I also liked: Bitter Author Face but I couldn’t decided on a title and went with the silly song beth has stuck in my head forever and evah.
At the risk of writing a book in the Smart Bitches Comments and because there is a question or two in here I would love anyones take on. I am posting my response to Candy’s very well done response to me here. For anyone not playing the home game or newbies around here… I like those bitches. I would post over there more often if I had time and or there was less coversnark (again nothing I have issue with just generally not my bag). So please do not mistake me for a kinder, gentler blogger (soooo should be a button).
Okay fine, I admit I am sweetness and light but I am not the blog police. Nor do I give a fuck about being the blog police. If you are done with this feel free to move along or if you want to know the issues visit Dear Author, they have the low down. Or go visit Smart Bitches and watch some authors moon us and shake their tail feathers… and no I don’t mean just the Trisk ones.
This doesn’t need to be pointed out as it will be the well said and correctly spelled shit while mine is the rambling… but if it is – those there be candy’s smart words.
I would like to point out once again that the post wasn’t particularly private, but sent to at least a couple hundred people.
You could not have joined that list. You couldn’t have clicked a membership button and ::poof:: belonged. No matter how you want to say okay there were too many people there, so nope not private… you don’t get to make that call.
There is public – you can link to it, point to it and anyone with a connection can join and see it. And there is private. This was private. So when the next forward is a private Samhain post about their business practices that goes out to all their authors, you are saying it is okay to post it. Even though it is a private email you can not verify.
Maybe about their site’s bookstore… the one not ‘owned’ by Samhain, isn’t their mainpage, sells jewelry or you know the decline of sales of some of their authors who seem to think their shit doesn’t stink.
(For the record I read Samhain and would say it is the better epub and have currently read a Trisk book like twice (something I plan to change). I don’t know or care about Gail Northman and really could give a fuck about ‘the children’. )
And true, it could’ve been edited or distorted–which is typically why Sarah (and I, for that matter) attempt to provide complete documents whenever we can.
Unless you were given someones password, logged onto the group and saw the post or unless you were a member all you had was the word of a very bitter author.
(For the record, I even like that bitter author, and even could give a shit less she forwarded the email. But I have never been able to wrap my arms around why this sort of thing is okay.)
If the post had been substantially edited, surely somebody would’ve come forward and said “That is a crock of lies, lieeeeeeeees.” It’s typically why Sarah and I ask for confirmation after talking about news items.
So you are all for giving space to someone who is lying (which is not the fact here but as you said could have been) and after shitting on someone, their company or their reputation – saying oops sorry my bad?
Dude I get this is a blog and not one that presents itself as a ‘newsite’, hard hitting or what the fuck ever but that seems shitty. If something could be damning to someones job or business, I think that is worth a few mins to check into. But that could just be me…
Jane handled this whole thing with more finesse than we did, but neither of us think what we did was especially wrong.
Yes but Dear Author and Smart Bitches are two different sites, different takes and that is great. This is the second time private information has been posted to SB, granted the other being an email was worse (IMHO) but the fact that you don’t think anything was done wrong is what I am trying to understand. Maybe you are right.
Also, since when were “news” and “gossip” mutually exclusive categories? (I can’t bring myself to insert a smiley here, so pretend I did.)
Yep and there is the issue right there I think. And something I am trying to find a handle on.
Really people, I am not on anyone’s side here. I LIKE the SB and if it wasn’t for the fact I respect the hell out of them I wouldn’t give a shit what they did or how they did it. And am well aware they could give a shit less if I did or not, it is for me I want to understand because I admit I could be wrong here.
So when does gossip become news. I get there are more than one bitter Trisk author, even though they don’t seem to be putting names to posts in public (we won’t even get me started on socks or I won’t ever shut the fuck up). And I would respect their OMFG AUTHORS NEED to be PROTECTED don’t let this happen to you!!! cry of woe if they had bravely come forth anonstyle during their battle for freedom. Or if it wasn’t happening as trisk is (seemingly) trying to change.
This just makes them look like asshats who are pissed off they were jerked around – after they have been cut free.
At the same time, I HATE blind item shit… fucking say what you mean or don’t say it. So… uh.. yeah I just can’t decide where that line goes. There is nothing wrong with being a romanceland tabloid and hello it is fun – but I still think there is a line. Just not sure where it is for me. You guys are smart enough to have figured it out for yourselves, I am slow. Sorry.
Think of some of the scuttlebutt you’ve handed Sarah and me over the past couple years–you know we’re not in the “anything sent over e-mail is fair game” camp, and implying so in this comment is dirty pool.
You know I am pretty sure about that personally. And I am sorry people have gotten the idea that I am ‘tsk tsking’ the bitches cuz people I like the SB. I am sorry but don’t look to me for a new, nicer blogger. I am most likely the bigger bitch here.
I know you have personally been on private lists with really good shit, some of it would have been news, important to romanceland, things the lil people ought to know!! but it isn’t posted, anywhere by anyone. My thought has always been because posting private list shit is evol. If that isn’t true, than what the fuck.
Why not, where is the line, when does private info become ok to wave in public. If it is just because you (that is a general you not Candy you) like the person, well many a ‘net friendship has gone wrong. Is this like a Bam review, it is funny as shit until the author is you.
Lookit, this is probably not especially helpful, but I think a bit of common sense would serve all of us well at the end of the day.
LOL yes it would. And really I go from the idea that anything I say to anyone about anything is something I will have to answer for at some point because people repeatedly show they can’t be trusted in the long haul (NOT at all directed to candy or sarah, who I personally trust very very much, that is in general). I think that sucks, I also think gail was a stupid shit and the trisk authors who came smacking you for being mean mean mean were complete dumbasses.
But this is also a company with issues, seemingly trying to fix those issues and bitching about Gail who hasn’t even taken over yet seems stupid. Pointing out all fucked up Trisk is by pointing to things Samhain does while saying Samhain is better is stupid. Saying yeah, well samhain pushed back their print runs too so there, is stupid.
So is bitching omg look at the issue people not privately posted email, personal shit or calling into question that maybe this is why romanceland gets no respect is stupid. This is the way you chose to present the gossip. So if this is why we are the dangerfield or publishing, take some ownership here don’t try to figure out how many licks it takes to make a private yahoo group not private.
As far as disagreement goes, yours is a lot more reasoned than most, and I do appreciate the viewpoint you come from. I do wish you’d quit it with the passive aggressive “Oh, I guess the poor wee publishers and editors learned an important lesson to NOT TRUST PEOPLE EVER AGAIN” bits. I prefer aggressive aggression.
LOL but it is true… don’t you think. Gail fucked up. And she fucked up big before she even took over. If she had been lucky no one would have ‘seen’ but ten to one she would have done it later.
If nothing else comes of the whole thing I think many a person who thought their private loops and shit were their home, authors who freely share forwarded info or author groups where they let their hair down, may have gotten the idea that hello… not a good fucking idea. Think before you hit send and all that jazz.
Of course it wasn’t that long ago a blogger was bitching about an author having an affair and telling her loop the dirty dirty. Soooo many didn’t get the lesson.
Shit, I need to save reading the rest of the comments for tomorrow. DAMN THIS NEED FOR SLEEP.
And I should never post before 8am anywhere… so whatever is clever 🙂
I spent many, many hours reading through everything last night. Oy Vey. Is it known who passed the email along? I’ve gotta say I agree with you, the posting of the email just doesn’t sit right with me. I’m really on the fence about it, because I can see things from both sides.
Trisk certainly has made some mistakes, but I’m willing to take their word that they are changing and restructuring for the better (and I wish them the best). But the stuff that went down makes them seem kind of clueless, business-wise (and that website…). The situation is exacerbated by the poor writing skills exhibited by Ms. Northman (and on that website…). I think that a prospective author might be concerned about the quality of the editing to be found there. Oh, and did I mention the website? Who is that aimed toward? Not the average reader. I had to search for the bookstore. It’s in small writing. I would be a little concerned about a publisher that doesn’t feature their books and authors front and center. Very weird.
Some of the authors really made themselves look like asshats. Accusing the SBs and others of evol motives that were nowhere in evidence is stupid. The disgruntled Trisk authors looked like sour grapes. Trisk did give the rights back to anyone who wanted them. OTOH, I can certainly understand the frustration over lost revenue, and the delay or cancellation of what was probably a long held dream. Except for some angry anonymous authors, I didn’t get the feeling that anyone was out to get Trisk or Northman, though. It was more of a “WTF?” , made even more so by the authors wading into the fray. Emotions are running high at TriskWorld.
I have nothing much too add, actually. Sorry, Syb. This is a sad situation to witness. But much food for thought. I’m going to use this forum to suggest to Trisk staff and authors to do something about the site. Sell your books, and the rest will follow.
Sybil, I’ve been following this discussion for the last 2 days, and this is the first time I’m commenting on it. To be perfectly honest, I find the Trisk/RWA only mildly interesting. What I’ve found much more interesting is the line between what’s appropriate and inappropriate. This line is individual to each of us.
Dear Author handled the topic nicely if not professionally, but then Dear Author isn’t into snark in same way as SBTB. By posting the entire email and initially leaving in the “TMI” part, SBTB took it into the gossip realm. And by doing so they crossed my appropriate/inappropriate line, but then posting an email from a private loop, no matter how many people it went to probably would have crossed the line too.
It’s my thought that probably more people are agreeing with you but aren’t all that comfortable voicing that opinion on SBTB.
I will add that I think the email in question is incredibly unprofessional and if I were an author I’d think twice about being affiliated with a publisher that doesn’t separate their business and personal lives.
It’s stupid for anybody to claim anything is is confidential once they wrote in on an e-mail or online anywhere and pressed send or post. So quibbling about whether posting the crap was news or not is just that, quibbling. Girlfren’ put her whiny personal business out there and should take the consequences.
I just commented here anyway to see if you were still white, Sybil. Check. [chortle!]
I would respond but you left romance, so you really aren’t here and I try to not talk to myself in public.
In my opinion, if the bit about her kids hadn’t been included, there wouldn’t have been the same level of “Oh My God, You’re So Evil!”
Gail really should have known better than posting the e-mail on a 200+ strong loop, albeit private one. More to the point, what kind of mother posts that kind of crap about her kids?
Couple that with the, “The RWA kicked us out, and it’s all your effing fault!” tone of the e-mail, she really should have shown better judgment. She must have known that the same people who had complained to RWA about Trisks internal workings wouldn’t hesitate to forward such a ranty e-mail.
For me, the bigger issue evolves round her inability to stay rational in the face of adversity, as well as keeping up a professional front.
A commenter at the SB’s site said it best:
For one, I don’t want to work for someone who has such weak boundaries between professional and personal. I don’t give a crap about your life, and I seriously don’t want you up in mine. Just publish my books, give me my money and shut up about it.
She makes a good point.
Sybil, I just left white folk’s romance since I wasn’t really supposed to be there anyhow! We spooks are still writing romance and will be writing it as long as it exists. Boo!
I agree KarenS. It needed to be addressed at least to a point. That commenter you quoted… if she was one of their authors, she wouldn’t have been able to come up with that point without the smart bitches posting it and saying look bad!
I doubt it. So those authors on that loop who saw the email could have said what the fuck all on their own. Or gotten the fuck out. Which I am pretty sure if I was in their place I would have.
As far as warning the newbie author… yeah I see that point and it was able to be done and done well w/o needing to post a private email. And lets face it, some authors are off their nut it is so with in the relm of thought a forward could be fucked with.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. If there had been NO other way to do it. Then yeah you do it. But other than that I just can’t see a reason for it. I still think it is the BAM Affect. It is okay for most people until it gets done to them.
Ten would get you twenty just about every author on that thread has some post out in yahooville they wouldn’t want to come back and bite them in the ass.
I agree with Karen that if the original SBTB post hadn’t included the bit about the kids then this would have been a different discussion.
IMHO, the problem really lies with the fact that what should have been a professional e-mail addressing legitimate business concerns was posted on a loop that apparently is also used for brainstorming, venting and other kinds of networking among authors on the the loop. Even if I agree that the brainstorming/venting/networking e-mails are essentially “private”, I don’t believe that an e-mail from a publisher’s EIC which addresses business concerns falls under the same category. Whatever the motivation of the person who forwarded the e-mail, the fact remains that SBTB posted the content verbatim (minus the personal bit later excluded) to be judged as written. If Bill Gates (or his minions) had sent a similar memo to his employees, you can bet it would make news and no one would be debating the ethics of how a journalist obtained the information. Provided, of course, that reasonable steps were taken to verify the source/information and a right of reply was given to the company.
I’ve been thinking more about the guidelines of what makes something fair game for posting on our blog and what’s not, and I think these are it:
1a. Was the e-mail posted in a group with group members in the triple digits or more?
1b. Was the e-mail posted in a group that’s mostly dedicated to business matters (or ostensibly so, anyway)?
2. If yes, is it newsworthy–in other words, are the contents of the e-mail of public interest?
3. If yes, am I *personally* bound by a confidentiality agreement to not pass the information on? If I am, I won’t post it, but if I’m not, then I might. (Because let’s face it, if somebody breaks THEIR confidentiality agreement, that’s their lookout; this, by the way, is standard journalistic practice–whistleblowers, anonymous sources and the like break their confidentiality agreements all the time for whatever reason, take the news to the reporters, and the reporters report the news. Not that SBTB is by any means news agency, nor are we by any means journalists–I’m just saying that what we did was more-or-less kosher according to most news agency standards, barring the slip-up with including the information about family problems. And confidentiality agreements or not, sometimes I think it’s for the greater good to have them broken, but this involves doing some tricky ethical calculus here. Political malfeasance, for example, should be–needs to be–exposed; something like this, which is incredibly small-scale and small stakes, is a lot less urgent, and you can certainly argue that not breaking it wouldn’t have changed much of anything, and therefore didn’t deserve to be posted at all.)
4. If no confidentiality agreements apply, will the impact or credibility of the story be enhanced if we include the source document instead of making a summary?
5. Is the source trustworthy–i.e., have we had dealings with this person in the past, and has she proven to be reliable and not display bugnuttiness? Because it’s not as if we post any old damn rumor sent to us by Joe Blow on SBTB, either.
How is this the second time we’ve posted confidential, personal information on SBTB? I’m not saying we haven’t–I just don’t remember the first time.
A few other quick things that I want to address:
You could not have joined that list. You couldn’t have clicked a membership button and ::poof:: belonged. No matter how you want to say okay there were too many people there, so nope not private… you don’t get to make that call.
Actually, a friend of Sarah’s joined the list just to see if she could. She’s not an author, she’s not an editor, she’s just an enterprising reader to see what the brouhaha was about. And she successfully joined, so it’s not as if’s the most tightly-restricted or moderated of lists. Are you saying that if Sarah or I have joined the list and copied the message from the source, it would’ve been kosher?
Unless you were given someones password, logged onto the group and saw the post or unless you were a member all you had was the word of a very bitter author.
The person who sent us the message wasn’t a Triskelion author at all, actually. And she was, as far as we knew, trustworthy. See item 5 above.
So you are all for giving space to someone who is lying (which is not the fact here but as you said could have been) and after shitting on someone, their company or their reputation – saying oops sorry my bad?
Ha, that’s a nice example of a leading question. (“So, Mr. Roberts, have you stopped raping your wife? YES OR NO, MR. ROBERTS.”) If the information had proven to be false, we would’ve said as much, made a big stink about it and/or removed the posting.
So when does gossip become news.
It’s our own fault for not catching the blazing bit of TMI at the end and editing it out, but frankly, the bulk of the e-mail except for that one bit didn’t strike me as being gossip. Gossip strikes me as something that deals with the strictly personal that doesn’t have an impact on the outside world in any way–there’s no public interest component, in short. For example: Information about how a certain actor loves to be tied up and spanked by big, burly men is gossip; information about how a politician loves to frequent child prostitutes is news. Northman’s e-mail, which dealt mostly with the RWA and (in my opinion) showed her contempt for and anger at the RWA and the authors who weren’t happy working with the company, was news.
You talk about how you don’t give a rat’s ass about the kids or whatever, but I think that’s the bit that pushed it from being news to being gossip. And we’re heartily sorry we left it in. It was a moment of thoughtlessness, and we’ll try to be more careful about that sort of thing in the future.
I think I might be done hashing this out for the moment. This has taken up a surprising amount of my mental energy the past several days, like damn.
I pretty much stopped visiting SB when they posted a private e-mail of an author who was ranting about ARCs. Back then I blogged about how it felt like a violation and I still believe it is. Unless the person who wrote the private e-mail says, yeah, go ahead and post it, don’t do it.
Last time it happened nobody really said anything about posting a private e-mail but this time they came out of the woodwork. I went there when you linked and they had already edited out the ‘child’ stuff but there are enough commentors talking about it that we all know what it said without it even being there.
CindyS
Did the person who supposedly joined this private loop join the authors-only loop with this email on it or one of the other public Triskelion loops? Just curious.
Someone did comment in the SB thread that when their contract was revoked and their rights returned, nobody followed through and deleted her from the loops as well; she still got all the emails. It wouldn’t surprise me if that were true.
I honestly don’t know if it is, Sybil, it just wouldn’t surprise me.
You can’t join the loop Ellie, you have to be an author with Trisk or work for Trisk to be ON the group and have access to view the posts or post a message. Color that private to me.
CindyS I think you and I alone here *g*. But that is okay I shall stand with you any day.
I was thinking of the posting the emailed rant by PC Cast. That was to you guys. I thought and done without permission.
The rest will take thought *g*. Thank you because this is my thing… first and foremost “I” will always be more anal than most. Because trust is very important to me – period – end of story. But I am going to RWA. The point is reader news.
I still have a great respect for authors. I may hate their books but I still respect their work. So I wonder – what? Where is the line. OK this is news… readers and authors want to know. So poof fuck the person and post? That just seems wrong.
But gossip rags do it all the time. I like them. They are funny. I enjoy gossip. But no, I dont’ think I could do that. Even if I had no personal responsiblity to the author.
not sure… needs more thought….
thank you for answering candy and for not going OMG you hate me cuz you don’t agree with me!!! ::dies:: uh not to say that has happened before…
Ahhh, right, that PC Cast thing. See, that was a genuine misunderstanding. PC had e-mailed Sarah, and Sarah thought PC said “post my rant”, not “what do you think about this issue? Want to rant about it?”
PC and Sarah figured it out, and they’re cool. There was, as far as I know, no breach of trust and no ethically iffy ground breached (intention does count for a lot in that instance, I think)–just a rather harrowing miscommunication.
If the information had proven to be false, we would’ve said as much, made a big stink about it and/or removed the posting.
But that would be after the damage is already done, wouldn’t it? I mean, sure it’s all fine and well to apologize for printing something that was untrue, but why not verify BEFORE printing it.
And Syl, you and Cindy are not alone. I seriously can’t wrap my brain around how the SB’s are justifying the post.
Private is private, period. I’ve had some very interesting chats with Syb, and I think some of them could be considered, “News” or at least things the general public would be interested in knowing. But, well, what we said was PRIVATE, so I wouldn’t post those chats or emails on my blog.
If it’s posted in a PUBLIC place, i.e., somewhere ANYONE could read it, ok, fine. If it’s posted in a PRIVATE place, i.e., somewhere only members have access, regardless of how many members there are..I consider that private.
Private is private. We can’t redefine a word. If you can’t access it, it isn’t public. I really liked sarah’s thought of oh you can cache it. But nope I think that was a mistake.
So the line is something each person I guess has to decide. Do you want to play a game with people’s trust or not. So for me 1a and 1b are rock solid. Your 2 & 3 make me go yikes… I can’t be that subjective with people’s trust.
is standard journalistic practice–whistleblowers, anonymous sources
No I don’t agree. Journalists fact check. Yes your anon, and the fact that she prolly completely fucked herself and her career by sending this to everyone and their dog, isn’t your thang. As long as you said hey, can I post this? And the emailer said sure – the fact no publisher will ever want her on their loop is her deal not yours.
But in your place, my thought was yes this is gossip that could be news – CHECK into it and get fact and something or someone to say hey I heard this.
I just don’t understand why if you felt this had to go up – RIGHT that second – you couldn’t have done your normal call for gossip… did your omg heard this dish is it true…
If the group is open for anyone to join, I personally would have pointed to it and said go there, but I am a freak like that. If it doesn’t require approval that is as good as a public group. The group in question does. They do have two other groups listed on their front page. Neither one is the the author one… and if 200 is the magic number of now none private – this is 160ish.
I think the fact it was an EX author screams more of need to fact check than current author.
I don’t think a big stink after the fact would erase the damage. Some people would never see the retraction. At least trying to check would be better when peoples jobs are up for grabs.
Gossip to me is something that can be damning to someone – personally or professionaly. I think we feel we are entiled to know a hell of a lot more than we should know. God knows I like to be in the know.
Anyhoo thanks for taking the time to discuss it. I have decided it has bothered me for much longer than a few days, so I think that answers where I sit with it. Color me a pussy but I can’t repost someone’s words, posted privately, without their permission. Sort of blows… but there you go.
~Private is private, period. I’ve had some very interesting chats with Syb, and I think some of them could be considered, “News†or at least things the general public would be interested in knowing. But, well, what we said was PRIVATE, so I wouldn’t post those chats or emails on my blog~
Not going to debate the this or that, because I see both this and that as having valid and logical points.
But. I would email a close, personal and trusted friend private information, and trust her to keep that information private. That’s one on one. Personal, nothing professional about it. I would never post anything, virtually ANYTHING to a group of associates, however friendly, and trust it would be kept within that group.
The other thing is, I’ve seen it suggested that if the information contained within the email had been paraphrased, if the salient business matters addressed ONLY had been passed along to other interested parties, or if the personal info regarding the daughter, etc had been deleted, it’s acceptable.
I don’t see that. If you believe it’s private, then everything, EVERYTHING said on that loop from the most mundane to the wowzer cannot be relayed or discussed outside that loop. Even relating to someone not a loop member that Gail Northman posted–without details–regarding the RWA matter would be a breach.
Personally, I don’t think anything like that would hold. And to my mind, if you let in a trickle, you should anticipate an eventual flood.
Only one of the reasons I belong to no writing loops or list-serves.
I agree Nora. I think the email up right now is still wrong regardless of the edit. I think quoting it would have been wrong. My take on it yesterday when asked and today is the same.
Yes it is news. Email the right people. Get a response. Once you have someone to back it with words you have permission to post – go for it.
Otherwise it is wrong.
If RWA hadn’t responded (which they did wicked quick) or if someone else hadn’t (when I think EVERYONE did) it gets sticky. But even then Trisk wouldn’t be on the RWA paperwork, point to that or something. There are all sorts of ways to go about this, without resorting to reposting a post from a private loop.
Nothing dies on the ‘net. Trisk can go out of business tomorrow and this person will still be known as someone who forwarded private business information. Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.
Smart thinking on the ‘no list rule’. For me I try to never say anything to anyone I wouldn’t own if it came back to me. It is a big reason I left another list. I don’t believe in saying one thing in private and another in public. You wanna be a bitch, be one, I can respect that or not give a fuck. But kissing ones ass and then running to a list and saying omg you know…, I don’t respect that. Even though I know most people would give a shit less but I think that says a hell of a lot about a person.
I am not always nice and am often down right bitchy but I do not lie, am always honest and have no problem owning my words. And I still say… next time… when it is one of the authors on loops who are crying omg it is right to do – it is NEWS… it won’t be okay then. But hell isn’t that how it is for most things?
But. I would email a close, personal and trusted friend private information, and trust her to keep that information private. That’s one on one. Personal, nothing professional about it. I would never post anything, virtually ANYTHING to a group of associates, however friendly, and trust it would be kept within that group.
I agree with this 100%. No one should post something that personal in a private place. But regardless of what she should or shouldn’t have done, to have that email forwarded, and then posted on a public, high traffic blog..well, is the saying “2 wrongs don’t make a right”?
I’m overly paranoid myself. I refuse to even mention my children’s names on my blog, and I certainly wouldn’t post pictures of them.
I belong to several private groups, and there are times I share personal information on them and I would be ready to borrow MM’s tazer if that information was posted publicly without my permission.
It’s just bad all the way around.
I was going to post about this on SB but then changed my mind so I will here instead. I have no vested interest in Trisklion or their woes. I don’t read e-books as a rule and I’m not an author. I’m not all ‘het up’ as some of the authors were in their defense – but I don’t think it was well done of Candy and Sarah to post that email. Yes – this Gail showed a horrifing lack of judgement in posting personal stuff on a group email that goes out to hundreds of people. The more personal stuff was edited by the time I got around to it (thank heavens). Apparently she said things I don’t think I’d say to my closest friends in private.
BUT
Who knows how one will act in a crisis situation – how bottled up frustration can be very hard to contain and when the lid will come off – and where. So it’s hardly up to me to judge.
I think whoever it was who sent the email to SB’s had an agenda to make this poor woman look as bad as possible and SB’s facilitated this. I’m far from being one of those ‘if you can’t say something nice’ people, but to me this was beyond a spiteful thing to do. SB’s has a huge following and by posting this on their blog, they were sure to reach a very large number of people.
And I don’t think it’s ethical to post a private email that was not sent to them.
I’m probably in a minority – but I’m disappointed in them.
The biggest and strangest disconnect that I’m seeing here is how people keep seeing this as a gossipy, mean, spiteful act designed to drive up our hits, when Sarah and I:
1. Saw this as news, not gossip–and were, in fact, startled when we realized that we’d left the bit about the personal problems in there because we were more occupied by the other bits of the e-mail. People seem to focus on entirely different parts of the e-mail than Sarah and I did.
2. Didn’t post this to fuck anyone over, because honestly, we’re not in the fuck people over biz. We were doing it as part of a “HOLY SHIT what the hell is happening here?” reaction.
3. We’re not trying to drive more traffic to our site. That accusation probably stings more than the others, because Sarah and I are a lot of things, but we’re not quite that mercenary or calculating. To be honest, Sarah and I, we don’t do shit in the way of promo or planning for our content. We post what’s going on in our brains and whatever interesting bits we see on-line, or whatever lands in our inbox that we think we can post in good conscience. The one time I tried to link-whore was when the Tony Catanzaro thing went down, and I submitted the link to BoingBoing, heh.
Utterly fascinating to me that so many people are imputing malice aforethought to what Sarah and I thought was going to be a interesting but ultimately minor bit of information fishing. It wouldn’t have occurred to us to to pull a dodgy stunt like that, and frankly, I wonder if some of those people are suffering from a case of projection.
So much for not harping on this any more, eh? Haaaa.
One more thing: I didn’t say 200 was the magic number–I don’t HAVE a magic number, is what I was trying to get at but probably wasn’t too clear about. I said “triple digits,” because that’s well within the territory of “no longer private” for me. Does 99 still qualify for private? What about 55? 45? Fuck if I know, but I do know that triple digits = little to no effective privacy in my book.
I respect your viewpoints–especially the ones who feel oogy about the decision to post the e-mail, and took the time and effort to write about it without calling us names. In my experience, debating this sort of thing tends to solidify stances, not change them. All I can say is: Sorry we disappointed you. We seem to have different interpretations of what’s newsworthy and/or what constitutes an egregious breach of trust. I’m not saying what we did was 100% kosher, but I also don’t think what we did was beyond the pale, either.
By the way, Sybil–you speak as if you know the leak was a bitter, rejected author. Was she? I didn’t get that impression at all, but I don’t even remotely have my finger on the pulse of Romancelandia nowadays.
Just to clarify Candy – when I said spiteful, I didn’t mean you or Sarah – I know that you aren’t spiteful. I meant the original sender of the email – whether it was the person who sent it to you or the person who sent it to that person. But someone, somewhere did it purely to hurt. And neither do I think you posted it to gather more readers to your blog – goodness knows – you already have scads of them 🙂
And another thing that may have been lost – I saw it mentioned a couple of times – Gail – whoever she may be – as far as what I can gather, hasn’t taken over yet. Yet the flack she is getting from mistakes by her predecessors is huge – and unfair in my opinion. And unfortunately she did make a mistake – a huge one. But it is kind of sad to see all the posters pile up on her for an act that anyone could make in a time of extreme stress. We should all act professionally – but sometimes we don’t. NONE of us.
>>1. Saw this as news, not gossip–and were, in fact, startled when we realized that we’d left the bit about the personal problems in there because we were more occupied by the other bits of the e-mail.
Can you clarify — are you saying that you *meant* to take it out? On your blog in the comments, you said you didn’t hardly noticed it was even THERE because the rest snagged your attention as being more newsworthy. How could you have been suprised you *left* it in there…if you hadn’t previously noticed it?
I believe you said, “It wasn’t until everyone started bawling about the children, the children, oh lawdy lawdy the children that it struck me that OH, right, that part was pretty awful, too”.
This implies you had to be reminded it was awful and never had the original intention of taking it out. You also said, “Maybe because, like me, it kind of blew past her because it was overshadowed by the rest of the content?”
Of course it was Sarah who posted it, not you, and she said, “You can certainly tell me I’m wrong. In fact, someone did and I – hold your breath – admitted that I agreed. And edited the post accordingly.” This would also imply she didn’t think it was wrong to post the personal information until it was pointed out to her.
Incidentally, two of the justifications of how this email wasn’t private — internet caching of private groups and the loop in question being open for public access — have you confirmed if they’re accurate? No one else seems to be able to confirm those things. Your friend who signed up for this group — was it actually this group? Or another? That would be interesting to know.
The SBs, Sybil and DA are all very interesting sites and I always like to see the different takes on the same subject.
(Pardon the typos in the first para — edited to “hardly noticed”, not “didn’t hardly noticed”.)
The whole privacy issue is interesting. As Sybil knows, I have long planned an article on personal privacy in relation to a published book on this issue. (she thought it was particularly bland, lol). But now I think it has even more portent.
When Syb and I both received this particular email within seconds of each other, we debated about posting any of the material. I wanted to post that Triskelion had been dis-invited on the basis of the forwarded email. It was confirmation of what I had read on other forums such as Piers Anthony, blogs and rumors that had reached my in box regarding Triskelion woes (and these rumors started shortly after RWA announced it would be rethinking its publisher recognition guidelines).
We debated for a looonnng time because I saw nothing wrong in blogging about Triskelion’s woes. Syb’s stance was exactly as she stated above. I did find an open forum that had some information and, learning from the RT thing, I realized that people were willing to provide a statement if you asked. So I asked. But I think I could have easily been under fire like the SBs if I hadn’t taken a step back and listened to Syb and learned from my past experiences.
What I found most disturbing wasn’t the SB posting of the email but some of the comments which seemed to suggest that email conversations, no matter to whom sent, should not be considered confidential.
While there is no specific Constitutional right to privacy (although some argue there are limited personal privacies pervading the Bill of Rights), there are contractual confidential agreements. i.e., if everyone signing onto the group had agreed to be keep that information confidential under some kind of penalty, then forwarding the loop email would be breaking that contractual agreement. That contractual confidential agreement would not extend to third parties not in privity (meaning not party to the agreement) so those bindings would not inhibit the posting of information like that by anyone who was the recipient. The recipient wasn’t party to the tortious act. From there, each person’s own ethics has to come into play.
The court protects the rights of those who do report something that may be considered private if it is of public concern. Now, it is debatable whether the contents of the email, any of it, were of public concern. It was of concern to the Triskelion authors, of course, and to potential authors. Was it of concern to the general public when this was a closely held corporation (i.e., no stockholders). I am not sure.
I thought it was a topic that was newsworthy and others did too. But did we think it was newsworthy because it was salacious or because it had some greater purpose?
I’m not saying the issues with Trisk aren’t newsworthy, just the opposite. But regardless of what the law says, IMO, posting a private email is unethical. That’s what my issue is.
I think aspiring writers should be aware of the problems Trisk is having, but to have it come out like it did on SB’s site? I don’t think that was right.
I think your posts, Jane, were much better. Again, JMO.
And I think Kristie is right in saying it’s unfair to blame all of this on a woman who hasn’t even taken the position yet. It’s hard walking into a new position as is, but this makes it 500x worse, no?
Oh, and just to clarify…
Candy, I didn’t say you did it to drive traffic to your site. I said your site has high traffic. You have tons of readers (at least it seems that way). I don’t think you have to post topics like that to gain more.
Incidentally, two of the justifications of how this email wasn’t private — internet caching of private groups and the loop in question being open for public access — have you confirmed if they’re accurate? No one else seems to be able to confirm those things. Your friend who signed up for this group — was it actually this group? Or another? That would be interesting to know.
There is no caching of the Triskelion group. Unless you had mad hacking skillz, it is just not possible to obtain the information outside being a member of the group or being forwarded information. The Trisk group from which the email originated is not even listed in the Yahoo directory. You actually have to know the name of the group and type it into your address bar specifically. You can’t really guess.
It is “invite” only: “This loop is by way of invite for just Triskelion authors and staff to socialise. Share your triumphs.” Maybe before it wasn’t that way, but that is the way it is now.
I have to say that those two justifications just don’t pan out for me but I don’t think that the SBs have to rely on those (although I do wonder why they were used).
Candy,
Did I call you guys names? Well I think I call jane and bam a whore at least twice a day, oddly enough with affection. So sorry if I did.
As for the rest, as you say your finger isn’t much on the pulse of romanceland and most of your info is sent to you. To me that means you should do more fact checking or at least present the info in the light of the gossip it is.
And what is with the passive aggressive shit and projection? Are you meaning me? Uh cuz I don’t think I can be any more clear about what I am meaning. And passive I am not. Not sure how I could be projecting when I choose to not do what you did. And would, in this case at least, make that same choice.
And I don’t understand why you keep saying I think it isn’t newsworthy? I do think it is newsworthy. I think you should have taken time to check your fact and if you didn’t have time than used your normal shtick and ‘call for gossip’. I understand you are busy. But busy bitches does not a change in the word privacy make. It was private, you decided triple digits is not private in SB world. Okay, own it but don’t wrap it up in something else. Fuck me I am going to hell I am agreeing with ferblat.
Good god candy, I speak as if I know the leak?!? You reposted a private email without knowing anything about the leak? That shocks me most of all, of course I know who it is I assumed you did too.
I am so not going to let somebody entice me into following this mess.
What little I’ve picked up just from glancing at Dear Author aand here is more than enough… way more.
My opinion on from what little I’ve picked up… Gail made a mistake I bet she won’t make again, posting such personal info.
Whoever forwarded it on made a mistake. Gail acted a little less than professionally by sharing that info, and whoever the author was compounded it. I dont’ care what anybody says, it’s a contractual obligation AND a professional courtesy to keep info from an industry list within that list. It’s rude, and yes, wrong to share that much personal, damaging info for any reason. Wrong and right should still mean more than just some words in the dictionary~a personal moral code should still mean something. Whether you like a person or not, if it’s not something you’d want done to you…. don’t do it. If more people followed the golden rule, this world would be a better place, even when it’s something so small and seemingly innocuous as this.
Courtesy matters. Plain and simple. Damaging info shouldn’t be fodder for the grist mill, even if the person that posted the info was naive enough to post it. It’s hair pulling crap like this that gives outsiders yet another reason not to take the romance industry seriously.
I’d say the main reason whoever the author(s)is, he, she or they shared that info because they were pissed. Very professional attitude, that.
Yeah, I don’t really think SB should have posted it. I just don’t. What did it accomplish other than to get a bunch of people pissed off? Did they do something wrong, so to speak? Hard to say because they don’t hide what they are and whoever sent that email to them did it just so this would happen. I would say they failed to act with professional courtesy, but they don’t claim to be a professional site … so……
I’m just of a mind when a list is meant to be private…it should stay that way. But since so many people have an issue with private…yadda yadda, can’t be private with that many people…lets say, exclusive. That sounds snotty, but hey. If it’s an industry professional list, keep it that way. You don’t hear a bunch of lawyers or doctors whining on public boards because they don’t like the way the wind is blowing on them.
And while, again, I’m not going to go read thru the mess at SB, I have a feeling a bunch of authors have descended upon them en masse.
It’s time like these where I can actually advocate the saying…. if you can’t say something nice… But lets put a different slant on it…diplomacy and forethought…if you can’t use them when you’re posting on a blog… DON’T SAY IT. Because in a few months, years, whatever, it will come back and bite you on the butt. If it’s something you wouldn’t own up to if it came down to it, don’t do it. If it’s something you could potentially regret…don’t do it.
If you’re a pubbed author…then you are in the same place as those doctors and lawyers. You are a professional… act like it.
Can you clarify — are you saying that you *meant* to take it out? On your blog in the comments, you said you didn’t hardly noticed it was even THERE because the rest snagged your attention as being more newsworthy. How could you have been suprised you *left* it in there…if you hadn’t previously noticed it?
Ah crap–sorry, very poor wording on my part; I’ve been typing a whole lot these past several days and haven’t been proof-reading as I should and sort of slapping things out on the screen as they occur to me. At any rate, no, it hadn’t occured to Sarah and I to take the TMI bit out. We were preoccupied with other aspects of the e-mail. Bad, bad, bad Candy.
As for the caching issue and the group-joining issue: I haven’t confirmed with Sarah’s friend, but it’s looking more and more like she joined one of the more public loops, especially since those of you in the know say it’s invite-only. Sorry for getting that aspect wrong. That was entirely my fault. Bad Candy; no cookie for me.
The caching issue–I haven’t checked on the way Google caches pages, much less what it does to private Yahoo groups; some people are claiming it works one way, and now others are saying it’s not the way it works. To be frank, at this point, I’m so damn sick of this thing and I have so much backlogged work that I’m not going to research it. I’m going to leave it as “we are likely wrong,” because I trust Jane’s word on this.
Did I call you guys names? Well I think I call jane and bam a whore at least twice a day, oddly enough with affection. So sorry if I did.
No, you didn’t. Why would you think I had? You were included in the list of people who had disagreed with us with grace and calmness.
And what is with the passive aggressive shit and projection? Are you meaning me?
You were just a touch passive-aggressive with some of the things you said earlier, but I was referring to other people entirely with the projection comment–I perhaps wasn’t entirely clear, but I meant all the people who were saying we did what we did because we wanted to bring Gail Northman down, or out of spite. Which you hadn’t done, by the way.
It was private, you decided triple digits is not private in SB world. Okay, own it but don’t wrap it up in something else. Fuck me I am going to hell I am agreeing with ferblat.
Have we ever NOT owned this? I’ve been pretty clear from the start that I don’t think Northman’s e-mail was particularly private to begin with, and used the analogy of my company to boot. You and Ferfe are both going on about how we’re not owning that we’ve fucked up at all. Whaaaa? We’ve both apologized for the bits that we thought had been handled badly, but the other bits that are a lot more grey for us than they are for you, or Ferfe, or Cindy, or Kristie, or Ellie…well, shit, we’re not going to apologize until we actually feel we did something wrong, you know? How much more ownage do you want? Sarah edited the TMI, we’ve both apologized, I’ve repeatedly agreed it could’ve been handled with more finesse and that Jane’s approach was the better one. Whose forearm am I going to have to carve these words into to show the degree of ownage? (Goddamn, I’m starting to sound emo. Somebody, just put me out of my misery.)
Good god candy, I speak as if I know the leak?!? You reposted a private email without knowing anything about the leak? That shocks me most of all, of course I know who it is I assumed you did too.
Christ, Sybil, of course I know who the leak is. The key phrase is “bitter and rejected.” She doesn’t strike me as being that way–not in my interactions with her, and certainly not in the initial e-mail she sent Sarah and me. I mean, I assume you’ve seen the entirety of the e-mail, yeah? So you know that it had all of three lines of text saying aside from the forwarded e-mail. I didn’t read them as being bitter, but you impute a world of motive to her. I wanted to know if you’ve interacted with her any more and knew something about her personality that I didn’t.
I have to say, I disgree with SB’s handling of this matter, but at least they’re not being hypocritical.
When I saw your comments over there Sybil about your ‘issues’ with the invasion of privacy I choked on my toast.
I remind you of a couple of months ago when you broadcast an issue we had discussed privately to romanceland.
I know, I know, you seemed to think you were uncovering a scandal, but whatever. There was no proof, yet you personally attacked me, using private information.
That is why this blog post cracks me up so much.
Hypocrisy.
Oh look Sybil, you have a troll. Wasn’t she the one who was pretending to be about ten different people, and got a little huffy when she got found out?
Oh yes, it’s coming back to me now.
Hi Maria, how’s it hanging?
I’m pointing out that there’s some definite hypocrisy going on here.
And ‘huffy’ wouldn’t be the word I’d use Karen.
Candy you’re right you have. I was looking at it more from the well you can cache it so it isn’t private. Or hey anyone can join the group so it isn’t private. Neither which is true, I even have a nifty denied! letter to me.
So to me you did it because you didn’t see it as private and if it came down again tomorrow you would do it again. I think that sucks rocks but your blog, your right.
Say so… you gonna be a dumbass and send shit to a yahoo group, if it reached a level we feel isn’t private and if we feel it is news, regardless of how else we could do it we will repost it.
I just kept thinking it was very tabloid, trashy and beneath the site. That isn’t my call to make. But you have said over and over hey we don’t agree. We would do it again. So I was wrong there.
Honestly I was very very pissed at the time I wrote that and took it out on you and I am sorry for that I should have taken it out on The Leak. One more reason I would say you (?) or sarah – whoever made the call to post the email should have taken a bit of time to look into it. The leak wanted a bit of her own back and fucking tried to use others to do it. But you guys are the only ones took bait and posted it.
Google is your friend. Now I am gonna stop thinking about it before I get all pissed off again. Of course, gosh, privacy doesn’t fucking matter so if you were to somehow get a hold of information and post it…
gee that would be okay right… I mean it isn’t like anyone would say something is peachy fucking keen until it is their neck on the line… le sigh I said I wasn’t gonna go there…
::thinking happy fluffy duckie thoughts::
Maria pull your head out of your ass. Your game was so googlable it is laughable and in fact a LARGE reason why I have thought more about the issue than candy would even like to know. The amount of time I wasted on your actions and the people you took advantage of as well as the guilt I felt because I didn’t post every fucking bit of proof, links and lies you told is beyond.
And honey I did contact every owner of the contests you and your ‘four friends’ entered and said hey you might want to google this as this chick is ruining it for your honest fans.
I never posted your email. I didn’t even quote it. But now I am questioning that again but as I said over and over again but will repeat for you – slowly – in small words.
If there is no other way, if no one had been willing to address a newsworthy item, I said I could have understood them posting the email. But I didn’t feel I would, and since I still haven’t posted your emailS up for all and sundry – that sort of proves I wouldn’t no matter how shitty I think the persons actions are.
Hell Sybil, I know it looked bad..really really ass-sucking bad, and the truth is almost always lame.
And try as hard as I might, I can’t let this go. Call me a cry-baby but itr makes me physically ill that so many people who I have so much respect for, think I’m a lying scumbag.
Your proof can only be circumstantial. I am my own person. I go under a pseudonym for writing. And I have three best friends, and we are extremely close.
I can’t make you believe anything Sybil, if I were in your shoes I don’t think I’d believe me either.
But you can’t hang me for something I haven’t done, you can’t. But you’ve tried your damn best, and in public too.
And I would love if you could send me the list of those authors I supposedly duped. I would really like to make things straight with them.
Hey KarenS,
Was it ten? I could have sworn I only found up to five. And gosh you member that livejournal she posted a link to as PROOF she had real live friends.
The one that belonged to a 14 year old… the one who she said online in public space was her roommate… who loved romance… and you know that they are away at college together… uh but not really since she also said she live at home… and gosh that was all PUBLIC and doesn’t even TOUCH the shit that was sent to me about her.
::wipes tear:: good times that I can’t decided if I should laugh or feel badly for her
I’ve Googled the leak’s name + Triskelion and didn’t find anything much–some listings, a couple of perfectly civil blog entries. I’m not sure what’s going on here. If you have dirt, I’m interested in hearing it, but I also understand if you don’t want to pass it along. *shrug*
By the way, be snippy all you want, and I understand rage spillover, but Christ, woman, I listed my personal ethos RIGHT HERE ON THIS COMMENT PAGE, and you’ve dealt with me and my ability to keep my yap shut in the past, so what’s with the cracks about how anything that’s Googleable is fair game? The fact that I’ve agreed to keep the leak’s identity secret means *I’m* bound by a privacy agreement, so there’s no way in hell I’m making it public, even should I find something juicy.
You may not agree with what I believe in, but give me credit for being somewhat consistent and up front, eh?
ANd then it gets into the passive aggression. Would you please send me your proof Sybil, I’m sure you have it all in files somewhere, and I can cry into my tea about what an ass I’ve made of myself. Please
Syb, I’m positively crying in my cornflakes here, hand me some tissues will ya, my mascara’s about to run.
oh sorry candy… you do not have your sybil to english dictionary near by do you? I was being flip and doing it badly. Meaning… lets say for shits and giggles I sent you private information. That “I” said sure I don’t care run with it, post it, go for just keep MY name hush hush.
If I am understanding you right, at that point, you really don’t feel you own that shit if you feel it is newsworthy. I sent it and I got it so you are ‘released’ of responsibility all you are doing is keeping other publishers or even authors from being in the same boat later. Note: I agree for a large part here
I don’t think deep throat is then okay with privacy being fucked up the ass. Because it is now their ass.
And this is my lesson for the day. I would bet just about everyone of the authors agreeing, wooting and calling it kosher would no longer agree if they became the ass. Maybe… maybe… nora has nothing… she has been in the biz forever so my first thought is to call bullshit because once upon a time nora was a newbie too and nothing on the ‘net dies. But if anyone knew it all from birth I could buy it was her.
But I could go right now to email, pull up private yahoo list emails and find alleged shit on Nora Roberts. Of course it would be about not from, which I bet she is one of the few authors NOT on a group of some kind.
Would she still agree it was okay to post? I am guessing yes because the shit makes the other people look a hella lot stupider and petty than it ever would her. And she strikes me as the type to stand behind her words. Of course she is nora fucking roberts… I don’t think jackshit could touch her. Hell if she needed help burying bodies I would be in line – it would be a long line.
But all the other authors in that smart bitch thread going omg HOW COULD SHE, how unprofessional, that is an editor?!?, THE BITCHES OWED IT TO US TO POST IT and tsk, tsking at that gail chick… ten would get you 20 they wouldn’t be so peachy keen with it then.
Before the rabid nora fangrrls descend upon me (dude does nora have rabid fangrrls? She has to, right?) I was using her as an example because if there is crap on Nora Roberts (true or false) you can bet your ass there is crap on you and most likely BY you.
THAT is what pisses me off… almost more than the whole posting private shit… People think it is cool until it is them and THEN it is the big, dirty, nasty.
Listen to shiloh for I can’t say golden rule without laughing. If any person is going to be cool with flinging mudd and saying fuck privacy they better the fuck be cool with it coming back and hitting them in the face.
Dirt is fascinating, and lord knows I loveses it like it was my precious, but dirt usually isn’t news–you don’t say it, but you imply heavily with your example is that I’d find random personal dirt fair game.
And I agree, people would probably be pissed off if the same shit was pulled on them. Hell, I’d be pissed off. But I’d be MOST pissed-off at myself for posting that kind of thing to a not-especially-private loop in the first place. The ultimate fault would lie with me.
I’m also not sure what you mean by “not owning it” if it’s many steps removed from me and I think it’s newsworthy. What the hell? I may not feel obliged to ensure somebody else is keeping to their privacy agreement, sure, but that doesn’t put me entirely in the clear, no–how many times do I have to repeat that what we did was in the gray zone for me? It’s entirely situational, and that’s one s-word that sends absolutists running for the hills, screaming and clutching their categorical imperatives to their heaving chests. I still stand by the fact that we didn’t do anything especially heinous (caveat re: not having the sense to edit out the TMI applies), and that we handled it clumsily.
I don’t know how many times I’ve repeated the above. Please don’t make me do it again. Cry.
OMG… I have been wanting a “Lisa Kleypas said fuck on my blog” button (she hasn’t but I have a dream) but damn, “I made candy cry” THAT would be a fucking button to be proud of.
~Maybe… maybe… nora has nothing… she has been in the biz forever so my first thought is to call bullshit because once upon a time nora was a newbie too and nothing on the ‘net dies.~
When Nora was a newbie, the net was just a glimmer in some genius geek’s eyes.
However, when Nora was a newbie on the net, she made plenty of stupid mistakes, miscues, fuckwitted statements. I’d be happy to own them today, if they were dug up. And hang my head in apology. And claim statute of limitations on fuckwittery.
(And, Sybil, I know you’re just citing me as an example. No harm, no foul.)
You could absolutely dig up shit on me written by others. (I hear about it all the time.)
And you’re right, I belong to no group. That way lies madness, imo, and eventual mortification. Because people will talk. We can debate privacy issues until the cows not only come home but lie down to die of old age, but people are people. And ruin every damn thing sooner or later. Whether or not we want to say should or shouldn’t, whichever side you want to stand on, or if you’re in the big, gray middle, people will not zip it and throw away the key. So if you have any working brain cells, YOU zip it if you don’t want it passed around like candy. (Not Candy the bitch, but candy like chocolate bonbons or Hershey Kisses. Mmmmm.)
Since I don’t choose to take it up the ass, I don’t flap my lips on loops–termed private or otherwise–about anything I wouldn’t want printed in the NYT. And if I have a moment of insanity and do so, then I have to own it.
Right, wrong, or big area of gray, I’m not debating. That’s all been said, and I find certain validity in most points in all spaces–it’s the Libra in me. BUT, I will say, in my own opinion, that GN was beyond foolish, and stunningly unprofessional to post as she did–esp since she stated in the same post that she KNEW her posts were being forwarded outside the loop. The tone and statements of the business end were God-awful, not even going into the personal information she added in. Beyond the right, wrong, gray–because that cat’s ripped right through that bag–she has to own it now.
What is the statute of limitations on fuckwittery? I have always wondered.
*Snort* It’ll be fun.
Candy. I was never campaigning for you and Sarah to say you were sorry. I never expected you to feel regret for posting that email. What I want is for you to call a spade a spade and embrace your inner badness when you do shit like that. You unleash some of the worst elements on the web each and every time. Your site is not the only one but you are the first to indicate you might recognize a glimmer of how unproductively ugly it is when you get on the tracks with trainwrecks. It may be entertaining. Possibly educational. But pretty and noble? It ain’t.
Sybil you are safe. There is no possible way we could ever really see eye-to-eye on any issue. You are a lot nicer than me. 😉
As with any crime, there are degrees of fuckwittery from misdemeanor through to felony. And there is batshit crazy fuckwittery. Is it a first offense, or is it one in a serious of many offenses? Has there been true remorse or bullshit excuses followed by additional offenses? All this plays.
But I think a statute of limitations of a year from the last incident would be fair and just. The true fuckwit will never stop, this we know. But many stumble into fuckwittery, then crawl out again to become valued members of society.
~You unleash some of the worst elements on the web each and every time.~
I don’t understand this statement at all.
Then you haven’t been reading the comment threads on these trainwrecks OR you have a tremendous capacity for tuning out the sheer ugliness of the content.