Both Powell and Rice have benefitted from conservative affirmative action throughout their careers.
…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Claims of racism as phony as front group - Comments Page 2
Both Powell and Rice have benefitted from conservative affirmative action throughout their careers.
…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Mac Diva
Look on the bright side, Curt, The Disc Jockey did a good job of describing himself:
an anti-social, reality-challenged, wildly deluded, unpleasant, rude, anonymous fool.
Except for anonymous. A review of court records in Ohio reveals otherwise.
Couldn't have said it better myself. And, though I doubt I will shower him with charity much longer, The DJ will always have his younger self -- RJ Elliott.
27 - Eric Olsen
I guess you didn't believe me - you're gone.
28 - Eric Olsen
I'm sure you have more than one IP - any subsequent comments will be deleted. I guess 79 chances wasn't enough.
29 - Bob A. Booey
Not that anyone cares what I think, but I don't think MacDiva should be banned. I also didn't think RJ should be banned, so let's not make this personal. RJ was given a reprieve from his stupidity in the heat of the moment -- I also think MacDiva should as well. RJ, I would be vastly disappointed in your integrity if you didn't apply the same knowledge and experience of your own exclusion from the site to her situation -- I remember being shocked to read some comment of yours favoring censorship shortly after you were reinstated. Remember when you had to comment as "Semi-Banned Anonymous Guy"? I generally take you for a reasonable person who has a sense of humor (unlike many others on the site), although some of your recent comments around the election made me scratch my head. I don't take you as being so insecure that you'd hold whatever personal dislike you have of MacDiva against a general policy of supporting open speech and vigorous debate, even if it means that sometimes we hear things we don't like or get a bit over-heated and have to be reminded to keep it about the issues.
Yes, the conversation degenerated and got personal -- MacDiva feels that Olsen doesn't do anything about everyone's favorite caveman RJ Elliott and others making allegedly (racially?) hostile comments toward her. See it from her perspective a little bit: she's usually the lone voice defending her positions and gets a barrage of negative, knee-jerk comments from all directions (but mostly conservative white males) to virtually EVERYTHING she says, and yes, this goes beyond her "arrogant" writing style or Afro-centric perspective. You can call her paranoid if you want, but it's easy to see how she might feel ganged up on and how that might result in paranoia about how your views will be received. Olsen makes a political point about how (theoretically, I would assume) that MacDiva's criticism of Rice's allegiance to white conservatives would justify racist comments against her as well (which in her mind sanctioned comments from her "enemies" like RJ). I think that's what set off MacDiva's subsequent digs about "the DJ" and the cryptic comment about Ohio court records which clearly set Olsen off. I can understand Olsen's concern for the privacy of his legal records and why he might interpret that as a veiled threat, but I think anyone who was following this discussion would see that she interpreted the last few comments as sanctioning what she views as hateful speech toward her by others.
That's how a conversation escalates. I've had the experience myself -- my first ever comment on this site was some silly trifle about American Idol, where MacDiva said that my claim that America would probably choose the white girl was "racist" or might hold it against Fantasia for being a single mom holding her kid up on stage, where I said it was a reflection of racism. I probably had some choice words for what I perceived as her over-reaction. Since then, I seem to have gained her approval since we do agree on some things politically, as two of the few outspoken liberals (especially on race matters) who've commented on this site.
Now I realize her perspective on our previous disagreements, and despite all my personal attacks on her in my initial comments on this site, I think she's in her own way very reasonable: she evaluates your positions and judges you accordingly. Most of us probably don't like to be judged, but she's certainly not the only one doing that. Of course, it's inevitable that the various people on the site who choose inflammatory rhetoric over moderation (while I appreciate RJ as well, he's certainly in this category) would have conflict with her over politics and personal style. I also think she serves a necessary role on the site: no offense to the rest of you, but she's generally the ONLY blogger who ever writes from a black female perspective OR about racial issues that aren't front-page news. Especially with Natalie Davis contributing very infrequently in recent days, it would be a real shame to lose diversity in perspectives. And while people may collectively roll her eyes at her name-dropping and boasting about her careers, she also brings some knowledge of the law to her writing since she's the only attorney that I know of that regularly comments on a good portion of the political/social/legal topics. Yes, we also roll our eyes when she links people to other people who might not be so enlightened, but the best way to deal with that is to articulate your own viewpoints and how they differ from the hateful and backwards elements of the Internet. I doubt that even MacDiva would discount your views if you stated them clearly enough, with evidence and careful thought. I also think many of you respond almost instinctively and choose to disagree with almost everything she says without considering your position on the topic first: just as with anyone on the site, people become human and not caricatures or "enemies" when you find things you can (occasionally) agree on. For example: Al Barger is perhaps the commenter/blogger whose politics and writing style I respect the least, yet I can agree with a couple of his statements on music and I can appreciate his party official Mike Kole's more realistic take on Libertarian politics. RJ's been a troll when it comes to politics recently, but I can laugh at his "I'd rather do the alien" joke when we discuss female celebrities or even appreciate his attention to detail in finding electoral polls and boasting about his Pistons. There are others that don't come to mind right now, but there's no reason that the occasional personal disagreement needs to override basic common sense and fair-mindedness.
I don't get the impression that MacDiva dislikes any of you personally any more than you do her: she mainly seems to disparage you on the basis of your perceived associations and ideologies. While that may be annoying to you, it's not personally hateful as much as it is theoretical disagreement. I think all of you who disagree with her could also be honest in saying that your comments toward her have veered over the line and been more than merely theoretical disagreement at times as well.
I get the sense that MacDiva has accepted being censored since that policy was instituted and that seems to have worked, to a large extent. So I'd suggest reinstating her after a short period (say a week or couple of weeks) and having her adhere to that policy which she seems to accept. I think she SHOULD retract her last comment about Olsen's court records if that's something he doesn't want on the site and maybe also considering apologizing for her jokes about his past vocation, which were probably meant to be insulting. That being done, I don't think that she should be permanently banned at all.
We're adults here, even if we rarely write like them. Taking your ball and going home isn't the best way to deal with people you perceive as the schoolyard bully or the black sheep (no pun intended). I don't, for what it's worth, think MacDiva is a bully. Yes, she's a bit unusual and it's hard to understand where she's coming from at first. Yes, some of her comments are BS. But I can say the same about all of you and I do when you're wrong. We should extend that same open-mindedness and willingness to confront our disagreements to her -- feel free to challenge her when she's wrong, I'm sure she'd welcome it. But shutting out her speech entirely will not only set a bad precedent for all other "political outsiders," it will also hurt the site and its level of debate more than you realize. Love her or hate her, MacDiva does more to keep topics that would otherwise die or go unnoticed and undebated than anyone else. Without her presence on the site, you'll have LESS discussion of hot-button issues like race (maybe that's a good thing for some of you, but I think it's necessary) and see a lot fewer topics that result in vigorous, honest, sometimes unsettling but always provocative debate. And given that this is a site that NEEDS discussion to function, all of you suffer for it, both in terms of ideas exchanged but also in being able to refine your own perspectives through thoughtful disagreement. MacDiva contributes more than just her post and comment volume or her diverse opinion. There's no question she's a gadfly and that she stirs things up, but I don't view that as threatening or insulting. I view it as necessary.
That is all.
30 - Bob A. Booey
Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving?
31 - Natalie Davis
I agree, BAB. Whether he merited it or not, BC staff gave Mr. Elliott a reprieve. Many of us find his postings as distasteful as many find Mac Diva's. What's good for the gander...
32 - Natalie Davis
And yes, happy prelude-to-genocide day.
33 - SFC Ski
Umm ,umm, umm, nobody makes genocide like Mom does!
34 - Hal Pawluk
Because a person used your name seems like a strange reason to ban someone, especially since in her next post she didn't use your name yet apparently got banned anyhow.
I think Booey got it right.
From what I've seen, MD has lashed out at times, but a group here has piled on to her even more frequently for no reason, when she has made perfectly reasonable statements. With this as a constant environment for her, I can see why she responded with what less than temperate language and tone.
I got a lot more from her posts and comments than I do from those by many of the pilers-on.
I, for one, will miss her.
35 - Eric Olsen
I basically agree with what BAB said quite eloquently: that is why nothing has happened until now. I am not happy about this, I do not take it lightly, I barely slept last night.
Here are the violations in question: one member does not have a link to Blogcritics on any of her sites despite repeated requests to rectify this mandatory condition of membership. This is mandatory because every permanent link that goes out and is not reciprocated damages our search engine standing. Search engine rank is an absolutely vital part of this and any site's success.
After much internal debate and handwringing we finally instituted a comments policy against personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations. Fully 80% of the editing to the comments since the policy was instituted has been to the comments of one person. At least weekly I hear from a current or former member who either does not post anymore, or who won't comment out of fear of being dragged through the mud of slurs, insults and unsubstantiated accusations by one person. Others do this as well - they are edited for doing so.
This is my job - I do this 70 hours a week. I have been willing to tolerate the very large negatives because there have always been the positives BAB stated above. But when the positives/negative deficit grows so high that I no longer want to come to work because of it, something must be done. One person, including myself, is not bigger than the whole, or there will cease to be a whole.
Over the last few weeks, I have been the object of daily personal insults, virtually all still available for view, that have only grown in their viciousness and lack of substantiation. These are direct, blatant, contemptuous violations of the letter and spirit of the rules we have been forced to institute by the behavior of a very few people.
One person has held all along that the rules do not apply to her. How does one deal with such a situation in a group setting? That is my very serious and genuine question - I am very much open to suggestion. What should be done?
36 - Hal Pawluk
I actually appreciate your position, Eric, but have no words of wisdom.
So far I've only had to deal with childish drivel so it's easy to just tell the individuals to go screw and ignore their comments.
You and MD have a whole different problem.
37 - boomcrashbaby
Eric, I had an email conversation with her awhile back about her presentation. She speaks like a lawyer, blunt and to the point, pulling no punches. It often doesn't play well outside of a court of law.
Over at BlueLemur, I was in a discussion with a libertarian about outing closeted gay politicans. You know how I present my viewpoint. Within the space of about 15 comments, I had gotten someone adamant about personal privacy to concede the 'right' to out a person who was promoting ideology harmful to others. I gave her that link to read (would have to hunt it down right now) and it got her to promise to work on her presentation here. That lasted all of two comments. Mac Diva is Mac Diva. I don't know what the answer is.
Certainly she dishes it out, but I agree with others, she definitely got more piled on her than the reverse. Her attacks were primarily 'X is a racist. X is an inferior writer. X is not a true blogger'. etc. which pale in comparison to the degrading name-calling slurs slung her way, although I saw her remarks as being overly personal rather than going after the ideology behind the person too.
It would be a two way street. Both sides would have to work together to find a solution, I don't see how just one side can alone. One thing I admire her strongly for, she has her beliefs about making this world a better place and she sticks with it and won't let go, when she sees a wrong. I didn't always see the wrongs she did, but I realized I wasn't in her shoes either, I don't have her perception or her life experiences and I always kept that in mind. I think that is important for all of us to do when debating with someone else.
Last night I was in a conversation with a gay right winger who was defending the likes of Falwell and Robertson over that of those 'horrid' gay activists. When I know the site is not moderated, I can go after the person in a way that would make her proud, and I do and I did. When I know the site is moderated because it strives to be a better place, then I do modify my response, as we all should, an edited comment is the same as no comment at all to me.
I don't know how to get her back, I don't know how to get her to change her presentation because I saw time and time again her spot-on factual information getting lost in flames. I couldn't begin to imagine how frustrating that would be.
One of her concerns she wrote in a good-bye email to a few of us yesterday voiced concern over the likes of Dana Huff and Jennifer Mitts being run off by the snide remarks of some of the regulars. You know of what I am referring to. I don't believe it is your job, Eric, to handle the quality of writing of others, but there are quite a few of those who are opposed to Mac Diva, who offer flippant, snide and condescending remarks to those they disagree with and I've seen it run off more than those two individuals. And we all lose because of it.
Natalie suggested awhile back of an option of being able to ignore certain people, like maybe you can add their name to an ignore list. Is this programmably possible at all? That seems to me to be the only solution other than getting us all to work together, which sometimes and on some topics just seems to be impossible.
I will very much miss her here.
38 - Dawn
I don't know what this veiled "court records" shit is about, but I will say this, MD needs to shut her ignorant mouth and disappear from whence she came.
She is not COMING BACK ever - I will intervene on that effort. If anyone has a problem with that, they can talk to me.
Also, when did being a DJ become a negative about someone?
Whatever his other jobs have been, he is and will always be an excellent and talented writer.
Okay, that said, let us rejoin in the spirit of the holidays and be thankful for all the good things we have and try not to focus on the negative.
Have a safe and happy thanksgiving.
39 - Eric Olsen
I appreciate very much the input and understanding. I agree that the vitriol has flown in both directions, and that it would not be unreasonable for this person to feel ganged-up on from time to time.
I have done my absolute best to be even-handed and to protect the rights of everyone equally. I do not claim to have always achieved this. I have always viewed this among the mitigating factors.
I am upset when anyone feels chased away - that is at the core of this. One person has chased away far more people than any other. There is more than one culprit in this and I don't like it when anyone does it - it's an ongoing problem. People are going to come and go for various reasons, but they should not feel chased away. I will refocus my efforts on improving this situation.
The other, and perhaps ultimately the most fundamental issue here, is the utter comtempt that this person has increasingly expressed for the site and for me personally. This is simply incompatible with continued participation. This isn't "criticism from within" in an effort to improve, this is just pure bilious contempt.
None of the other individuals mentioned in association with some of the problems and violations discussed here express this attitude toward the site or toward me. And I am not talking about disagreement: I welcome and encourage free expression including disagreement with any opinion I express.
I ask again, how do I deal with someone who violates all of the rules, who expresses nothing but contempt for me and for the site? If there is an answer other than the one I have resisted with all my might until now, I would gladly act upon it.
40 - SFC Ski
I doubt there is such an ignore feature available, it merely requires great restraint on the reader's part. A thick tongue helps to bite on at times.
I have to agree with Eric in this sense, if you invite someone to your house and all they do is insult you, you can ask them to be polite or to leave.
I do not agree with several people who post here, I try to be civil in my postings on their threads, and if I can't be, I either don't read their post or refrain from commenting.
41 - Bob A. Booey
Very thoughtful and honest comments from all of you.
Here's the thing: in her own way, I think MacDiva was frustrated because she has respect for you and the site, Olsen. Her reaction is very much like what I've seen in classrooms: when a teacher or someone in a position of authority is perceived as failing to protect someone who's the "outsider" and perhaps is more inclined to agree politically with those who express their opinions in a brusque manner and gang up on said "outsider," you can see why she interprets your politics as personal. Hence all her comments about "Olsen and his cadre of conservatives," etc. Clearly, that's a misreading on her part, thinking that you support and have some particularly unique friendship with RJ, Al Barger and the other right-wingers who comment on the site. I do sense that she feels that Olsen never agrees with her statements and never disagrees vehemently enough with the extreme right-wing positions espoused sometimes.
One factor to consider: I do think that MacDiva's comments reveal a great personal investment in and disappointment as a result of the election. I think she was personally hurt by the Bush victory and she, unfortunately, like some of her strident opponents on the right (RJ and Mark Edward Manning, in particular) got caught up in the "Us vs. Them" fervor. I also notice that her first line of "insult" and attack toward Olsen was "Bush supporter," which proves my point that MacDiva's judgments about people always basically boil down to ideology and personal disagreement. Honestly, I too was disappointed in Olsen's rationale for supporting the war and a Bush second term, because I felt it was based on more emotion than logic, which surprised me. In her own way, and I don't feel she expressed it well enough (or at least doesn't share my reticence) her recent turn against Olsen probably reflects a similar disappointment. But that's to be expected in heated political elections. Another big issue for her, quite apparently, was the open promotion of Al Barger's Senate candidacy and Olsen's generally positive praise of Barger as a blogger and contributor. Keep in mind, for someone coming from MacDiva's perspective, Al Barger's positions are anathema: I too question the value of some of his past comments, like the race-baiting "Rosa Parks was no hero" post or some of his comments on the big Cosby race discussion. In most "polite," reasonable circles, these would be viewed as borderline hateful and most definitely eccentric.
You guys like to call her arrogant, and perhaps one positive aspect of that "arrogance" is that she doesn't really care to involve details of your personal lives in her discussion. Most of her "insults" about intelligence, etc., are related to your political positions and/or writing, which is more than I can say for the bevy of crude insults that have been thrown at her by many (including myself, regrettably) that go far beyond this.
There's no shame in being a DJ. For all the more "prestigious things" I do, one of the things that I enjoy the most is DJing for fun. Spinning records is hot. Look at James Holden, an up-and-coming progressive house DJ from England for example, who's an Oxford grad in mathematics. I wouldn't take it as an insult, I'd take it as a mark of pride, Olsen and Dawn, to be called "the DJ." I think that's a good metaphor for Olsen's role on this site too -- to get the beat started, throw something out there, and let people do their thing. I think her thinking that's an insult just shows she's a little out of touch with the culture, but as insults go, it's fairly harmless. RJ's valuable in his own way, but calling MacDiva a "bitch," "ass," and the c-word isn't even in the same category. You can understand her perspective on double standards here. She has a point. If RJ was re-instated after that, MacDiva should be as well, if the decision was purely objective. I understand that the beef between MacDiva and Olsen has become unnecessarily personal and hence subjective, however, so it's trickier.
If you want to prove an ironic point, re-instate MacDiva since she's mainly hurt by your refusal to censor or ban people like RJ. There's no greater victory for free speech and open expression than to force people to deal with open dialogue. I've generally almost always disagreed with MacDiva's ideas on censorship vs. free speech, as I have with Al Barger and others supporting censorship. Tolerating those who bother us is the ultimate form of respect since we can't assume everyone reacts to them in the same way we do.
Yes, MacDiva is immature and annoying. Guess what? So are a bunch of the rest of you reading this. The election and its aftermath brought out the worst in her, but it brought out the worst in at least a dozen of the rest of you as well.
Keep in mind too that I honestly do think MacDiva was unnecessarily edited. Clearly, she often deserved it. But Justene and others have probably fallen into a little bit of the self-fulfilling prophecy (which also happens in education) where someone gets labeled a "troublemaker" and gets treated as such on an increasing basis. Her conversations with people tend to be harsh, but that's a two-way street: people try and provoke her. Be honest and admit it. I'm not sure that she's the only bully, if you take that perspective. In some situations, I think she's the one being picked on. And another part of the reason she gets edited so much is probably due to comment volume -- she contributes a lot more than most of you do. I only get on here once every few weeks and drop a big steaming turd of analysis here or there. She's a dedicated regular reader and observer of what you all say, which is valuable feedback you'd miss if she were gone. Very few other people take the time to engage posts -- even if you hate her take on your ideas, take it as a mark of respect that she continues to read and consider them with her time.
The people who claim to be "driven off" or threaten to leave were probably going to do so anyway and I think most of those claims are probably posturing. The funny thing is that we honestly don't know how many visitors would come to a website and not feel compelled to comment or join because they don't see the issues they care about represented, i.e., race, law, civil rights, for example, MacDiva's forte.
So here's my modest proposal: if MacDiva is willing to put a link to Blogcritics on her webpage (which IS a rule) and retracts her statements about Olsen's court records (which went beyond the pale), she should be fully re-instated.
If that's not enough to appease Olsen, I think she might want to consider apologizing for the comments about court records and maybe the DJ thing as well (although I think that's so innocuous as to be silly -- I can think of a million better lawyer jokes to trump that one). I also think that she AND her dedicated "enemies" should all take a deep breath and think of working on ways to improve their communications. I think, if she were reinstated, one of the first things all that should be mandatory of all of you who are involved in these disputes is that a thread is started where each of you has to comment positively about one aspect of each other's writing and ideas you've agreed with or appreciated. Fighting and complaining to Olsen in a flurry of e-mails is childish. Don't sit silent reading this discussion and fuming while writing another ten e-mails to Olsen about how incensed you are. Engage in this discussion openly and act like adults. Act like humans. I'm calling you out, RJ and the others with this particular comment. Grow up. You guys drive off plenty of people with your behavior too, and they're not people who are so dedicated to the "blog world" that they're going to take the time to write Olsen about it. I'm talking women, people of color, newer readers of blogs, people who are generally less represented on this site to begin with (particularly the female perspective, despite several strong representatives like Dawn, Claire, etc.). Calling people sexist names (yes, I plead guilty on this too) doesn't help.
Speech isn't threatening unless you're so incredibly insecure that you can't defend your beliefs and values without becoming angry and vindictive.
Mac: if you're reading this, I agree with Boom that I hope you'll also take my advice to heart and consider occasionally agreeing with or appreciating the comments of your political opponents. Yes, it's a chore, but go out of your way to do it now and then so people don't feel like they're at war with you. This goes for the rest of you as well: I NEVER see one positive comment for MacDiva about anything she writes from the "angry white male" contingent. She's written some good stuff about music, brought our attention to stories we might have missed, and tried to branch out. You didn't meet her half-way, so you can understand why she feels excluded and might lash out accordingly in response to your open hostility. All of you need to learn some empathy, whether it's MacDiva making jokes about someone's job because they're not a professional or some of you calling someone who already feels excluded 2nd-grade schoolyard names and asking that they not be allowed on the playground anymore. Is that the kind of community you want to be a part of, really?
So I hope this gets considered.
Happy Thanksgiving. Go Bears.
42 - Greg Smyth
God help me but for once I'm with Eric on this (kidding, Eric). The whole article just reeks of axe-to-grind make-the-facts-fit-the-story pseudo-intellectual journalism. As for "keep out of this Eric" WTF, just how rude is that?!
43 - Bob A. Booey
"I also notice that her first line of 'insult and attack toward Olsen was 'Bush supporter,' which proves my point that MacDiva's judgments about people always basically boil down to ideology and personal disagreement"
That should read THEORETICAL disagreement, not personal disagreement. Sorry. I cut-and-pasted incorrectly from a different paragraph.
44 - SFC Ski
I think you're missing a point:"Mac: ... consider occasionally agreeing with or appreciating the comments of your political opponents."
MD needn't agree or appreciate anything she didn't agree with; the problem I had with her was that she could not merely reply with,"I don't agree, here is why...",she consistently stated or inferred that anyone who did not agree with her was stupid, deluded, ignorant, or racist. THat she would do so in such a manner was annoying, more annoying was that she would then follow that tangent and not address the issue. If anyone shows a lack of respect in their comments, they automatically invite the same in turn. It takes a bigger person to shrug that off and not respond in kind. When I found I could not be that person, I ceased responding to her or even reading her responses. I will agree whe has posted some interesting or informative articles, it was in her interaction in the comments that she was rude. Maybe it was not personal, and maybe MD thinks that by striking a nerve she has also hit on the truth, in any case, her impoliteness was very off-putting to me.
45 - bhw
Hey! The editor of the W.E.B. DuBois book MD linked to was one of my grad school professors. Pretty cool.
As for the banning, I think it should be a temporary, 2-week cooling off period, as it was for RJ, who, by the way, didn't even wait the two weeks and used an IP anonymizer to continue posting during his "penalty phase," making the entire episode one big joke. Also, curt was recently banned and then allowed to rejoin.
So if MacDiva is banned permanently, I think that's unfair. The standard has been set for a temporary banning, and I think it should be applied equally. But that doesn't mean everything should go back to the way it was when the person, in this case, MacDiva, returns. Anyone who has been banned should probably be on probation of some sort for a while, and further continued, blatant violations should then result in more serious banning.
I do think MacDiva needs to put the Blogcritics link on her site, though. If that's a requirement for membership as a Blogcritic and not just a commenter, then we all have to do it.
And I do think she owes Eric an apology. She's been attacking him relentlessly over the past few weeks, and it's gotten completely out of hand. He should not have to sit there and just take it because he's the site editor/owner.
But I have question: why haven't those comments been edited out? They clearly violate the comment policy, so they should go. Is it just lack of time thing?
MacDiva is one tough cookie. She is firm in her beliefs and tenacious in presenting them. I almost always learn something from her comments, even when I don't agree with her presentation of them. And I think the site has clearly benefited from her many posts. She has a knack for picking up an off-hand comment on someone else's thread and turning it into a full post of its own. She's just about alone in her ability to do that consistently.
And she continues to take flack from other Blogcritics. RJ follows her around from thread to thread and writes things like "retch" after she makes a comment referring to herself. Why has that type of behavior been allowed to continue?
So I think that if we're going to go heavy handed again with the comment policy, it needs to be applied equally. MacDiva deserves to be treated as other policy violators have been treated. Whether or not she wants to return or will refrain from making personal attacks in the comments is another story, however.
46 - Dawn
I have no doubt that some people might think my interjection is neither warranted or any of my business, and in most cases that would be true, but a very incidious and personal in nature attack on Eric I take quite personally. We have children and live in a very tight nit community and I don't take kindly to ANYONE digging around or even implying that they dug around into our personal lives - online is one thing, but when people take it to the next level well then, that is an entirely different matter.
So, should Mac Diva be truly interested in coming back (which I sincerely doubt she does) then I will shut my piehole assuming she and Eric come to whatever those terms might be agreed upon.
Sure she's an excellent writer and an intelligent person, but common dececency and basic manners are always a good rule of thumb.
As for RJ (or anyone for that matter) using really disgusting and misogynistic terms, he (they) should seek therapy and perhaps get some fresh air that can only be found outside away from the computer. Let's have some perspective - we are all of the same species, no reason to act like animals.
Okay, I will butt out now.
47 - MCH
I agree that Mac Diva's implication to Eric's court records was probably over the line, although her response WAS preceded by Olsen's descriptions of her as "...emotionally unstable, psychologically disturbed, anti-social, reality challenged, wildly deluded, unpleasant, rude, anonymous..."
48 - Dan
"I don't take kindly to ANYONE digging around or even implying that they dug around into our personal lives - online is one thing, but when people take it to the next level well then, that is an entirely different matter."
It's amusing to see how it becomes an entirely different matter only when one's own ox is being gored. Some of us have had to suffer this abuse without sympathy.
49 - Natalie Davis
As for the banning, I think it should be a temporary, 2-week cooling off period, as it was for RJ, who, by the way, didn't even wait the two weeks and used an IP anonymizer to continue posting during his "penalty phase," making the entire episode one big joke. Also, curt was recently banned and then allowed to rejoin.
Indeed. As was mentioned, this was Eric's threat, verbatim: "Do not EVER again use my name in a post or in a comment on this site. If you do, you will be no longer be welcome. Period."
She didn't use Eric's name. She said, "The Disc Jockey." Of course she was referring to Eric, but she did not violate the demand stated in his threat. On that basis alone, IMO, her banishment is unjust.
Look at what transpired when BC merely suspended Mr. Elliott -- who used the c-word and profanity against fellow posters, for God's sake: The temporarily banned blogger blatantly thumbed his nose at the ridiculously mild punishment Eric gave him. And what happened? Was his suspension extended? No. Was his banning made permanent? Certainly not. The punishment melted away as Mr. Elliott continued to share his less than two cents -- most of it still vile, nasty, inhumane -- in topic after topic. In other words, his unconscionable behavior and obvious disrespect of Eric's authority were rewarded.
Can anyone see how WRONG this is???
The underlying conclusions that can be drawn are ugly, and the double standard -- so obvious a blind human could see it -- doesn't do BC proud.
If Mac Diva were to resort to using an IP anonymizer, I would have to say it's only fair. After all, it apparently was OK when Mr. Elliott used it. I would imagine, however, that she has better things to do with her time.
50 - boomcrashbaby
The last sentence of comment 39 by Eric, and the second paragraph of Dawn's comment 46 suggest that the ban might be lifted if Eric and Mac Diva can come to some sort of resolution.
When RJ was banned, did he post threads or comment only? When Curt was banned, was he an official member or only a commenter? Is there a clear distinction between being a member and a commenter? I was under the impression there was.
Like I said before, I wish Mac Diva was back, and there are a few regulars here I wish were gone, but I know there are more than a few that wish I was gone too. We seem to do pretty well tolerating each other though and that is what it is all about.
Mac Diva has a tendency to call a person a racist if she perceives them to be one. This disrupts the conversation and her factual information then gets lost. I only ever called one person on here a homophobe, and that was last summer and that was only after plenty of other people already had and after he had been banned already.
I do believe though, that there are more than a few homophobes around, but I never call them that, instead I break down the comments they make and dispute those comments with fact and common sense.
Mac Diva, if you are reading this (BTW, my emails are getting returned to me with an 'over quota' message, I will keep trying), when you perceive a thread says something racist, or when a commenter says something crude towards women (Ripley rocks, folks!), you can do one of two things:
1) call that person a racist or a mysogynist and erupt a flame war in which nothing gets accomplished except to make people mad,
or
2) you can illustrate how the comment is ignorant and false, with fact and links to statistics and data, with the end result making the opposing side look foolish, all accomplished without any name calling on your part, thereby gaining you even more respect, and your opinion even more credibility.
I am of the firm belief that if you use facts, statistics and proven data, the ideology of the left will win out at least 90% of the time. You need not take the person down, only the ideology to win the overall cultural war.
I hope everybody had a good Thanksgiving. I also hope that because this country is more polarized than it's ever been since desegregation or the civil war, that we can all set a good example to the rest of the country and show how differing opinions can reach out to each other and find some common ground somewhere or even better, some resolution. If we can't do it here as individuals, how can we do it as a country full of individuals?
BTW, I wish there was a way to permanently ban these damn spammers for casinos. How about getting a bot to replace them all with a link to gamblers anonymous?
51 - HW Saxton
Natalie, If you were the one who was on
the receiving end of her many completely
unfounded,unsubstantiated and unprovoked
attacks,insults and character defamation
you would be singing a different tune.
I have been in those shoes so I know and
it really does suck.
This is a place of business. It is not a
public forum for temper tantrums and/or
psychotic episodes. She has been given
way too many chances at redemption.All
of which were seemingly ignored and
unheeded.
She has been let off the hook for more
outrageous behavior than any number of
contributors combined including that RJ
Elliott & Al Barger.Why? I wish I could
honestly say.I wish I could but I can't.
How many chances should one person get?
A year of warning isn't nearly enough ?
The fact that it even has to be done in
the first fucking place speaks volumes
in and of itself I'd say. It also does not reflect well on the maturity levels
involved either.
Let's see: Eric provides the forum and
the opportunity for her to make public,
on a large scale, her worldview and her
opinions. So she duly repays that by:
1)Personally attacking him with insults
against his intelligence,judgement,his
business acumen and his ability as a
writer.
2)Baiting and insulting newcomers to the
site.
3)Threatening him with legal action(s)
on more than one occasion.
4)Driving away potential new writers as
well as older established writers.
5)Constantly & consistently putting down
down BC here and elsewhere, yet MD still
expects to be treated with courtesy and respect by the staff and the readership
alike!?
I may be old fashioned but I still think
that respect should be earned by showing
respect. I realize she has been "dissed"
here on occasion, sometimes very rudely.
I also realize that she has brought just
about 99.9 % of it upon herself.
Do you think it's fair to the owners of
this site & all the people that she has
called names,insulted, baited, disrupted
their threads without any provocation
and everyone else whom she has adversely
affected with her immature behavior that
that she should be welcomed back here???
I truly do feel it is only by the grace
of god on high and the good nature of
Eric Olsen himself that she was able to ride roughshod around here as long as
she did. This is a personal problem of
hers/his/it's that has been ongoing for
some time now. A quick Google search of
MD turns up waaaaaay too many instances
of this for it to be attributable to any
personality clash with other Blogcritic
contributors.
I for one will miss her like a migraine.
I'm sure, beyond sure even, that I'm not
alone in this sentiment; although I just
may be the only one bold enough to speak
out about it. Cheers.
Put yourself fully into Eric's shoes and
I'm sure you'll see this in a different
light.
52 - RJ
BAB said:
"I NEVER see one positive comment for MacDiva about anything she writes from the "angry white male" contingent."
Not true. I had praised her for several of her recent posts, particularly the Washington State Governors race posts.
I give credit where it is due. Ask anyone, even those who think me a right-wing kook.
That being said, MD is a liar. And I do not use the term "liar" too liberally.
She lies about other posters in particularly vile ways. And she never bothers to even attempt to back up her lies with a citation. (Of course, this is because such citations do not exist anywhere except in her addled mind...)
Offering left-wing spin is fine and dandy. Hell, MOST of the political bloggers on here do so. Including you, BAB.
But blatantly lying, REPEATEDLY, about numerous other posters, goes beyond the pale.
I was banned for two weeks for four little letters I typed in the heat of passion. And I still promote this site as one of the best on the Web. Because it is.
MD, OTOH, has attacked this site, its owner (Eric), and a large portion of its writers (myself included), using the most insulting language, as well as outright lies, including countless charges of "racism," for many, many months.
Her ban was earned.
53 - RJ
"RJ, who, by the way, didn't even wait the two weeks and used an IP anonymizer to continue posting during his "penalty phase," making the entire episode one big joke."
I did not post for roughly 3 weeks.
I did, however, comment "anonymously" more than a few times, but only with permission from the site owner...
54 - RJ
"If Mac Diva were to resort to using an IP anonymizer, I would have to say it's only fair. After all, it apparently was OK when Mr. Elliott used it."
I wouldn't know an "IP anonymizer" if I fell over one.
Try again.
55 - boomcrashbaby
...about anything she writes from the "angry white male" contingent."
Not true. I had praised her
So, RJ, you are an angry white male? What are you angry about and how does that affect your reaction to people here?
I was banned for two weeks for four little letters I typed in the heat of passion
heat of passion? It was a romantic moment for you? I didn't read the thread that got you banned so I don't know the context. Come on, fess up. Don't be ashamed. It's only kinky the first time.
I wouldn't know an "IP anonymizer" if I fell over one.
It's a setting on Marvin the Martian's discombobulator.
You still owe an apology to hard working teachers everywhere.
56 - RJ
"So, RJ, you are an angry white male?"
I'm a white male, and as a quasi-conservative, I suspect the Leftist posters here think of me as an "angry white male" ala 1994...
57 - SFC Ski
"...you can do one of two things:
1) call that person a racist or a mysogynist and erupt a flame war in which nothing gets accomplished except to make people mad,
or
2) you can illustrate how the comment is ignorant and false, with fact and links to statistics and data, with the end result making the opposing side look foolish, all accomplished without any name calling on your part, thereby gaining you even more respect, and your opinion even more credibility."
Well said, you could add: Ignore their comment as being too absurd or oinsulting to address. Easy to write, hard to live by.
58 - Steve S
Well said, you could add: Ignore their comment as being too absurd or oinsulting to address. Easy to write, hard to live by.
Some of us though, of which I would be one and Mac Diva another, consider it too harmful to allow misinformation to remain unchallenged. An example is, Al Barger himself said that a comment of his, if left unchallenged, proves that it is right.
Steve S
(Boom)
59 - SFC Ski
True. I was referrring more to the baiting and insults, not presentation of facts. Facts presented out of context, however, are often used to draw discussion away from the point of argument, not to furhter define it.
60 - bhw
RJ:
I did, however, comment "anonymously" more than a few times, but only with permission from the site owner...
But on a thread back in July, Phillip said:
For that matter, [RJ] has continued to comment under various assumed names until I blocked each one. It only slowed him down, that's all.
So while I may have been wrong about the IP anonymizer, it still seems that you were posting without permission in violation of your suspension.
61 - Eric Olsen
there are several related but not identical issues here, most of them stemming from my imperfections:
as was originally noted by Hal and later Natalie, I was not consistent in telling MD to not use my name and then taking action after the following comment in which she did not use my name.
A much fuller explanation of the situation, which I should have included immediately, I addressed in #35:
Here are the violations in question: one member does not have a link to Blogcritics on any of her sites despite repeated requests to rectify this mandatory condition of membership. This is mandatory because every permanent link that goes out and is not reciprocated damages our search engine standing. Search engine rank is an absolutely vital part of this and any site's success.
After much internal debate and handwringing we finally instituted a comments policy against personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations. Fully 80% of the editing to the comments since the policy was instituted has been to the comments of one person. At least weekly I hear from a current or former member who either does not post anymore, or who won't comment out of fear of being dragged through the mud of slurs, insults and unsubstantiated accusations by one person. Others do this as well - they are edited for doing so.
This is my job - I do this 70 hours a week. I have been willing to tolerate the very large negatives because there have always been the positives BAB stated above. But when the positives/negative deficit grows so high that I no longer want to come to work because of it, something must be done. One person, including myself, is not bigger than the whole, or there will cease to be a whole.
Over the last few weeks, I have been the object of daily personal insults, virtually all still available for view, that have only grown in their viciousness and lack of substantiation. These are direct, blatant, contemptuous violations of the letter and spirit of the rules we have been forced to institute by the behavior of a very few people.
One person has held all along that the rules do not apply to her. How does one deal with such a situation in a group setting? That is my very serious and genuine question - I am very much open to suggestion. What should be done?
These are the real issues, the complete contempt for the site (as further expressed by absolute refusal to link to Blogcritics) and for me personally being the central issues here, not the straw that broke the camel's back. It is the cumulative weight of over a year of this, with the frequency and ferocity picking up alarmingly over the last few weeks, and most particularly of all since I wrote the Rice/Powell post.
In this light, I hope the difference with the RJ situation can be better appreciated: he called someone a very bad name, so bad that we banned him, the first time we had done such a thing to a member - and yes, members are very different from non-members: members are granted privileges including the ability to post stories to the site without prior mediation.
But here is the central difference: RJ apologized to the person in question and to the site in general. He said he would not repeat his mistake, he asked to be reinstated, AND he has consistently supported the site in word and deed. His crime was to violate the comment policy by insulting a given individual - the other person in question's real issue is her contempt for the site, many of its members, and me as the titular head. This is a matter of an underlying attitude resulting in dozens of individual manifestations harmful to the site.
Again, I am not talking about criticism that seeks to improve, I am not talking about dissent, I am not talking about loyal opposition: I am talking about malicious contempt. That is the crux of the matter and something I have no control over whatsoever.
I am certain I have contributed somewhat to this attitude, especially of late, but I swear I have done all I can to keep our membership as open and inclusive as possible. I now realize there realy does have to be a line beyond which I as the final arbiter cannot let things go or the site itself suffers, and the health and viability of the site itself is my highest responsibility and concern.
Thanks again for all of your input and thoughts.
62 - MCH
"That being said, MD is a liar. I do not use the term 'liar' too liberally. To blatantly lie...goes beyond the pale."
- R.J. Elliott
"I did not post for roughly three weeks. I did, however, comment anonymously more than a few times, but only with permission from the site owner."
- R.J. Elliott
"For that matter, RJ has continued to comment under various assumed names until I blocked each one. It only slowed him down, that's all."
- Phillip Winn
Robert J. Elliott, next time you call someone "a liar" ... make sure you're looking in the mirror!
- MCH
63 - andy marsh
Hey - I was out of town for the last 4 days and missed all the fun! Can we start over??? Please?!??!
I hate to tell you folks this...but she's been begging for Eric to do this for a long time. She finally got her wish!
64 - RJ
"But on a thread back in July, Phillip said:
"For that matter, [RJ] has continued to comment under various assumed names until I blocked each one. It only slowed him down, that's all."
I guess Eric and Phillip weren't communicating much during this period. I received Eric's permission, in an E-mail, about a week after my temporary ban, to post comments.
And my "assumed names" were hardly attempts to hide who I was. I made it pretty clear through the monikers I adopted just what my identity was ("Banned Fella," for example). If was was trying to be insidious, I surely would have used a less-obvious name to comment under...
65 - Natalie Davis
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.
66 - Eric Olsen
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.
67 - andy marsh
Hey, she doesn't except apologies, she's surely not going to give one!
68 - HW Saxton
Andy Marsh, That would be "accept" not
"except". That's all. No big deal.
69 - andy marsh
You're absolutely right HW.
70 - Chris Kent
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......
71 - Peter Duncan
He who pays the bills, gets to make the rules.
Go Eric! you da man!
72 - Shark
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
73 - Eric Olsen
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.
74 - MCH
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.
75 - Eric Olsen
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.