Dennis
did you not read the email I sent to you two nights ago telling to
you keep my name out of it.
Tuesday I was just irritated.. Now that you have reposted your attack
on JR using my name again I AM PISSED OFF.
I told you thursday and I'm telling you again.
DO NOT USE ME AS A STICK TO BEAT ON JR. IT IS NOT YOUR RIGHT TO USE
MY NAME FOR YOUR PETTY GARBAGE
IT SHOWS A LACK OF RESPECT FOR ME AND A LACK OF CLASS IN GENERAL
if you have a gripe with JR, you keep it between yourselves. but JR
is still a friend of mine -regardless of whether he is right or wrong
and I do not appreciate being used at your whim if you have a
disagreement with JR.
If you have a gripe with someone, I think it is incumbent on you to
involve yourself, but not others and particularly not me.
it's as simple as that. DON'T BE A MORON
Rich=====================
At 10:47 AM 9/21/2006, Video Den Collection wrote:
Hello, Andrea:
Thank you for writing. As I said in my note, I did not mean for
this content to be seen by the General Membership of MOPO. It was a
note to JR. I do not diminish what JR tried to accomplish with MPB,
only his apparent lack of self confidence, staying power and common
sense. I know fiirst hand, as does my wife and family of the
sacrifices small business owners must endure to see their vision
flourish and grow. I have been slugging it out as a memorabilia
dealer since 1989, firstly like many as a part-timer and then full
time since early 2001. I had made contact with JR a few years back
and tried to have a serious conversation with him about a kind of
"partnership". His site at the time lacked consistent quantity and
in my opinion quality content. If you remember, MPB back then,
"might" offer 300-400 items weekly. Most of the items he offered
were only of a moderate vintage, with no real "attention getting"
titles that might attract some of the more "deeply pocketed" among
our membership. I told him I was able to provide him, an upload
compatible with his site of about 15,000 items. The items would have
pricing, cast lists, history and trivia, and synopses of the film
titles. He couldn't have shown less interest in my offer and told me
that HIS was the "ONLY VISION" that made any sense to (and I may be
paraphrasing, but not much) "the FUTURE OF MOVIE POSTER
COLLECTING". He told me that if movie poster dealers and collectors
didn't wake up and move away from a "communal type" of auction site
like Ebay, and to a more parochial style like Movie Poster Bid, then
they would all go out of business,. For one dealer to provide his
site with 15,000 items on a regular basis would defeat what he was
trying to accomplish. He never mentioned that he would ever
consider selling his site, and if he had at the time, I would paid
him several times what he ended up getting from Rich. I could see
its potential if utilized correctly with an ever plentiful stream of
quality items. I believe Rich saw that too and is trying to develop
MPB to its fullest potential. When the MPB selloff happened, I was
completely dumbfounded, and didn't know whether to bid or
not. Since I was and still am only an intermittent participant in
MOPO, and JR appeared as some kind of "MOPO force", I stood on the
sidelines to Rich's benefit. I would have pushed the bidding into
five figures very quickly. Since that day, I have more closely
followed the conversations, especially JRs, and have come to the
conclusion that for all his obvious education and breadth of
scholarship, JR is an "empty suit". I think he is a very
intelligent fellow with a deep seeded insecurity about himself. I
believe his long, wordy emails are a reflection of this lack of
confidence. He appears to need to overwhelm others in monologue
because a dialogue, an actually "exchange of ideas" intimidates him.
Dennis
----------
From: Freedom Lover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:45 PM
To: Video Den Collection; [email protected]
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [MOPO] FW: [MOPO] This does not go
unanswered -- long out of necessity, I'm afraid
Dennis,
I used to start-up companies for a living and I can tell you, it
takes 1-3 years to get one off the ground. J.R.'s did very well and
Rich took it over at the right time to truly profit.
Both J.R. and Rich are talented businessmen, as I've seen.
J.R. had a right to be pleased and so does Richie.
Andrea
As far as poster collecting is concerned the only significance I can
fathom you have ever achieved is giving birth to MPB. This you
failed to make a success, quit and sold at auction for a paltry
couple of thousand dollars. The irony there is Rich took it over
and in his first major event had nearly the sales totals that you
had accumulated over the previous 12 months. Of course, you were so
very proud of that $38,000 thereabouts, that you thought you should
shout it out to everyone within the MOPO universe in marketing
emails. "Look at Me! See what a Success I am!" That was
pathetic, as this latest outburst is. "Oh, Poor Me!" "Look at how I
am being treated!" "I am taking my toys home and am never coming to
play again!"
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Video Den Collection
To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:50 AM
Subject: [MOPO] FW: [MOPO] This does not go unanswered -- long out
of necessity, I'm afraid
MOPO:
I am sorry to have to share my response to JR with you all, BUT my
private email to him came back "undeliverable", so his inbox is
becoming too full or he has locked out addresses that he doesn't
want to read. In any case, JR, if you are listening or reading,
SOMEWHERE, I want to be sure you get MY MESSAGE too.
Dennis
MOPO : Below was scribed several days ago in middle of night just
after JR started this ongoing fiasco.
JR:
So you won't be posting anymore, then maybe I will keep my
subscription to the MOPO service after all. I was seriously
considering dropping it, enabling you to get one notch closer to
your SIX MEMBER goal of subscribers to MOPO. Having to wade through
your long "winded" (double entendre intended) diatribes has become
more and more tedious. What do you do for a living? Does someone
pay you to sit at a computer all day and seemingly all night filling
the air with your opinions, forcing the rest of MOPO humanity to
breathe in those vacuous fumes? As far as poster collecting is
concerned the only significance I can fathom you have ever achieved
is giving birth to MPB. This you failed to make a success, quit and
sold at auction for a paltry couple of thousand dollars. The irony
there is Rich took it over and in his first major event had nearly
the sales totals that you had accumulated over the previous 12
months. Of course, you were so very proud of that $38,000
thereabouts, that you thought you should shout it out to everyone
within the MOPO universe in marketing emails. "Look at Me! See
what a Success I am!" That was pathetic, as this latest outburst
is. "Oh, Poor Me!" "Look at how I am being treated!" "I am taking
my toys home and am never coming to play again!"
JR: Grow Up!
Dennis G. Michaels "Video Den"
Video Den Collection @ <http://www.rarevideo.com/>www.RareVideo.com
/ www.RarePoster.com / <http://www.raredvd.com/>www.RareDVD.com
PO Box 36 Vestal, New York 13851-0036
(607)786-3107
<http://www.rarehollywood.com/>www.RareHollywood.com
----------
From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JR
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [MOPO] This does not go unanswered -- long out of
necessity, I'm afraid
To those who care to read it, I'm sorry for the length of this post,
but I need to set the record straight before departing:
Recently, in a 24-hour period, Susan Olson sent 5 separate public
messages to this list in which she violated the long-standing rule
of no personal attacks. In each of those messages she personally
attacked me with foul-mouthed, abusive language and accused me of
things which are outright lies. I held off answering those attacks
because I didn't think it would be a healthy thing for this list to
fight with her on MOPO (and because I would have had to violate the
personal attack rule if I did). Instead, I left it up to Scott
Burns, the moderator of this list, to deal with this blatant
violation of his rules. I thought this would be the appropriate thing to do.
Scott has now made it clear to me that he will not take any action
against Susan for violating his rules so egregiously... over and
over again... in message after message. I do not understand Scott's
decision and am disappointed in it. But since he won't intervene, I
believe I have a right to defend myself and respond to Susan's
blatant lies and will now do so, since Scott has left me no choice
in the matter. Those of you who have no interest in any of this
should skip what follows and read the last paragraph of this
message. This is for the record. Since I am left which no
alternative but to answer in public Susan's very public lies about
me, here goes:
I did not "attack Susan first" as she claims. The facts: A few days
ago Susan sent her very first message to MOPO since rejoining the
group after a 2 1/2 year absence. She left back then in a violent
huff, blasting the entire membership of this list as a bunch of
asshole and singling out Scott as a sniveling little weasel on her
way out the door. So, what does Ms. Olson do in her very first
message upon returning to MOPO? She leaps to criticize those people
who had asked if anyone knew what was happening with Frank Santos --
they were worried about the 53 valuable movie posters they had sent
to him after receiving no word from him for 45 days and after seeing
his eBay account tagged with "No longer a registered member of
eBay". She said to Frank:
"these people wont have a triple bypass or need stints if they don't
get theyre posters tomarrow! and if they take theyre business
elsewhere try to view it as a good thing!"
I thought her criticism of these people - who had a very legitimate
concern and were only asking what was going on with Frank -- was a
strange way to re-enter the MOPO community and I said so. I seems if
Susan she has a right to criticize those people for simply asking
about Frank that I have an equal right to question her for doing so.
Yes? Or is Susan Olson the only one allowed to criticize what other
people say on this list? But I guess the deal is that she can
complain about us, but we can't complain about her -- is that the
new rule on MOPO? If so, I sorry, but I didn't get that memo... so I
replied to her unwarranted criticism of those concerned MOPO members
with this observation:
"For Susan to pop up like this and offer criticism of a dozen
justifiably-concerned people on one hand while ostensibly
"supporting" someone who didn't do the right thing seems like a
funny way to reenter a community to me.
"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
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
