(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

lerefuge
2008-05-29 04:09 pm UTC (link)

I know I am not in the majority here but I don't agree with the accusation on pyratejenni of grudge or lame post. The point of the post was not the vile Wiscon report but the divulging of the private informations and death threats. I saw the point of her posts as it doesn't matter what despicable and vile thing you do, disclosing private infos and encouraging people to act on it is NOT OKAY. I kinda agree with that assessment too.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	velvet_mace 2008-05-29 04:24 pm UTC (link)
	nods It's just one wrong after another with no right in sight. As hard as it was to one-up the initial post on the spite scale, they've managed to do it. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lerefuge 2008-05-29 04:37 pm UTC (link)
	I agree. It's quite unfortunate. (Reply to this)(Parent)

risha
2008-05-29 04:30 pm UTC (link)

But it is completely not cool of pyratejenni to not disclose the full story. There's a difference between focusing on what's important, and LOSING ALL IMPORTANT CONTEXT. As far as I can tell at this point, deliberately.

It's not OK to make death threats or disclose her real address to the internet. But no one's seriously arguing that, and it's disingenuous to make the OP all about that, or at least post clarifications later when you find out the truth. Like that the person in question revealed her own real name, hometown, and livejournal name, at the con.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

lerefuge
2008-05-29 04:36 pm UTC (link)

Well, maybe the OP did it on purpose, but maybe her point was exactly that the back story didn't matter? I don't know, but I haven't seen any reason so far for her to be malingering, but it might just be from a lack of infos. Anyways, I don't understand *why* it's necessary to describe in details all the vile things in the Wiscon report unless it's too justify or lessen the impact of divulging private infos. Pyratejenni didn't say the person was innocent, she just didn't give details about it because that wasn't the point.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

risha
2008-05-29 04:49 pm UTC (link)

I repeat: "Like that the person in question revealed her own real name, hometown, and livejournal name, at the con."

And I do think that context is important. I always think that context is important. A woman kills her husband for insurance money vs. a woman kills her husband who has been abusing her for twenty years. A child steals a candy bar because he wants it vs. a child steals a candy bar on a dare vs. a child steals a candy bar because he's living on the streets and is hungry.

You can't just throw your opinion on one aspect of a situation out there and ignore any additional information that comes your way. If pyratejenni wanted to, she should have posted it on her personal journal. I started out giving her the benefit of the doubt, but she really needs to get in here and make some updates or replies before my charity fails even more. Hopefully she's just busy at work or something.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

frequentmouse
2008-05-29 05:32 pm UTC (link)

I keep hiding behind you on this, sorry.

The OP's reportage is missing critical details of the Who, When and Where aspects of this story; RM's name was first used online not by people who googled her but rather by people who were at Wiscon and knew her name from there. RM herself posted photos and bitchery to SA after she had gone to the con intentionally to take those photos and find material to write about. Her telephone number and address were posted by goons, not members of fandom, and members of fandom actually involved in Wiscon have made strong statememnts of disapproval in doing this.

I still feel queasy over the repeated use of her name, but it's just as true that I still feel discomfort over, say, Jason Fortuny's real name being out online after he performed a similar act of destructive asshatery.

I feel sorry for people who are self-destructively stupid, is all, and make spectacular displays of their personal defects signed with their actual personal name. Too bad, so sad, and it will, really, come back and bite them in the ass just as surely as making amateur porn with media loan equipment will. (That one's not one of my youthful indescretions, but I've been to wedding showers where the video tape copies were shown).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

ladycat
2008-05-29 05:30 pm UTC (link)

but maybe her point was exactly that the back story didn't matter

Someone commits a crime -- and hell yeah, I qualify targeted harassment, as this appears to be, as a crime -- and people react and overreact, but the reason for their reactions and overreactions aren't relevant?

That... doesn't make any sense. At all. Yes, there are times when the overreaction becomes more important, and it's rapidly coming to that point, as people get their self-righteous grudge on. I am not at all a supporter of what badgerbag is trying to do, for starters and if the post were about that then yeah, maybe it would warrant the way the facts have been twisted and dismissed in the OP's post.

But this got posted before Badgerbag's escalation. This got posted when it was a lot of people threatening the typical internet violence, and posting her name. All bad things, yes, and worthy of unfunnybusiness, but not context-less. Particularly given how many people are standing up to the spreading of her name, while still identifying her as horrible human being.

Tomorrow, yes, your point, I suspect, will be really valid. But not today. And certainly not this morning.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	lady_ganesh 2008-05-30 02:14 am UTC (link)
	The random calling out of coffeeandink also helped people (well, me) yell 'grudge!' (Reply to this)(Parent)

	esclaramonde 2008-05-29 09:10 pm UTC (link)
	I have no clue why you think it was deliberate. It sounds to me like PJ herself doesn't have all the information, because it's a bit scarce. Also, a way not to get her to edit the post the way you want her to is to get accusatory. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

risha
2008-05-29 10:08 pm UTC (link)

OK, I'm going to have to do this as a list; I don't think that a rant will help, it will just make me look like an idiot and/or troll.

1. It's entirely likely that pyratejenni didn't have all of the information to begin with, and was just reacting to the thought of addresses revealed and calls to mom and letters to the dean. Information has been trickling out slowly since last night, and my own opinions on the topic have slightly morphed and solidified as it did.

1b. The information isn't at all sparse anymore - there's gallons and gallons of it coming from every side. The SA, SASS, WisCon attendees, sphereosphere, and RM herself have all weighed in on the topic by this point.

2. pyratejenni disappeared for a considerable chunk of the day in order to sleep. Entirely reasonable.

3. Now that she's online again, has she posted any:
a. retractions?
b. corrections?
c. suitibly thoughtful replies that show that she's seen the new information and has thought about it?

From what I've seen, the answers to #3 have been No; Once - partially, at first incorrectly, and under duress, and by the way it's still not complete; and No.

4. Editing the post to correct herself, regardless of whether or not I sound accusatory, is the minimum level of decency, not an optional exercise.

So am I being accuratory? Last night I was polite and helpful, especially as I had already considered posting it myself (in a more balanced manner) but decided against it as I didn't need the stress. Now, yes, I am being accusatory. I generally like her, as I hold a policy of generally liking people until proved otherwise. But today she is being an asshat, and she needs to cut that shit out.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

esclaramonde
2008-05-29 10:14 pm UTC (link)

I didn't really mean just *you*, and I'm sorry that it came off that way. There are quite a few people who are acting like PyrateJenni has some kind of grudgey stake in this (note to them: bias /= grudge), and like she's not making changes because if she shows that there's more sense to this than it seems it will be her downfall!!1 Yours was just the last I saw. :/ I think she's just being obstinate because of said people.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	risha 2008-05-29 10:19 pm UTC (link)
	In all fairness, I'm annoyed at her, and therefore taking it out on others! Sorry about that. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	red_eft 2008-05-30 01:19 am UTC (link)
	Scarce? Really? I wasn't at WisCon, but I didn't find it difficult to get the story, pretty thoroughly. Many people have posted about it. BadgerBag, - the WisCon comm post is locked, but it's open membership. The way PJ posted it is so skewed from the impression that I got from reading any one of those posts indicates to me that it was deliberate. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	red_eft 2008-05-30 01:20 am UTC (link)
	arg, HTML, my nemesis! mystickeeper was supposed to be the second name there. (Reply to this)(Parent)

esclaramonde
2008-05-30 01:26 am UTC (link)

I'm finding it difficult, because I'm seeing a lot of hearsay. I'm not taking *anything* anyone says about the original post at face value. I finally got a link to it and saw that some of the things people were saying about it were clearly wrong, so I'm not trusting anything unless I see the original thing of it.

Badgerbag's post skeeved me out, because I didn't know she was also a member of the university. I'm still not entirely convinced.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

zing_och
2008-05-29 05:04 pm UTC (link)

Apart from the way she reported only the stuff that fit her agenda, this:

But nada about this behavior from fen normally so worried about community standards, like coffeeandink.

is completely unnecessary, and means automatic FAIL in my book. What was that supposed to mean? "Let me round out this post by attacking someone by name who hasn't said anything about the matter and has nothing to do with it?"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	fantine 2008-05-29 05:55 pm UTC (link)
	Well, the linked post did mention this and did link to badgerbag, so it's not completely unrelated. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zing_och 2008-05-29 07:54 pm UTC (link)
	It's still reaching. And it sort of implies that coffeeandink ought to be policing fandom. Or maybe the OP was a little desperate because she couldn't find links that didn't include the name... which is pretty difficult. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lerefuge 2008-05-29 07:59 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, the coffeeandink name dropping looks pretty random and unnecessary, I agree. Maybe this user has once before taken position against divulging personal infos so that's why she is linked? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	esclaramonde 2008-05-29 09:10 pm UTC (link)
	That's the sense I got, although I'd like to see a link to where coffeeandink said it. It sounds really familiar. (Reply to this)(Parent)

iwanttobeasleep
2008-05-29 10:07 pm UTC (link)

The grudge was one thing, but I'm a little irked that she not only took that stand and tailored the info she gave to support her opinion, but basically said that everyone who disagreed was a terrible person. And even if you agreed, if you didn't agree hard enough she jumped on you.

I mean, I agree that spreading personal info on the web isn't cool, but please to be not dictating my morals, okay? I was under the impression that this is supposed to be a discussion comm.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -