After the hand-off, Lsuomo apparently thought that the best way to fuck over everyone's work of the previous week on scaling back and working on not alienating as many people as possible, was to make the official motto of the new place "better than a kick in the cunt". This did not go unnoticed. Stephanie (Stefunny - useful distinction to make clear a later point) Zvan at Almost Diamonds has a post up about this, and she's right to use it as a sign that some people were not honest brokers in the process.
Some of us (the others will have to identify themselves as I'm not into outing people just because), however, were. And I don't aim to be tarred with Lsuomo's groups' deceptions. Tar me all you'd like for things I've said and done; don't convict me for what others say and do. To further hamper matters came the thread with the singing along to a song that is a bit in the rape-y talk. Zvan reads it as being rape-talk, and I do too. Some others think otherwise. Given the nature of the conversation at hand, it's unwise and unhelpful to post it only to claim that it has any purpose other than being able to claim some degree of 'well you don't have to take it that way, and only do so for victim cred'.
Some people might well be in that camp. I am not. But even knowing that some people might 'wrongly' read it that way, there's an argument to be said that putting it up anyway is just to be gratuitous.
Then came my contacting some of the FfTB people; notably, Stephanie and Ophelia. This isn't my showing that I'm in support of them, but on a very, very narrow and short-lived moment. In this non-discussion between them and me, I detailed one of John Greg's more obvious deceptions; namely, he created a post addressed to Stefunny where he implies, but does not specify who, that some people are making the claims that SP2.0 will be editing and deleting posts (a charge we've made all along against FfTB - correctly so). He denies this. For reference, I take the post as accusing Stephanie as being the one making the claim because he singled her out as the post's intended target, but again in a way that he can use 'plausible deniability'.
So, what's the problem with that? Not two hours later, John Greg is constructing an argument that the ability to edit posts should be retained, but that his mind isn't made up. To flatly deny to Stephanie that it will be happening and then later claim his mind isn't settled is, well, inconsistent. Indeed, one should think that if there's a flat denial, then any later course of action or argument from John's position is constrained by his earlier remarks, unless and until he retracts them. To do otherwise is inconsistent. To do so knowingly and then argue that it's correct is to just lie.
He didn't; he's just arguing two opposing propositions for whatever reasons.
He responds that I'm distorting what he says, and if I'd read his posts I'd know he's talking about not forced editing and deleting of other people's posts. This is inapposite and irrelevant. The complaint has always been that editing and deletion revise history - the claim has never been that it's a revision of history only if someone else does it. It doesn't matter who does the editing in point of fact; that it will and does happen is the point of moment.
One of the points of pride at Abbie's place was that once it's said, it's said. And in order to 'unsay' it, one has to later on formally retract the claim, not to think better of it in a few minutes and go back in to edit shit.
Right, wrong or whatever, once it's said, you're stuck with it warts and all. You may not revise history as it's convenient for you. Hit the publish button, and it's now history.
Except over there. Now you can hit the button, regret something, and then open up the edit window to rewrite it. Instead of having to do the honorable work of confessing error, retracting a claim and then stating what one now thinks that is different.
He calls this prohibition against being able to rewrite what he says 'censorship'. No, John. Not erasing from history what you've said because you later on regret saying it isn't censoring you. Had a free chance to say whatever you thought. And then you said it. Not allowing you to disappear it only stops you from being able to claim you never in fact said what you actually have said.
No, I'm not linking to them; be judicious and you can find the comments I left at both Ophelia's and Stephanie's places, which they generously (though they didn't have to) let out of moderation. I suspect they did so as to make use of what I've said because it shows the dishonesty they've been claiming the whole while. That is fine with me, because on this narrow point with respect to the people identified, I'm in agreement. They are lying, patently, about what they're doing.
To the charge that I'm being a baboon - well, okay. I don't have loyalties to people to the exclusion of my ethics. I have maintained all along that if x is wrong for y, then x is wrong for everyone else. Even my friends. My ethics aren't my friends' commodity to be spent and handed away as they see fit. Only I have a vote on when and if I'll break my ethics. And that the FfTB people are right with respect to the points I've addressed at their places gives me no license to pretend otherwise because others with whom I have elsewhere and otherwise associated find it inconvenient.
Indeed, a sign of integrity is to concede points that one's enemies make that are, in point of fact, correct. And on this point with respect to the dishonesty of the people at the SP2.0, Stephanie was perfectly correct. I get that this inconvenient for those who want to persist in dissembling; that is their problem, not mine.
Stop lying and it will be impossible to find evidence that you've lied. It's very simple.
For others, I highly suggest you join in the 'let's bash Justicar' threads over at SP2.0; I've always wanted to be Witch of the Week to two groups simultaneously. There are, last I counted, 3 threads specifically about me. There might be 4 or 2 by the time you get there depending on who's adding to content and who's taking away.
But if you're going to do it, at least be entertaining. I'm feeling a bit like Majel Barret's funeral organizers: wear something appropriate and colorful; Majel hated it to be boring.
Oh, and Hoggle, let me thank you for the colorful, angry emails you send me:
You are a pathetic fucking crank head. Stop telling others to "let things go..." when you can't and just regurgitate crap in and endless circle.When you're in a position to know what I know, you'll have a leg to stand on with respect to claiming to know what I know and don't know. As it happens, you aren't. I'm not sure whether you should keep emailing so I can laugh, or whether you should stop so that I can think you've finally received the attention of the mental health experts like you've long desperately needed.
You just churn out gibberish and bullshit, and have complete contempt for any reality that deviates from yours. You're just a screaming spoilt brat that has to have his way in everything. Stop speaking for Abbie - you represent no one other than some meth'ed up alpha male RPG character in your own fantasy world.
