ice here at Olsen's Levy Blog plant.

With Eric cast as Levy, I'm having visions of Dawn screaming, "Leave the board out of this!" or perhaps in light of her Gibson posts "Leave the Jews out of this!"

Looks like we're going to have to cast an all-Blogcritics version of the Confederacy. Hey, it'll be more productive (or at least more amusing) than anything else we're accomplishing with this thread. Either Eric's going to dump Diva, or she'll keep being Diva.

I'm definitely thinking Tekwh0re for Lana Lee.

BB definitely has the inside track to be poor beleaguered Patrolman Mancuso.

I'm thinking of a guest role for commenter DV Precht as Mrs Reilly's pinko-hating boyfriend, giving her pamphlets like "Is your child a communist?" In this case, of course, it would be "Is your child a racist?"

Here are a few roles that we need cast from amongst us - any suggestions:

Mrs Reilly
Santa Battaglia
Dorian Greene
Myrna Minkoff (I assume we'll need a guy)

Most critically though, we badly need to cast a Miss Trixie.

But what role for ol' Al? If Diva gets to be Ignatius, then I get to be Jones. I'm telling you, she's going to blow up this Night O' Joy like a nucular bum.

BB, your anguished pleas for elimination of Ignatius Diva's malicious and disruptive behavior only encourage her. I suggest you spend your efforts instead looking for a Miss Trixie to take the fall.

Other than that, we can only wait for the inevitable lawsuit to set the plot in motion.

Funny stuff Al. I enjoy a good laugh as much as anybody, and God forbid your favorite source of inspiration might disappear. But has it not occurred to you that humour at her expense also encourages the fray? You have already demonstrated time and again that doesn't work. Unless there is a BC policy, the legal option is the only one remaining on the table. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong. I dare ya. :-)

Well, Ignatius Diva goes nutsy if you joke about her. She goes nuts if you seriously criticize her. She goes nuts if you ignore her. Hell, she goes nuts if you agree with. She goes nuts if you praise her.

You might deduce from this that it doesn't really make any difference what I say. It's purely a question of Eric's tolerance of her. We're not going to vote her off the island, nor shame her into honesty and decency.

At least I'm having a good time.

"We're not going to vote her off the island..."

I already voted but the producer vetoed me.

" nor shame her into honesty and decency."

I'm with ya there so carry on and have a good one.

I agree with Dirtgrain on the Lucifer's Hammer post, and I wrote the damn thing. She made some fascinating comments on the author, about a book I picked up at a used book store on a lark. I am still glad I wrote the blog, and loved the comments she directed at me. It was fascinating, and I learned a lot. I still stand by the blog, and did not even remotely write it as a way to promote racism. I wrote it because I knew it would provoke comment and argument. The book took an unusually politically incorrect stance that would have never been written today. And it caused me to wonder, if society took a step backward, as it did in Lucifer's Hammer, would culture regress as well? Mac Diva took a stance, blasted me out of the water, and made some valid, fascinating points. I took no offense and enjoyed the discussion.....

i would just like to point out that if you really feel that strongly about someone, for example MD, then stop taking the bait. Every single time. You get into an argument or debate or discussion ro whatever with her, and as soon as insults start flying then go and post something pointless like this article. Whilst a little playground spirit can be amusing to those of us who mostly watch from the sidelines, taking up yet more article space on Blogcritics with posts like this seems too counter-productive. Read the top-left of the page:

Blog: contraction of "web log," i.e., personal journalism web site.
+ Critics: those who discuss and evaluate cultural artifacts.
= Blogcritics.org: News and reviews of popular culture by over 250 superior bloggers.

This isn't news or a review or even a comment on anything related.

AL: "...Shark asks "How high and over what, master?"

MD creates some strange bedfellows.

But then again, Al's so far right that he comes around to the left, and I'm so far left, that I end up on the right.

So we meet in the middle where we both take potshots at gentle and not-so-gentle facists and hypocrites--- where the only thing that's important is how well one can withstand artillery attacks while sharing a foxhole.

Al doesn't cry.

And I've never been known to suffer 'battle fatigue'.

So we get along--- except that he hogs the covers and tends to fart when he means to hit the "Post" button.

My name is bandied about here like a goat's head in Afghanistan. The point isn't that such-and-such a person has, or has not, been kicked out or reprimanded with a cat-o'-nine-tails. The point is that NO ONE has, and to create such a precedent would be UNPRECEDENTED.

This isn't an incremental thing, this would change the entire nature of the site. I think a much more realistic image of my role is not that of "owner," but that of groundskeeper and plurality contributor. I think I have much more impact as the largest contributor than I do as editor or as "owner." I'd be happy to never "edit" anything, but people make mistakes and there is no one else but me to correct them, something I would rather not have to do.

I am a participant, not a referee, and I am very wary of being forced into that (referee) role. Think of the differences: participants are inside and equal, and even if I am the "most equal of equals," that is still very different from referee, whose role is not participant, but supervisor of the participants.

Two other things: no one is going to sue us. We have been threatened by unhappy people numerous times and my response is always the same: I am sorry you are unhappy but you have no grounds to sue so fucking get over it.

The only thing anyone could be sued for would be the knowing, willful publication of false accusations with the intent to harm. That's damn hard to prove. And remember, an opinion is just an opinion - you can't be sued for an opinion. No one is going to be sued.

Lastly, the threat of people leaving has no substance either. There are 430 members. We've added over 30 in the last month. People come and go as active participants all the time. There have never been more than 150 active (posted a story within the last month) members at any given time anyway. People are going to come and go as they see fit and there is nothing anyone can do about it, so it follows that it is pointless to worry about it.

I hear dark rumblings all the time that so-and-so hasn't posted since whenever for this or that reason. My reaction: "Hmm that's too bad." Fortunately 150 OTHER people have posted in the last month so I can't get too worked up about it. There are as many motivations for joining and posting to Blogcritics as there are members. There is no way to meet the demands of 430 people or to keep them all happy, so all I can do is steer a middle course of minimal intrusion and hope for the best. So far so good.

And to the people who have chosen to leave for whatever reason: in the words of the Waterboys, "give them my love and a bang on the ear." I miss them, but not that much.

On a lighter note, Eric, don't you think it's about time you came clean with us about your day job?

Can we please get back to talking about Ms. Tek's Super Bowl half time performance?

PS-Mr. O: big ups for helping to defend the country and all that.

Who is this, "Mac Diva?" The posts in this thread make the person out to be some kind of demented soul without a single saving grace. Surely this "Mac Diva" must have some good in them, beyond some comments written about "Lucifer's Hammer," whatever that is. Is "Mac Diva" vegetable, animal or mineral? Or none of the above?

Sorry Eric but I must respectfully disagree and quite frankly I'm more than a little put off with your nonchalant attitude.

"The only thing anyone could be sued for would be the knowing, willful publication of false accusations with the intent to harm."

If that isn't a description of Mac's defamatory and spurious venim attacks then pray tell what is??? CALLING ME A RACIST AND A BIGOT! That is malicious and I challenge you or anybody else to prove her claims. You may attempt to brush it off all you like but the fact remains SHE FITS YOUR DESCRIPTION ABOVE AS WELL AS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE LAW OF DEFAMATION. And with all due respect Eric since when did you become an expert in the law amongst all your other talents?

Eric, it wouldn't take much effort to CREATE A POLICY that would put a stop to the abuse around here. Take a little responsibility, but it's all a matter of the will isn't it? It's your little corner of the wild west. To hell with people's feelings or if reputations are ruined. As long as the readership is up and some people get a perverse kick out it.

Clearly you're not up to the challenge and that is you prerogative, so let the chips fall where they may and let's see what happens. In the mean time however I require that you REMOVE THE DEFAMATORY COMMENT SHE MADE HERE. Next time I may not be so accommodating.

Sorry Eric if that sounds a little strong but believe me when I say that is nothing compared to what will happen if my predictions should become a reality. I harbour no ill will but I get more than a little fed up when I see a serious matter like this taken so lightly. Mac Diva is a dark menace around here and I know there is a silent majority that agrees with me.

BTW, whatever happened to browngirl, or Chris, or...? But then again who the hell cares? So PLEASE do me a favour and tell me you don't care if I leave either and I will be history. Go ahead and poke a little fun at my expense. At least you got Mac Diva.

She is a fine and active contributor who may or may not occasionally rub one or more others the wrong way.

BB, respectfully... um, STFU.

You and RJ are bein' little titty babies.

This ain't a playground, you ain't five years old, Eric is not the teacher, you can't call Mommy, your big brother graduated last year and is currently busy with girls and cars and frankly hopes somebody whacks yer ass so he gets exclusive rights to what little inheritance your gypsy parents leave behind when they hang themselves because they realize they gave birth to a monumental titty-baby who needs to sit down and shut up---or strap on a "My Little Pony" dress up outfit from Sears while the rest of us rustle up some hot branding irons marked "Tattle-Tale" and plant them on your sorry but smooth hairless little ass.

'kay?

'kay.

I am calling for Sharks removal from the site. (in a whiny voice) EEEEERRRRIIIICCCC... I don't like what Shark is saying. Make him stop it.

Seriously do you see what you guys are saying? Sticks and stones. I'm rubber and you are glue. All you ever needed to know you learned in 3rd grade or something.

Now everybody shut up and refer to my previous comment which said...

"Next time you get the inkling to do a post like this, go listen to an album you have never listened to before. Write a review of said album. Go post it in the music section. It will serve as a reminder of the primary function of this website."

My, my. What diverse opinions people have on this subject! My original post was clearly worthwhile, judging just from the response it is getting.

Eric, despite his overly-modest comments to the contrary, is the owner/decision-maker of this Web site. And he has made his decision: There are to be no standards of behavior for BCs (or at least no enforcement mechanism). As I previously stated, I respect his decision. I was hoping to get this issue clarified, and I have manged to do so with this post.

To those who disagree with this decision, and would like to cause Eric to change his tune, my advice is this: Turn the comments section into an endless flame-war by responding to unprovoked personal attacks with vigor. Ignoring and/or attempting to reason with such people apparently will not have the desired effect; perhaps wallowing in the muck and slime with them will.

We DO have a policy: be civil, we just don't have any particular way to enforce it. What could we do other than delete comments (and I guess posts) or kick people out, which a near-unamimous majority of members have rejected. What else is there besides peer pressure?

RJ, um, I didn't wanna have to do this, but I think the time has come:

Over the last 24 hours, ALL 150 active members of BC have been meeting privately via email; we took a vote (the first and last in BC history) and it was unanimous:

We're coming to kick yer friggin' ass in person.

Eric's drivin'--- and he knows where you live.

SHARK:

See, that's the type of inane comment that does not bother me (or any other normal person for that matter). It's obviously just a lame attempt at humor, and though personally directed at me, does not accuse me of any "thought crimes" nor does it defame my character.

An example of a response to such a comment that would arguably "cross the line" would be:

---
I just KNEW that Shark and all his skinhead pals would show their neo-Nazi, pro-violence side sooner or later. People like you have always used threats and intimidation to silence those who speak simple humanistic truths. Why do you and your hateful ilk seek to silence me? I am being persecuted by a bunch of Brown-shirts, and the world is watching your actions in horror. People like you probably beat your girlfriends with leather straps when she burns the dinner. You all deserve to be sent to Gitmo.
---

Can you detect the difference in tone between your comment (perfectly acceptable) and my example response (shrill, libelous, and filled with hate)?

RJ: "Can you detect the difference in tone between your comment (perfectly acceptable) and my example...(shrill, libelous, and filled with hate)?"

RJ, a close examination of the above statement offers you THE solution:

Respond with lame, mocking, sardonic humor.

Or you can call me. (I charge $30 an hour.)



PS: gotta run; I have to iron my lederhosen---and the cross-burning can't start without me!

RJ, you got nuttin' on me, babe!

March 8, 10:35 PM. MacDiva: "...For example, anything that a psycho, misogynist and racist like Shark would produce...

Psycho, misogynist, racist: ~A HAT TRICK!!!

...and the night is still young!

Eric's at least close to right about there being little basis for actual libel suits based on even most of Diva's worst comments. Short version, "racist" doesn't mean anything, other than that she doesn't like you. Diva and her ilk have debased the word so far that it means nothing. It's about the same as being called an "asshole." It's just namecalling, not any real accusation.

Similarly, comment 49 wouldn't be libelous either. It would be hateful and unwarranted, but you're not quite accusing Shark of any specific thing. You didn't say that he was, say, a card carrying member of a specific group, or that he had specifically attacked Joe Smith with a baseball bat on January 5. You say that he "is" a misogynist, etc. What does that even mean?

Diva has, however, made a number of specific LIES about statements of fact. She has absolutely made statements here, put quote marks around them, and attached my name. Now THAT crosses a line with statements of fact.

When the person on the other end of one of THOSE decides to hit back, then we'll be needing a Miss Trixie to take the fall.

Which brings me back to the neglected issue: who are we going to cast in the Blogcritics CoD as Miss Trixie?

Great stuff, as always.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that Ms. Diva has apparently "left the building" due to the fact that this comment section has not yet deteriorated into the labeling of others as "racists" or "bigots" and therefore she is a little out of her depth?

Eric, I'm perfectly cool with your present policy. After all, I post here at your pleasure. I just hope you don't alter your policy, should I decide to start posting in a more "un-PC" manner...

RJ, your slimy "my, my" sounds like serial killer John Doe from the movie "Se7en:"

Yes, that's Blogcritics.org's head in the box. My, my, you all seem so mad and flustered. Whatever should you do?

RJ? What, you're going to muck up Blogcritics and turn this into a lowly chatroom--the type where creeps hook up with twelve-year-old boys? My, my, it sounds like the true revolutionary spirit. Go register your "tree-jumping" self with the internet police and knock on every Blogcritic's door to confess your creepy nature. Lorena-Bobbit your own pen and castrate your own ink wells. Leave the rest of us alone.

Just an aside: would yall quit usin' my name in such close proximity to the word "Nazi"? Kinda gives me the creeps.

Thanks in advance,
Derr Haifisch

Ignoring works for trolls, who have the goal of inciting a riot. No response = no riot. The troll leaves.

Ignoring does not work for those who view others as their tacit supporters, their "silent-majority" followers. No response = "You all agree with me and I'm right!" In such a case, the person in question will likely only become more interested in continuing to spew hate, because there is no opposition to their bile.

Confrontation is the only way to deter such people.

As John F. Kerry might say, "Bring it on!"

RJ: "Ignoring works for trolls, who have the goal of inciting a riot."

Well, son, whether it's 'trolls' or 'those who view others as their tacit supporters'-- In the words of one of my immortal ancestors:

"One Riot, One Ranger."

~Hiyo, Shark, AWAY! (dust scatters as he spurs his keyboard and heads for the new "Confederate Flag" entry by MacDevil.)

A Mac Diva primer for Uncle Tom (comment #41) and any other outsider who wanders into this little group therapy session:

You was aksing about the Diva, and what the deal is with her. As the prime target of her foolishness, I have developed something of a special fondness for her strange love. In her own backwards way, she's my #1 cheerleader. She certainly ascribes me some extraordinary evil powers, speculating that I may have caused "psychological damage to thousands." Wow. I got JUICE!

If you want to get an idea of what the deal is, for Diva 101, I recommend this column of mine with all the comments in the thread, currently the 9th most commented on article ever on Blogcritics. It's a little thing called "Our Happy Hate Crimes :)" Dig it HERE.

Also, you may likewise be interested in the one main case where nearly everyone else actually AGREED with her that I was the asshole. They're ALL WRONG and BIG DOO-DOO HEADS of course, but check out the the Bad Eagle Massacre HERE and my response HERE.

Interestingly, it was just after the Bad Eagle Massacre, her obvious high point of acceptance and support, that Diva just went absolutely her most nutsy. She can't seem to process love and encouragement. Apparently they give her indigestion.

You won't get so much of the Diva Experience from her proper posts, but you can dig in further if you wish by looking through the posts on which she has comments, which is where she's doing her main disruption. Find them HERE

Oh, yes. She also has her own blog. Actually, she apparently has SEVERAL pseudonymous blogs. Actually, all of them are pseudonymous, but she has at least several different ones cross referencing and citing each other. Oy.

Well, that should give you all the Diva that any soon to be formerly sane person could possibly want.

Al, can I play?

Unlike her every other post, you forgot to mention she's a journalist, writer, lawyer, African-American, Native-American, female defender against all forms of racism and bigotry---which btw, she happens to see everywhere except the most obvious, which is in her own mind, but self-examination is not her strength--- and that she has millions of friends, fans, and admirers who constantly ask her to "blog" her latest opinions on everything from violence in hip-hop to the current state of the economic situtation of poor southern whites--- which she usually does by paraphrasing a journalist and/or stating the obvious in the most convoluted, self-consiously pseudo-scholarly, faux intellectual language that her vast and varied education provides.

Oh, and she can copy, cut, and paste like a Edward Scissorhands on crack.

In the interest of fairness, I'm a psycho, misogynist racist.

Hope that helps.

Oh, and she can copy, cut, and paste like a Edward Scissorhands on crack.

While I am not jumping into this argument, when a line makes me laugh, I must acknowledge it. Hilarious!

Shark, you make a pretty good analysis of the Mac Diva public personae. I'm avoiding saying stuff like that as much as possible because I want to play nice.

While we are all giving one another handjobs here in the foxhole, let me take the opportunity to say a couple of words on your behalf:

Among several things, the main thing I like about you is your relentless honesty. You may have some pinko tendencies, but you have demonstrated repeatedly that you value honesty over ideology. I suspect that is a lot of what you mean by your invocation of "integrity."

Very often, people decide what they believe, and proceed to greater or lesser degrees to bend all data to support their pre-ordained conclusion, or to deny relevant data, or just make crap up.

I'm usually busting on liberals for this, as they are often in our current social context the least intellectually disciplined and most blatant offenders. This type of behavior certainly is not limited to liberals, however, or just to political ideology. People who take their identity from being a Christian do it, or conservatives, believers in alternative medicine, alien visitation, or Islam. Even my libertarians do it. Then, of course, there is the Diva.

You on the other hand, Shark, seem to make a continuing conscious effort to actually consider facts on the ground in front of you. You are careful not to insist that black is white and day is night just because it fits your political agenda.

It generally feels like one is having a dialogue with you, hearing and being heard, rather than that you are searching your talking points to refute any statement that does not support your pre-determined position.

Thanks, Al, and now you've sealed my doom among the other BCers.

I have to admit, at the heart of it all, I'm pretty ambivalent about everything except personal integrity. (I've lost more than one career by sticking to my guns on that issue.)

I realize that the view from 'here' is always right --- and the view from 'there' is always wrong. And worst of all, each view is equally valid from the beholder's angle.

I can argue either side in any debate (without guilt), but I usually pick the underdog just 'cause that's more fun --- and switching Belief Systems (BS) is a great way to learn (as long as one keeps The *Skeptic Overseer in charge of the whole wild bunch).

Life is complex. People are complex. Issues are complex.

And like Whitman, I contain multitudes. ~And I was born in June.


* I was reading RA Wilson when you were in diapers!!

Yeah, but have you ever MET Mr Wilson? I actually got to spend a little time with him at a linguistics conference in, I think, 1996.

In managing the voices in my head, I often find RAW and Ayn Rand on opposite shoulders. You can decide for yourself which one represents the "devil" position. A lot of times questions come down to whether something is actual objective reality- which certainly exists independent of mere opinion- versus RAW's radical skepticism based on our ability to ferret that out past the limits of our biology and mammalian psychology.

In any case, I imagine that my endorsement does you about as much good as the Democrats will get from word that Kim Jung Il's North Korean media has been gushing praise on John Kerry. Sorry about that.

Al, I'm extremely jealous.


re: Kim Jung Ils endorsement of Kerry -

Ouch.

Man, that's almost as bad giving President Musharraf a big wet kiss after he and his boy Khan admitted to selling nukes to half the nut-bars in the world.

neener. neener.

They're apparently running Kerry's speeches on North Korean television.

The situation in Pakistan is rough. What exactly are we SUPPOSED to do there, though? Best I can tell, Musharaff himself is doing what he can for us since 9/11, but he's doing good to just not get killed himself.

Perhaps the Diva could sort it all out for us.

Maybe Kim Chong-il is deliberately trying to sabotage Kerry's campaign so he can have four more years of unfettered weapons development. Getting nuclear weapons to market might be just the economic boost he needs to stay solvent.

If Bush has traded a slight public slap on the wrist of Musharraf for ACCESS to the Pakistani region where bin Laden is holed up, that's not a bad move.

(And I'm pretty sure he did, because they keep saying they're going to get him this spring.)

But a day after bin Laden is killed or captured, we should go ahead and drop the *big one on all of Pakistan.

*parachute MacDiva in with a bullhorn and a thermos of strong coffee.

But a day after bin Laden is killed or captured, we should go ahead and drop the big one on all of Pakistan.

Not that I'm really endorsing this policy, but why do ourselves what India will gladly do for us?

JR: "Not that I'm really endorsing this policy, but why do ourselves what India will gladly do for us?"

India refuses to have anything to do with MacDiva. They said they've got their own untouchables.


~bada-bing!

LOL @ Posts #67 & #69...

"...naming names under the circumstances was uneccesary. I think you could say everything you say, including the links, without appearing to so blatantly attack the individuals you do."
- Eric Olsen, April 15, '05

Umm, I'm curious about the inconsistency of your policy, considering the precedent was already set here when R.J. (Bobby) Elliott actually "named names" in the TITLE of this post; in addition to his a history of personal attacks...for example, Elliott was once permiited to comment "Kerry voters are fucking communists"...

I wasn't aware of this one. This was a different post from the one I was talking about in the Yahoo group.

Sorry for the inside baseball feel of this dear non-BC readers

This is more what I was aiming for, particularly the bolded parts:

Comment 3 posted by Ken Edwards on March 7, 2004 06:44 AM:

this is pathetic people, as josh pointed out, this has been discussed already. and even the need for that discussion i question.

don't you realize how this crap makes blogcritics look? there is this thing called email, go discuss your differences there. this site is no place for personal attacks. it makes the place look bad.

Comment 4 posted by Craig Lyndall on March 7, 2004 09:53 AM:

If any story ever deserved to be deleted, it might just be this one. Next time you get the inkling to do a post like this, go listen to an album you have never listened to before. Write a review of said album. Go post it in the music section. It will serve as a reminder of the primary function of this

This is a different kind of post from the one Shark posted today. This one is asking for a vote to kick a BC out of the group. Shark's post was a [creative and on-target] rant about the kinds of posts some folks have been putting up lately -- and it's also a rant directed at those people. He's not asking for any official BC action to be taken. He could have written it without naming names, of course, but he did quote from one of the posts he was referring to, so a name does seem appropriate.

I see Shark's post as a meta-BC post -- commentary on the commentary -- whereas this one by RJ was BC "business" related. A long history of personal battles preceded it. This might have even been the post that finally got the Yahoo group going so we'd have a place to hash out internal BC stuff.