Why Blogcritics? Why not?! - Comments Page 2

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 26 - Hal Pawluk

  Mar 11, 2004 at 10:13 am

  Al: "I'd like for this to be something like a professional quality site"
  
  I second this, too.
  
  But part of that is avoiding personal attacks.
  
  Your points in entry 15 could have been made easily, and better in my opinion, without names of individuals, no matter how much of a hard-on you have for them.
  
  

• 27 - Ms. Tek

  Mar 11, 2004 at 10:16 am

  Diva's obviously the worst of it, but not the only offender. The Tekwh0re does not help with her ridiculous displays of vulgar hostility, for one. "Sweet" might describe her cheesecake web cam photos, but not her frequently hateful, thoughtless, malicious and frankly inferior writing.
  
  It would appear that her ONE thing to write about is how she can't get an IT job to suit her, and it's all that big dumb Bush's fault. That's dumb and boring and self-serving enough the first time she writes it, so I don't know what to call it other than just excruciating whining by the dozenth time. I know I wouldn't hire her to bus tables with her attitude.
  
  Probably a good idea, Al. In your case, I'd do a Color Purple and spit in your lemonade- but only you since I consider you reprehensible. I wouldn't do it to you friend Cheesely. I wouldn't do it to David Duke. I like people who are upfront with their motives... not people who try to slime around them as you do.
  
  See, you lost credibility when you decided to link racists. If you want to call my writing inferior, thats fine. My site hits and other things prove me otherwise. The proof is in the numbers (and other things... *big smile*)
  
  You can attempt to insult me all you want, but you fail to see that it means nothing because of where this is coming from. If my writing is inferior, what does it say about yours since the only way you can attempt to prove a point is link racists?
  
  I make no apologies if you feel I am hostile... I am toward certain people and ideas. I'm a fighter and I am not afraid of saying what I think. If that threatens you... the fact that I find you about as significant as a roach... Mildly annoying, vile, and something to squish... that is your problem, not mine.
  
  But please, continue to follow me around on Blogcritics, and the net like a little lapdog. I do find it ever so amusing. All that yapping and no bite.
  
  You are a small man, Barger. Accept your role.
  
  [Edited not because of anything Ms. Tek said, but she quoted Al Barger while Al Barger was being a jackass]

• 28 - Ms. Tek

  Mar 11, 2004 at 10:19 am

  And as far as "Sweet" and "Tek, Ms. Tek, Tekwh0re, Tekkie, etc..."
  
  Um... I don't think I am very sweet at all. Honest. Yes. Blunt. Yes. Fair. Yes.
  
  But sweet is for little old ladies and fuzzy creatures that don't bite. I may have fuzzy hair, but I do bite. I mean... someone has to! ;)

• 29 - Craig Lyndall

  Mar 11, 2004 at 10:24 am

  I like arguing with you, but you always make it feel personal when we don't agree. That bugs me a bit. I wouldn't call your writing inferior though.

• 30 - Shark

  Mar 11, 2004 at 10:28 am

  There's no doubt that MacDiva is a blight on this site, a cancerous growth that threatens every civil and professional approach and the people who practice them. When I first arrived, it took about two hours to smell her psycho stench, and I'm still amazed at the amount of damage she did and does.
  
  As for the others mentioned (by Al, et al) they're like squeeky ants compared to the lumbering, diseased dinosaur Diva who shits, curses, lies, exaggerates, and manipulates her way through the BC message boards -- unhindered and unaffected by a flood of criticism and outrage from every political angle. Her antics make for some strange bedfellows; just about the entire population of the site unites against her every friggin' few days, but the madness continues unabated.
  
  Frankly, I've never been one for censorship, but this is a commerce, and at some point, one can't allow the dog of one's future and livelihood to be wagged by a stubby little stump of a loud-mouthed psycho.
  
  I'm ready to vote her off the island, because frankly, I'm getting tired of it.
  
  I've got thick skin, but like BB, I don't need a dose of shit with my Wheaties every morning.
  
  Every few days, maybe.
  
  But not every fuckin' time I sign on.
  
  
  

• 31 - Shark

  Mar 11, 2004 at 10:33 am

  And Al,
  
  I agree w/Hal. You made your point and then shot yourself in the foot.
  
  You're quick to point that out in others, but this time, it was your turn to fumble a loaded weapon.
  
  We can all use an editor every now and then.
  
  

• 32 - Ms. Tek

  Mar 11, 2004 at 11:12 am

  Thank you Craig. I have to admit that sometime when you post something, I feel like you are being personal. I don't really have an issue with you however...
  
  Actually, I have an issue with only two people on here and only one of them because they don't really think before casting stones. Not a cardinal sin, to be sure, but it makes me wary of anything they have to say.
  
  As far as if my writing is "inferior". That was just tossed out as a weak attempt to hurt my feelings. Unlike some on here, I don't claim to be a "writer" or a "journalist". I blog from my heart. What I think, what I see, and how I feel about it. To me, that is what a blog is supposed to be about- not a rehash of a news story. I can go directly to the source if I just want the news.
  
  I more want to feel the pulse, if you catch what I mean.
  
  As I said, I take Barger for what he is worth. He made himself look like a right twat on here in a way that there is no coming back. He let slip his hand and I treat him with as much respect as I treat anyone who I consider to be a bad hearted person.
  
  We don't always have to agree. I'm cool with that. If we all agreed, life would be very dull. The thing is that at least be honest at all times. That is my biggest pet peeve. Say whatever, but at least be honest. Yeagley came to my site for a while and was posting in my comments. People wondered why I didn't ban him.
  
  Because I can respect him for at least being upfront about how he feels. He won't call himself outright a racist, but he makes it clear how he feels without pussyfooting around. I don't like his views. I wouldn't invite him to dinner. I wouldn't spit in his lemonade. I wouldn't cry if a car hits him. I also won't go out of my way to shut him up.
  
  Barger on the other hand is slimy. Even though I am a tom-boy, I'm enough of a girlie-girl to wear lipstick, paint my toes, and have an aversion to slime. I don't like people who do the "dance".
  
  Barger can say whatever he likes. Free country. All I have to say is "Consider the source and the background".

• 33 - Al Barger

  Mar 11, 2004 at 12:28 pm

  Again, I do not claim perfection- for all have sinned and fell short of the glory of God. It may be as a matter of judgment that I was a bit more than necessarily personal with Ms Pitt in particular.
  
  Rand have mercy, though, look at this nonsense she's saying about me. Compare and contrast. I'm trying to talk about what she's actually writing here, whereas she's merely going off on a hissy fit.
  
  No, Victoria I was NOT trying to hurt your feelings with my criticism. I know that may be a side effect, but I lack your malicious intent. Sorry, but this is business. You may draw some traffic to your site with the cheesecake pictures, but you are not even trying to write. You as much as say so right in this thread.
  
  Her Yeagley obsession in particular looks stupider and stupider to me. I apparently am a "bad hearted person" and bear some kind of Mark of Cain for having quoted an innocuous paragraph from someone who turned out to have some other moderately ugly comments on his own site. That's perhaps unfortunate, but based on their comparative writings he's not nearly as wicked or hateful as Ms Pitt.
  
  Moreover, she demonstrates right here exactly the kind of nonsense that I'm talking about. She wants to spit in my lemonade, etc. Hell, even Diva doesn't talk like that. And Diva takes criticism better.
  
  I called out particular offenders because I didn't want a vague general bromide. I wanted to be as specific as possible about my concerns. Ms Pitt's comments in this thread demonstrate that I was exactly correct in calling her out by name.
  
  Again, I invite criticism. Please tell me where I'm wrong. I prefer constructive criticism, but a good angry rant is cool as well. I would prefer those kind of things in email rather than displaying dysfunctional and internecine anger in public, though.
  
  Hal and Shark in particular, I encourage you to send me detailed missives on just what parts of my comments you find inappropriate and why. Thanks.

• 34 - Ms. Tek

  Mar 11, 2004 at 12:51 pm

  No, Victoria I was NOT trying to hurt your feelings with my criticism. I know that may be a side effect,
  
  Try harder Barger. You need a refresher on reading comprehension. I don't care what you say about me. As I said, consider the source.
  
  And considering that the last time I posted a new "cheesecake" photo on my site has been over 6 months, I highly doubt that a rehash of my cleavage would keep the masses coming back for months when they can get free , fresh hard core porn any day of the week. Or better yet... just go to cambang.com.
  
  Yes, Barger, I would spit in your lemonade. Maybe take a pee in it too if I could get away with it. I really, really, don't like you as a person. I don't like your style, I don't like what you represent.
  
  You aren't honest, nor genuine. I don't have time for people who pussy foot around.
  
  I'm honest. I don't like you at all Barger.
  
  Get over it. You're a snake.
  
  So please, as I said before... throw some more personal insults my way. I find it terribly amusing that I get to you so.
  

• 35 - Shark

  Mar 11, 2004 at 12:57 pm

  Al, I thought the generalities sufficed to make a very vital point.
  
  The specifics, ie tek's employability, etc.-- were probably not necessary, and might have distracted from your overall message.
  
  But then again, I'm no *saint, so... nevermind.
  
  
  * hey, my basic sentiment was expressed in #9 by CW Fisher.
  
  
  

• 36 - Phillip Winn

  Mar 11, 2004 at 1:21 pm

  Tek - your "milkshake" post was that long ago? ;-)

• 37 - BB

  Mar 11, 2004 at 1:33 pm

  TD, all that I wanted was to present my side of the story and make a graceful exit. I am the writer of the post and exercised my right to use the available software options as I saw fit. I have closed comments before and immediately after making my post I changed the comments option to NONE for reasons already explained.
  
  A moment later the comments were suddenly turned back on and I was locked out (and still am). I sent several nice emails to Eric and Phillip trying to reason with them and they reciprocated by either pleading ignorance or ignoring me (and continue to do so). After receiving a heads-up email from a friend about Eric's comment above, it was then that I realized it was no accidental as claimed by Eric. For me integrity is more important than anything else. That's why I wigged out and the facts speak for itself.
  
  If that is the kind of environment BC is then I don't want to be a part of it. If I hadn't received the heads-up I probably wouldn't have found out because it was not my intention to come back. I am grateful however because I now know for certain the type of people who run BC.
  
  Eric has finally come clean and admitted to altering my settings. The fact is he lied and has now admitted it. He has also taken sides and made it clear that he prefers the Mac Diva's. Eric has contradicted everything that he claimed about his so-called impartiality or non-interference. He is a hypocrite bar none. My post stands on its own merit and I called it bang on. Perhaps they forgot it is my profession to sort out the bullshit from the truth. Big mistake. Case dismissed.
  
  So go ahead and ban my IP address and keep the Mike Larkin's and the Mac Diva's and for all I care. I'm the last guy you want to mess with and if that is the game you want to play I will make it a personal interest to expose BC for what it really is. But if you read my post properly you will see that was precisely what I wanted avoid. Ironic isn't it?
  
  So Eric and Phillip, the both of you owe me an apology. The ball is in your court so play fairly or don't play at all.
  
  Best...

• 38 - Joe

  Mar 11, 2004 at 1:39 pm

  BB-
  I love you, bro, but this is becoming the most tortured, drawn out, least graceful exit I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing. A little dignity, please?

• 39 - Craig Lyndall

  Mar 11, 2004 at 1:42 pm

  "I'm the last guy you want to mess with and if that is the game you want to play I will make it a personal interest to expose BC for what it really is."
  
  I don't want to speak for Eric, but my sentiment is. Expose it dude. Nothing to hide here. I doubt your power is anything to be concerned about anyway. Making up conspiracies is much different than having evidence of something.

• 40 - Phillip Winn

  Mar 11, 2004 at 1:47 pm

  Um, actually, you wanted to present your side of the story without anybody else having a chance to respond. That is not how Blogcritics operates, period. You know this, everybody knows this.
  
  Eric's post says nothing about a deliberate change to the comments on your post, and the goodwill Eric shows to all BC members is no longer afforded to you because you are no longer a member. That's pretty obvious to everybody, right?
  
  Eric takes the side of the contributors to the site over the detractors and quitters, as do I, and the more you natter on, the less favorably I am inclined to view your eruption of juvenile behavior.
  
  I apologize, all right — for treating you as an adult. Your behavior now indicates that you are at about a junior-high level. Your actions have said to me: "I quit, but don't take away my ability to change things!" and "I want to make grandiose public statements without any fear of contradiction! It may not be my site, but it's my right!" And so on.
  
  Your post should be treated the same as any other post on this site, but out of special consideration, we have close the comments, since you claim to have done so before. THat's more than anybody else gets, and since you're an ex-member, it is more than you deserve.
  
  Go ahead and expose me, sir: I've never received a dime for putting up with the most childish bunch of morons I've ever encountered on the web, including you.

• 41 - Craig Lyndall

  Mar 11, 2004 at 2:08 pm

  Watch yourself Phillip. You could end up in the cross-hairs of a personal mission to crush you like a grape. Just be careful, man.

• 42 - Eric Olsen

  Mar 11, 2004 at 2:11 pm

  You tried to force an issue, you failed; you threatened to quit if you didn't get your way, you quit; you demand that your paranoid indictment to be left unanswered, it wasn't; you whine, threaten and impugn more rather than honor your own extended, redundant circumlocution about going your own way and parting on good terms.
  
  And we are supposed to, what?
  
  Fall down dead, close up the site, have a nervous breakdown, shoot anyone who has ever offended you, search and destroy any hint of disagreement or negativity cast in your directon, allow one person to dictate policy against the wishes of 99% of the participants, turn the site over to you?
  
  Now, as the bouncers say to those who linger too long: do anything you want, but don't do it here.

• 43 - TDavid

  Mar 11, 2004 at 2:20 pm

  What's done is done with the past but personally, I would like to cast a vote to block that "turn off the comments" function in MT.
  
  Either comments are on or off across the website, choosing and/or allowing individual posts to not have comments doesn't seem very productive or consistent to me. Also, it sends a mixed message to others (yes/no?): Why did these comments get turned off? Who turned them off? What was so bad? It will sprout conspiracy theories and hatch mistaken ideas about people's motives and intentions that run the site.
  
  The simple, logical, quick fix seems to be just removing that functionality altogether as an option in MT for all but the admins of the site.
  
  Illegal stuff withstanding, which should always be shut down, why ever allow any Blogcritic (myself included) the ability to turn comments off on any one post?
  
  I suppose this might make sense if it was done across the entire category for all writers in that category, but allowing each individual writer to post something and then essentially silence readers?
  
  Other Blogcritics or bloggers can just write up another entry to respond but with the trackback situation such that it isn't bumped unless a new comment comes in, it's a one way linking situation, and the linked response would never show.
  
  I vote for removal.

• 44 - sheri

  Mar 11, 2004 at 2:28 pm

  WHOSEYOURDADDY? :0)

• 45 - BB

  Mar 11, 2004 at 2:36 pm

  In your own words:
  
  "It is certainly possible I changed your "comments none" to "comments open" without giving it a second thought, because that is the norm."
  
  Stop playing word games and call it for what it is, or am I the only one who see's a contradiction with this statement Eric made yesterday?
  
  "I didn't know anything about open or closed comments - ALL posts have open comments, even the few we have closed in the past are quietly reopened later. I didn't open them, maybe they were opened when the post was rebuilt - I don't know."
  
  Hmmmmm, so fellas if that isn't a lie then what the hell is?
  
  And:
  
  "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."
  
  Sorry boys but you can't cop out of this. Your own words in your face.
  
  I'm still waiting for that apology.

• 46 - Craig Lyndall

  Mar 11, 2004 at 2:39 pm

  Hold your breath. Does BB stand for Blue Boy?

• 47 - Ms. Tek

  Mar 11, 2004 at 2:42 pm

  Phillip...
  
  The actual "milkshake" avi was taken last June when I was living in Scotland. It's not new. It's been seen before. It's been floating around for a bit for different reasons.
  
  Now that I had someone really explain what a "milkshake" is, I'm not going to posting a REAL ONE. Only my lovers can see that and since at the moment I have decided to be a born again virgin unless Joachim Pheonix shows up in a priest cassock and a bottle of good Champange.

• 48 - BB

  Mar 11, 2004 at 2:46 pm

  Unlike yourselves, for me this has nothing to do with making a power play. It has everything to integrity and credibility. And at this stage you gentlemen are on thin ice.

• 49 - Eric Olsen

  Mar 11, 2004 at 2:49 pm

  TDavid, you are 100% correct and that function has been removed.
  
  For the last time: I said I didn't advertently turn the comments on or off, but since they WERE turned back on, and Phillip says he didn't do it, it must have been me. I explained in detail how such a thing could happen. We have now removed the option so it will never come up again.

• 50 - sheri

  Mar 11, 2004 at 2:56 pm

  circumlocution -
  1 : the use of an unnecessarily large number of words to express an idea
  2 : evasion in speech .
  
  I have learned today that
  1. most people (like Eric) dont take kindly to being threatened, and
  2.a new word!

• 51 - BB

  Mar 11, 2004 at 3:04 pm

  The jury remains sequestered, and most people don't "take kindly" to being lied to or publicly maligned.

• 52 - sheri

  Mar 11, 2004 at 3:26 pm

  BB, whatever happened here, (and I dont know the whole story cause it would take too much of my time to read back thru everything, you very well may have had cause to become offended)...but you lost what support you had when you started the threats. It's silly. Step back from this, take a deep breath.It isn't worth getting this worked up about.

• 53 - BB

  Mar 11, 2004 at 3:31 pm

  Sheri what "threats" are you talking about?

• 54 - sheri

  Mar 11, 2004 at 3:47 pm

  From comment 37 you said, quote "I'm the last guy you want to mess with and if that is the game you want to play I will make it a personal interest to expose BC for what it really is."
  
  Sheesh, this is just a website.You have let it build up into a matter of much more importance than it really is.
  

• 55 - BB

  Mar 11, 2004 at 4:07 pm

  Ok I see our point. I'm a classic taurus. Slow to anger but when I finally lose it the head goes down and bodies start flying. ;-) I was merely stating the obvious. If it was perceived as a threat then I duly apologize.
  
  However I stand by what I've said and this is a matter of integrity. Regardless if it is just a website, MD made public lies and malicious statements which required a measured response. As usual it all started with her disgusting mouth, and as usual she has disappeared into the ethernet after stirring up the fracas. And it only makes matter worse when Eric supports her. It is beyond all human comprehension.

• 56 - sheri

  Mar 11, 2004 at 4:21 pm

  Ok sweety. And give the rest of us who read these posts, some credit for being able to draw our own conclusions. Just because someone else has accused you of something you are not guilty of, doesnt mean everyone else automaticaly assumes it's true. :0)

• 57 - andy

  Mar 11, 2004 at 4:33 pm

  my motto is, shut the fuck up or get the fuck out.(Sorry for the language Al...I don't know if I qualify for an adult or not).
  
  Eric has given us this site to get our crap read by thousands of people every day.
  
  Play by the rules or don't play at all. If you don't like it, you didn't sign any contracts. No one's keeping you here.
  
  And...if you leave, leave. Don't linger around like a fart in a darkroom.

• 58 - Craig Lyndall

  Mar 11, 2004 at 4:48 pm

  It's not so much that Eric is choosing Mac Diva, as he has chosen against you. That stuff that he said about Mac Diva and her large body of work on the site, (while true), I imagine was just to get to you because you turned into such a monumental dick. In fact he still didn't pick a side. You quit. What are you hoping to accomplish? Just go. You aren't owed anything. You will get no apology.
  
  But seriously thanks for this because if there is one unifying thing for us here at BlogCritics, it is that we don't agree with you and your demands despite how we may feel about the different members of the site.

• 59 - BB

  Mar 11, 2004 at 4:54 pm

  Lyndall, the day that you say something intelligent will be the day that I will respond to you. Today was just your lucky day. I'm not making any demands except for honesty and integrity. Something that is obviously beyond your understanding. Thanks for answering for Eric and Phill. How much are they paying you anyway?

• 60 - Eric Olsen

  Mar 11, 2004 at 7:39 pm

  Thanks as always Craig, you are perceptive.
  
  There is nothing left to reveal, we are an open book, we just don't agree and there is no reason to apologize for not agreeing. No one singled you out, you singled yourself out.
  
  While the words are the writer's and we deeply respect and appreciate the contributions to our collective endeavor, we have certain uniformities that make the site a single site and not a random mish-mash. There aren't many and most are guidelines rather than rules, but one of them is open comments. Comments are integral to the site and the readers (and writers - comments are what give them commonality as Shark, CW and others have noted) expect to be able to make them.
  
  What a coincidence that the only post that anyone wants to close comments on before they even began is the one where he excoriates the site, those who run it, those who choose to continue to participate, and everyone who ever disagreed with him in a digressive screed of departure that apparently hasn't ended yet.

• 61 - Dirtgrain

  Mar 11, 2004 at 7:40 pm

  BB sounds like Rumpelstiltskin after the lady revealed his name. Or if you're a Superfriends fan, how about Mxyzptlk after Superman tricked him into saying his name backwards? Maybe BB is on the verge. Read this out loud, BB: "ekolb golb." Mxyzptlk/Rumpelstiltskin grabs his left foot and rips himself in half. Just when Wayne and Garth think they can rest easy, what's that coming around the corner? The Leprechaun.

• 62 - Phillip Winn

  Mar 11, 2004 at 7:44 pm

  Personally, I think BB is about two comments away from seeing comments re-enabled on that "departing" post he wrote.

• 63 - BB

  Mar 11, 2004 at 8:00 pm

  How 'bout just answering the question and keep the cutsie stuff to yourselves? Obviously none of you get it or perhaps the question is just too complicated for you simple folk? I'll wager y'all are scratching your collective pinheads right now.
  
  It was only a matter time before your true colors came out and thank you Phil (or should I say God) for making my point. Have you banned me yet? :-)

• 64 - Jim Carruthers

  Mar 11, 2004 at 8:25 pm

  I don't know which is worse, BB's hissy fit or the definite mental image that he wears Sansabelt slacks, white loafers, and likes to say "who's your daddy" to hookers. But that just may be me.
  
  As for the pubes and whatnot, that's what happens when you run around naked with a flamethrower and a bottle of over-proof rum. Man, this one in Puerto Rico ...

• 65 - Roger

  Mar 11, 2004 at 10:34 pm

  What a fake site!!! Isn't it strange that all of the familiar names (or created charcters) keep coming up. Your Shit is weak whoever you really are? Wait, I have a good clue. You'll know when I get back to you. You know, I "like to get close to people"

• 66 - Mark Saleski

  Mar 11, 2004 at 11:25 pm

  man, oh man...the trane on yer drama queen dress is stuck in the door.
  
  so lift your skirt, open the door and get the hell out!!!
  
  (sorry al...i didn't mean to use the H,E,double-toothpicks word)

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

Name:

URL:

Remember name and url?

Comment:

Please preview your comment.