Blogcritics Comments on Claims of racism as phony as front group

Comment by Dolby

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:36:56 EST

"I asked the Eric Olsen not to participate on this thread because I wanted to have an intelligent discussion about free speech and civil rights." Lol I want to have a discussion on free speech, so don't you dare make any comments! Priceless

Comment by TDavid

Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:58:22 EST

Just read through this entire thread which I, like Al, also missed. Wow, and to think this all breaks out around Thanksgiving time? We're supposed to be enjoying turkey and family, not word dueling fellow BC members. It's always unfortunate losing a major participant to a site and whatever anybody thinks of MD, she was exactly that: a major contributor and participant. Even if said person was a thorn in the side of several people (including myself at times). Eric tried to be tolerant because of MD's often excellent writing output. From what I've seen/experienced firsthand it was MD's commenting style (labelling people racists, in particular, with little supporting evidence) that mostly got her into trouble with others and I predicted (accurately now it seems) that sooner or later this would be her undoing at this site. I've seen other folks in other communities with similar character makeups and their fate was sealed in similar fashion. Eventually people like this push the wrong buttons at the wrong time with the wrong people and the value of their participation does not outweigh the annoyance factor of keeping them around. And a linkback in exchange for free access to review material and plenty of exposure is the right, fair thing to do for any Blogcritic. MD could have put an asterisk next to the link with a link to an detailed blog entry saying whatever she wanted about this site and the people who contribute here, but I think she still had to link it if that was the rule if she wanted to be able to contribute like the rest of us. One thing I'll miss about MD was she was rarely boring. Yeah, she beat the racism drum way too much, but she always seemed to find creative and often maddening ways to blend that into a conversation. She was a spark for this website, perhaps an attractive nuisance to many, but I'm sure at some point even Eric will miss that aspect of her presence at BC. Despite the venom which MD more often than not displayed for me, as a fellow human being I do wish her well in her next online community experience and hope that she'll learn to treat other human beings a bit more like she'd like to be treated. Just because somebody is online doesn't mean they don't have feelings and 90% of the nasty things she wrote to others here I seriously doubt she would have ever said to them in person. Keyboard warriors [sigh].

Comment by Claire

Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:21:41 EST

Wow, what an interesting thread, and what a blog, which I would rip to threads except I feel that it has already been done by my betters. I must say that I agree with Eric. I guess I am a closet fascist :D. (and I am NOT an ass-kisser to head that off because I agree or disagree based on what I think) I'm not going to address the intra-site arguments because 1) I am too new and 2) I don't know enough about them, and you have to be nice to me in my semi post surgical state. While some things are, indeed subjective, some things are prima facia, bullshit. Those who are able to look at issues from different persectives can make their own judgments when tripe is served. Those who cannot, and whose actions are clearly belligerence without an AK47, need to recognize it. Claire

Comment by Shark

Sat, 4 Dec 2004 12:43:10 EST

BOOEY: "Shark, I know you like to view yourself as some sort of anti-rational artsy guy, but your antipathy to logic makes you useless in this discussion (as with the election as well), as your comments illustrate. I appreciate your strong emotions, but you don't have a clear view of this issue and you lack perspective." Two points, Booey baby: 1) I believe Logic is highly overrated. 2) My main "perspective" on MacDiva is drawn from the fact that within days of my first Blogcritics 'confrontation' with her, she was trying to identify me, 'investigating' my background, and began a correspondence with a BC participant she believed to be a 'private detective' -- in order to find out personal information about me. In a MacDiva email (which was forwarded to me from the alleged private dick (sic)), she also implied that I had threatened her and would possibly make good on those threats. The "court records" threat made against Eric is yet another explicit example of her vindictive psychosis. re: her banning - it's about friggnin' time, and only occurred because Eric finally got a taste of what I had experienced since FEB 04. ======= re: "Do you really want to be in a position where you're agreeing with the likes of RJ and Al Barger? Perhaps that alone should make you re-examine your position." For someone who worships the eternally elusive "logic", that's pretty fuckin' stupid and illogical. I've been known to agree on occassion with Big Al and RJ, which is evidence that I don't let dogma get in the way of my artsy analysis. PS: Booey, everything is relative and subjective; when you grow up, you might learn that. xxoo Shark PS: This 'old man' can still kick yer grad-student wannabee ass, whether physically or conceptually. It's just that I'm *more discriminating than you when it comes to 'picking my battles'. *yet another sign of maturity, babe. Heh.

Comment by RJ

Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:49:05 EST

"I among others made numerous efforts to reach out to her personally." I did, via e-mail. Numerous times. No response. She didn't want friends. She didn't want peace. She didn't want mutual understanding. She wanted to be banned, much like a serial killer wants to be caught after he begins sending letters with clues to his crimes to the local newspaper.

Comment by RJ

Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:35:28 EST

"One thing that I just will never understand is why MacDiva -- who values her privacy enough to remain anonymous -- would take advantage of the fact that someone else has used his/her real name." Uh...because she never believed in playing fair?

Comment by Al Barger

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:23:54 EST

Most all of us are the walking wounded, trying in thousands of ways to nurse, compensate for or overcome psychic injuries of abuse, humiliation and abandonment. These are just parts of the human condition, along with physical suffering and death. I freely admit to being one of the walking wounded, psychically but also at this point in a bluntly literal physical way. I just spent most of two weeks in a couple of hospitals with a nasty bacterial infection that required surgery on my leg. I'm very thankful to be hobbling around painfully, leaning heavily on my walking staff. For a day or so, I really thought this was it for me. Thus I've been away from Blogcritics for a couple of weeks, missing the curtain call of our infamous Mac Diva. Eric Olsen did some unfortunate but necessary surgery to remove the poisonous presence of Mac Diva. Indeed, it turns out that this was the same day as my surgery. Granted, it may appear less than charitable to liken her to the poisons that put me out on my back, but she was clearly an intentionally malicious presence hurting the site. She dedicated a fair amount of her energies to trying to destroy the reputations of individual members, and of the site in general, an "outhouse" as she recently described it. Still, "poison" is but an analogy, and no one has suffered practical bodily harm, so perhaps we can take these slights somewhat in stride. Indeed, look behind the rage just a half inch, and you can see her struggling with her own demons. When she's tilting at windmills of racism and oppression, they're obviously very real to her. When she made up vile racist quotes and attached my name to them, I did not appreciate this in the least. Yet in retrospect, these sentiments seem to be what she managed to hear in the dark echo chambers of her own mind. At some point, I can't take them personally. She wrote a lot of hurtful, mean and untrue things here about many people at Blogcritics. Yet, it would behoove us not to take these things personally. Looking behind her frequent nonsensensical claims that I'm supposedly the Grand Yahoo Wizard of the KKK, I can sense the underlying shame that she's lashing out against. Think of this in term of Valentine Michael Smith's epiphany at the zoo in Stranger in a Strange Land. A big monkey horribly beats a random smaller monkey, leaving him chattering in helpless rage and humiliation. Moments later, he responds by finding an even smaller monkey to beat and humiliate. Still, I much prefer her combative nature to other people's whining victimhood. As JB said, I can dig scrappin'. And with Diva, there was certainly no back stabbing. She'll come at you head on. Consider this shame also as the basis for her obviously delusional and grandiose claims of multiple careers as a journalist, professor, lawyer and civil rights leader. Heck, she was about half an inch from claiming to be an Indian chief at one point. These claims remind me very strongly of Ignatius J Reilly's secret life as a novelist, screenwriter and philosopher. Particularly, she puts me in mind of his efforts as the organizer of a Crusade for Moorish Dignity, which he planned on leading with a banner printed on one of his stained bedsheets. One could ridicule these self-delusions. Recognizing our common human conditions however, I can see how one could say that I was only a step or two removed from this with my own recent quixotic campaign for US Senate. Perhaps I live in a somewhat glassy house on this count. I can also empathize with her feelings of being left out, of being rejected as part of the gang. I note the hurt feelings inherent in her recent revelations of the apparently scandalous fact that I sometimes chat on the phone with Eric. Still, this isolation is self-imposed. Long ago, I tempted fate by sending her my home phone number. I among others made numerous efforts to reach out to her personally. She just wasn't having it. Doubtless, she saw these gestures as some kind of tricks. In the end, she left us. Despite Eric Olsen's support and seemingly infinite patience, she eventually decided to do whatever it took to get him to kick her out of the family. It was the blog equivalent of suicide by cop. Alright then, go in peace sister. Let's conclude with the words of Tom Petty that I once invoked to her in email Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have Kicked you around some Who knows, maybe you were kidnapped, Tied-up, taken away, and held for ransom Honey, it don't really matter to me Baby, everybody's had to fight to be free You see, you don't have to live like a refugee

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:01:40 EST

Aaman, I can understand it too and empathize, and that is part why I feel bad about the whole thing, and feel that my inability, or unwillingness, as a manager to get through to her is a failure on my part. I would rather have her voice than not all things being equal, but they unfortunately became very unequal and I didn't handle that very well. I don't think the reviews are down, there have been fewer posts overall due to the Thanksgiving holiday week, but I think we have come out of that by now.

Comment by Aaman

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:55:07 EST

Jawohl! Mein Fuhrer (I joke, I joke - my joke is working - Hit the choppers!) Seriously though, Eric, coming as I do, from a majority community in one country to be a minority in another, I can sense a glimmer of what it means for people who have experienced whatever MD did to make her the way she is - that being said, there are modes of expression, and no form permits uncivil behavior. Is it just me, or is the volume of new reviews decreased in the last week or so?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:47:08 EST

BAB, I absolutely and freely admit that ultimately this situation is about practicality: as the negatives pile up higher and higher into the sky, there IS a point, there HAS to be a point where a line is drawn and I as administrator/steward of this entire unwieldy operation have to cut my losses. Having one person be so disruptive, no negative, and so contemptuous of the very few rules we DO have simply was no longer worth the time, effort or pain. I freely admit I lost my temper, which is something I do periodically and am not proud of, and I freely admit I no longer protected her as assiduously as I once did as the negativity toward the site and me personally mounted. What is the chicken and what is the egg? I don't know, but members of ANY organization have to make some minimal efforts to fit within the broad parameters that make that organization tenable, and she simply, flat-out refused to do so. Would I kick anyone else out for not linking to Blogcritics? If I specifically, unambiguously and personally asked them to do so no less than five separate times - absolutely I would. And if that same person was BY FAR, by light years, by quanta, the most active and prevalent violator of another key rule, the comment policy, AND that same person threatened to somehow use my court records against me, AND that same person daily and with increasing venom, expressed utter contempt for me and for the site? I believe the question answers itself. It became absolutely essential for the practical continued operation of the site that I take very forceful action. If there is another course of action I could take, I am all ears to hear it. I will state here without ambiguity that if she apologized, linked to the site, and promised to follow the rules, I would be happy to reinstate her. BUT these HAVE ALWAYS been the issues of contention - had she done these things she would still be a member. I will now also identify the elephant in the room: the entire tone of the site, and especially the comments, has been different, and by different I mean vastly improved, for the last week. Is this coincidental? Um, no, I don't think it is. Not only are the specific bilious, spiteful, dismissive statements of the individual in question not being released into the atmosphere, but magically everyone else has suddenly decided to improve their tone as well. I feel bad that a basic bond of accomodation has been broken, that a certain idealistic innocence has been lost, that our great experiment CANNOT accomodate absolutely everyone. But I also know that the site is greater and more important - from an idealistic as well as practical standpoint - than any single individual, including me, and I will do what I have to for the benefit of the site, and have done so.

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 05:10:41 EST

Shark: make an analogy to the War on Iraq and ex post facto justifications (democracy : no Blogcritics link) after initial justifications (WMD : used Olsen's name) fall through for us. Do you really want to be in a position where you're agreeing with the likes of RJ and Al Barger? Perhaps that alone should make you re-examine your position.

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 05:07:19 EST

Shark: zip it before I break your hip, old man. In all honesty, though, yet another person I generally agree with who disappoints me in their inability to stick up for people they personally disagree with. Shark, I know you like to view yourself as some sort of anti-rational artsy guy, but your antipathy to logic makes you useless in this discussion (as with the election as well), as your comments illustrate. I appreciate your strong emotions, but you don't have a clear view of this issue and you lack perspective. I didn't read any responses anyone wrote before Al's hate-fest was taken down (another mistake), so if you said anything there, repeat it here. Again, all the women and the voices of moderation disagree with what's happened and why. Consider that next time you want to tout the diversity of participation on a site like this. Al: where ya at, big guy? Let's hear what ya have to say. Phillip and Olsen went out of their way to be nice and protect you from your own nonsense -- see how censorship works upon the "malignant" aspects of free speech? Analyze that for us, Senator. Olsen: everyone thinks the court records comment was out of line. I was the first to say so and I still think that was below the belt. But I'm also beginning to think it was beneath you to pathologize MacDiva and further exclude her through your insinuation that she's insane simply because her manner of speech and politics went against the grain for the site. You've been good in pointing out that it was beneath me to engage in those sort of disputes with her when I first started comenting. I'll return the favor for you and suggest that she felt (perhaps incorrectly) that she had no choice but to insult you after the way people's conversations with her degenerated so rapidly and so horribly all at once. In terms of "rules," we've established that the only clear rule broken where MacDiva was the lone offender in this situation was no link to Blogcritics on her page. The reason that rule was enforced, ultimately, was a subjective determination of her attitude and personal dispute with Olsen. I can't say for sure that I think any other member would have been banned for not having a link, but I don't have time to read any of your blogs, so I wouldn't know. And I think we've also established that this isn't about objective rules and equal principles anymore. Honestly now, that's probably all I have to say unless someone says something brilliant or provocative. That is all.

Comment by bhw

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:13:39 EST

And it doesn't matter who the "target" was. If that type of personal targeting is allowed, I think a lot of BCs would be gone, myself included. One thing that I just will never understand is why MacDiva -- who values her privacy enough to remain anonymous -- would take advantage of the fact that someone else has used his/her real name.

Comment by Aaman

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:05:10 EST

It's not just unacceptable, it's uncivil, un-gentlemanly(if one can use that term with a lady), and just not cricket.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:57:03 EST

I find it peculiar anyone would comment without reading the entire thread, where the specific violations were listed at least twice. I have no idea, nor do I care, what the "unsubstantiated accusation" is or isn't - the point is that digging around in anyone's court records, apparently for potential dirt to be used as some kind of threat, is completely unacceptable behavior and was the final straw. I am astonished to hear anyone thinks otherwise.

Comment by MCH

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:21:55 EST

What I perceive as more troubling than Mac Diva's actual mention of Olsen's "Ohio court records" was his REACTION to the legal reference...he banned her, which did not jive his previous warning of "Do not EVER use my name in a post or comment..." I find this a peculiar response to an unsubsantiated accusation.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:22:33 EST

Chris, thanks for the kind words and as someone who has seen my sometimes unacceptably bad temper doubly humbling - I apologize for that. Peter, again, the support is appreciated but I would like to point out that we did our very best to put off making any rules for as long as we could: it was the group as a whole that demanded we try to create a more civil environment, and the cold realities of the Internet that caused making reciprocal links from members mandatory. And yes, this conflict became very personal, and that aspect of it troubles me probably more than any other, but any situation like this requires at least a modicum of good will on both sides and I had long since stopped seeing any of that, and I do mean "any." In retrospect there really does seem to be a concerted effort to force my hand.

Comment by Shark

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:02:52 EST

Oh jees, I go on a news/info diet -- and I miss the real-time banning of The Evil One!? Damn. Now where will I go when I need a dose of psychotic abuse from a deluded lawyer-journalist-sociopath? Anyway, gotta run; I'm heading out to get a bottle of Champagne and *join Mother Teresa's helpers in India. *It's a promise I made to God after my umteenth confrontation with the apparently un-banable MacDiva. PS: Booey. Shut up. xxoo Shark

Comment by Peter Duncan

Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:15:36 EST

He who pays the bills, gets to make the rules. Go Eric! you da man!

Comment by Chris Kent

Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:50:53 EST

lol....... Man oh man, I see very little has changed in here. Eric does a great job at holding things together. It's easy to think he is the villain when we are made fools of or insulted in some way and he does not come to our rescue. It's misguided to think he's the villain and it should be inexcusable to have done any kind of a background check on him. That's just plain fucked up......

Comment by andy marsh

Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:42:42 EST

You're absolutely right HW.

Comment by HW Saxton

Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:14:55 EST

Andy Marsh, That would be "accept" not "except". That's all. No big deal.

Comment by andy marsh

Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:12:01 EST

Hey, she doesn't except apologies, she's surely not going to give one!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:03:20 EST

RJ was kicked out - he asked to be reinstated after apologizing to all involved - he was reinstated after two weeks. This was all unprecedented. If anyone was removed from membership and responded similarly, in good faith, I would be inclined to respond similarly. What I don't really understand is why someone who has expressed this level of contempt, disregard, lack of respect, and just plain dislike for the site and those who run it, would want to be involved anyway. If this hostility was overstated or if there were to be a change of heart then that would be different, wouldn't it? But I have received no information whatsoever that would point me in this direction.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:03:43 EST

Is the crime to express contempt? Is it OK to feel it silently? I am outraged to hear that Mr. Elliott was given permission to violate his punishment. I will not say that I find that news worthy of contempt.