"Susan, I am a bit disappointed that this is the way you choose to
announce your return to MOPO... seems like you're still willing to fire off an
emotional blast without considering ALL the aspects of a situation,
something that you became known for in the past but which I would have hoped
you might have mellowed out about. Look, it's been years... life is too short
-- shorter than it was a few years ago... so... how about dialing down the
purely emotional reactions and about sheathing the claws?
Peace."
Susan claims this was an attack on her. But it was
a simple observation of facts... Or does anyone who knows her going to
honestly stand up on this list and claim that Susan does not
sometimes get very emotional in her posts? What I said above was
certainly no worse... was in fact less harsh and judgmental... than what
she had said about those who had merely asked about the status of their
posters. What I clearly and VERY sincerely said above was express hope
that she would have mellowed out over the past couple of years... that life is
too short for this kind of emotionally-charged leaping-before-one-is-looking
kind of thing... and suggested in a friendly and constructive way that
maybe it would be a good idea to "dial down the purely emotional reactions and
sheath the claws" while getting back into the flow on MOPO. Finally, to make
it very clear that I was being sincere and friendly, I finished my comment to
her by saying: "Peace".
Peace. That's a word with a specific meaning, I believe. Not generally
open to misinterpretation.
So, it was no personal attack that I wrote and I would like to know how
anyone reading those words -- exactly as written -- could consider it an
"attack". You people (and Susan herself) have read enough of my writing to
know when I'm being sincere and when I'm being sarcastic. I was clearly being
sincere in this case. That's the tragedy of all this.
But rather that stop and think about the friendly suggestion I had
offered, Susan immediately did the *opposite* and let her emotions run wild
and launched into a vehement attack in reply in her second message to this
list:
"JR what ever you says holds no water for me, You have no
credibility with me sir, Mr defender of Eugene Hughes, Joe Deprenda and
the Physcopath Amanda who you tried to get me moderated for after she
posted my private emails and our private fight to Style-B list? You
are relentlessly negative and flip flop like a fucking hooked trout, and
unfortunately, I have let you troll me. I would love you to rejoin
Style-B, so that I would have the pleasure of kicking you ass out for
the second time!"
Note how she claimed, while viciously attacking and lying about me,
that I had *made* her do it -- that she what she was writing was all
somehow MY FAULT -- that I had somehow "trolled her" and she had not control
over what she was writing -- that mean old JR has maliciously
*tricked* poor helpless Susan Olson into attacking him (which was the
very last thing that she ever, ever wanted to do... really and
truly it was...). Right.
When she wrote that, I realized nothing I could say would do anything but
fan the flames, so rather than get into it, I simply replied to her:
"Thanks for making my point." (...meaning she had done exactly the
opposite of what I had honestly and constructively suggested might be a good
approach to take while getting her toes wet in MOPO again).
But rather than engage in a fire fight on MOPO, I thought the
appropriate thing to do was let Scott deal with such clear
violation of his rules, so I finished that message with:
"Scott... does this message constitute a clear violation of your
guidelines for no personal attacks on MOPO?"
To which Susan publicly replied with her third message titled
"What's the matter, poor baby!" :
"You started it don't get your panties in a knot and cry for a moderator,
is the moon not in your favour JR"
I believe I have already demonstrated that if anyone started anything,
Susan did with her unwarranted criticism of those who had
merely asked what was happening with Frank Santos. But I did not respond to
her childish cat-call and so she followed up a little bit later with
a fourth public message where she said:
"Personally I am laughing my ass off. this pussy is just
incredible!"
But still, I did not respond and engage her in a shouting match
--which is clearly what she wanted. Frustrated at my unwillingness to play,
she then decides to change her tactics and sends a fifth public message
where she pretends to apologize to Scott and *volunteers* to leave the
list for having disrespected his rules. A few hours later, before Scott
could even reply, she flip-flopped on that and decided to stay after all, due
to "public demand". But check out the content of her so-called apology:
"I apologise Scott for disrespecting your Forum... " OK...she says
she apologizes... but ... in the SAME message just 3 sentences later she
CONTINUES to disrespect Scott's forum by continuing to attack me! Referring to
me as "negative TinfoilCap wearing forces with hidden personal agendas."
She also went on a few sentences later to say of me: ""He reminds me of the
Pink Panthers Kato! too bad its not as funny as it appears on the
screen."
I love the logic of this particular message: Apologize to the list owner
so he doesn't kick you off for violating the rule against personal
attacks a full 4 times in 24 hours -- and then CONTINUE with
the personal attacks in the very same message where you apologize for engaging
in personal attacks! Unbelievable.
But you know what? Scott fell for it. Apparently so did quite a few
others, who rushed to her side, begging her to stay. More on this at the end
of this message.
That's the sad history of this completely one-sided flame war where the
only person throwing fire around was Susan Olson. But in the process she told
several lies about me which I thought were so laughable that I didn't need to
defend against them... until I realized that there are now a lot of new people
on MOPO who will not know what I *really* said years ago about Joe DePrenda or
Eugene Hughes and the other stuff she mentioned. So, in self-defense
I need to set the record straight on her specific accusations, least her
lies be taken as truth because of my silence. She claimed I was:
"defender of Eugene Hughes, Joe Deprenda and the Physcopath Amanda who
you tried to get me moderated for after she posted my private
emails and our private fight to Style-B list? You are relentlessly negative
and flip flop like a fucking hooked trout"
1) I *never* defended Joe DePrenda's thieving and fraudulent actions at
any time, anywhere. I defy Susan or anyone else to dig up a message from the
MOPO archive or any other archive that shows I did. Quite the opposite, I
condemned him in no uncertain terms.
2) I *never* defended Eugene Hughes' thieving and fraudulent actions at
any time, anywhere. Same challenge as # 1 above -- find a message of mine
where I defended Eugene Hughes for ripping off people. Again, I condemned him
in no uncertain terms. What I did do was defend someone calling himself "Randy
Pillar" when he was kicked off Style B by Donnie after saying something
Susan didn't like. I thought Donnie's action was uncalled for and said so.
That was the extent of it. Many weeks later it turned out "Randy Pillar" was a
pseudonym Eugene Hughes was hiding behind, but NOBODY knew that at the
time Donnie kicked him off and I protested the action -- not Donnie,
or Susan or me. And all this happened before Eugene did his big flip-out and
ripped off so many people. Oddly, I still maintain that a person should
not be kicked off of a list for saying something Susan Olson doesn't like
-- but apparently I am in the minority in this belief.
3) The Amanda thing happened on Style B. No point in going into the gory
details, besides explaining that Amanda dragged a private-email fight
between herself and Susan into public on Style B and Susan got so upset
about this that she unwisely carried on the fight in public and *escalated* it
in a really major way, saying some of the most virulent and hateful things I
have ever seen anyone say to another person on any list. Donnie suspended
Amanda for fighting, but not Susan. But then Susan *suspended herself*
temporarily from Style B when she calmed down and realized what a frightful
mess had been made -- I had nothing to do with that. But is there a
theme emerging here I wonder?
The truth of the matter is that, in a private message to moderator Donnie
Sullivan I wrote to him on Susan's behalf -- and I can
quote this because it is MY OWN private message -- I wrote:
"I completely agree that Susan's outburst was a one-time event and that
she apologized quickly (though not exactly immediately) and "punished" herself
into 10-day suspension. I believe in my 1st the post on the subject
I suggested she should be "paroled early".
I have date-and-time-stamped copies of this and other messages on the
subject on file and can prove that's what I did and what I said at the time.
Since they purge the Style B archives of all "off-topic" messages every once
in a while, I may be the only one who actually does have file copies of what
was *really* said and done at the time.
Susan knows full well that I did not try to get her kicked off of Style
B. She knows it, but she chooses to remember it differently and talk
about it differently. Now who's TinFoil Cap agenda is showing?
4) I do not believe anyone could demonstrate statistically that I am
"relentlessly negative", although I do adopt a curmudgeonly persona from time
to time, as much for a lark as anything else, which I believe most people on
this list understand. Sure, I'll say something critical if the situation calls
for it. But I believe the vast bulk of my posts to MOPO over the years have
been positive.
5) I do not "flip flop"... not like a "fucking hooked trout" or
anything else. I consider personal integrity to be a valuable possession --
one of the few meaningful things a person can truly own for themselves. I
have maintained the integrity of my beliefs and opinions even when it meant
getting people irritated with me... when it meant losing business on
MoviePosterBid that I really could have used... when it meant getting kicked
off of Style B for daring to be a heretic and question the omnipotent wisdom
of Donnie Sullivan or the unsullied beneficence and truth-telling of a
certain self-proclaimed Voodoo Woman. Yes, I *have* changed my mind on
occasion, but when I do it is for a good reason... like when people who claim
to be your friends stab you in the back. I usually change my mind about them
being my friends at that point. I pick up on little clues like that...
But usually I change my mind because I have come across new information that
forces me to change my opinion, rather than ignore the new information and
continue to cling to my old opinion. When I do this, I acknowledge it and
explain why I have changed my mind. I believe it is permissible for someone to
change their mind occasionally without being labeled a fucking
flip-flopping hooked flounder? Or did I miss that memo as well?
THE LAST PARAGRAPH --
Because I am so disappointed in the way Scott has chosen to NOT
handle this situation... and because there seems to be quite a few on this
list (at least the vocal ones, which is what counts on a list after all) who
seem to think I *did* viciously attack poor defenseless innocent Susan
for no reason and therefore deserved every single foul-mouthed, abusive thing
she said to me... well, in light of this I'm thinking... what's the point,
then? I've just spent a weekend fretting about this stupid
scenario and 4 hours of my life that I won't get back writing
this attempt to document and examine rationally what really happened -- but I
doubt that it will make any difference. Rationality doesn't seem to be in
vogue this season. So, like, I have to ask myself: Who needs this? I'm not
exactly pulling a Bruce here... for the time being I will keep my
subscription to MOPO... but I will set it not to receive emails for now.
I'll check in at the archives from time to time to see if any interesting
in on-topic conversation is going on. But I've no interest in the petty
personal psycho-babble jive type of discussions that now seem to be about to
infect MOPO... spreading over from Style B and NS4GE like some kind of
touch-feely virus... fostering a prevailing attitude of "I'm
OK... you're OK (so long as you agree with me)". Nah. Just not my scene. But
it seems to be what Scott wants to encourage and it's his list, so I'll catch
y'all on the flip side.
-- JR
