There are different types of anger - annoyance, earthquake anger and then there is the type where there is little outward sign but inside there is a very deep, silent anger over some injustice or other.
This is the type I feel this evening and yet it is at odds with the mood in RL. Actually I've had two successes in the past two days and am right chuffed about that, as the pieces start to fall into place. So in terms of general mood, everything is hunky dory.
The problem is that I have seen three emails in that same time which show what can only be called the treachery of friends. The last post on the matter mentioned this. My friend said tonight and he's not one to mince words, that I am a "guppie being slowly encircled by sharks who are moving in for the kill".
Now I don't know if that is so but I know I am incensed by one particular email tonight which spoke of my "imagined version" of events at Blogpower. Sorry - I think you mean the chronological order of events as they occurred, don't you, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "interpretation"?
It goes on to ask why I, as admin, who called for someone's expulsion at BP for publishing a private email not his own, should now be publishing private emails myself. So let's look at this email from the previous post:
The best one of all was the question of why am I stirring all this up now. That's a real corker, that question. Let me answer it please. Have you seen, in the past two months or even earlier, any reference to this sort of subject matter on this blog? Has any reader on this blog seen a post like this current one from me, in this mood and using this strength of language? Does any reader think that my usual blog persona is that of an "angry-blogger" like, say, DK?
Of course not.
So why then would I suddenly burst out with all this, out of the blue so to speak? Wouldn't it be more intelligent to conclude that there might be the tiniest little bit of provocation behind it? Actually, what there was was a litany of untruths and distortions about events and the reasons behind them. Worse though were assumptions of guilt on my part and assumptions of innocence on the part of the one who was accused. It is the assumptions by "friends" which is the most galling.
As someone else emailed me this evening, a true friend: "People who do these things are not your friends."
So we come to the statement that I tried to ride into Blogpower as a great king [see that motif again] and take it over again. Makes a good story but it actually happened like this: I was approached about coming back to BP. After all, I'd made peace with everyone and we seemed to be back on an even keel. Yes, I replied, just as soon as that person who should have been thrown out is thrown out. The reply came back to me that that would be a very long time. Next there was a post on their mailing list that I had tried to dictate to them from outside BP who could and couldn't be a member.
[UPDATE October 11th: Blogpower have taken issue with the last sentence in the last paragraph here in particular. The "post" was a message put up by Matt Wardman at the time and others concurred. It gave the impression as I've just stated and Matt further commented along the lines of,"It's just James sh-- stirring again." I saw this message but not being in BP now, I can't say what would have happened to it. Of course it may have been removed by now.]
Sorry, there was just the one. Just one.
Someone else wrote to me about an hour ago [this thing's like an iceberg] that "you shouldn't worry about them as you have support you don't even realize in the blogosphere." To that, my friend has just answered: "You do at the moment but they're clearly doing their level best to undermine that."
"Should I have posted nothing?" I asked.
"You're damned if you do, you're dead if you don't."
Better to be damned. I'm guilty all right - of sweeping the injustice done on me under the carpet. Bizarre, eh? Well, I'm now sick to death of the assumptions, the distortions and the lies. It may be the end of nourishing obscurity as we know it, it may not. But one thing runs through the mind:
"Publish and be damned."
This is the type I feel this evening and yet it is at odds with the mood in RL. Actually I've had two successes in the past two days and am right chuffed about that, as the pieces start to fall into place. So in terms of general mood, everything is hunky dory.
The problem is that I have seen three emails in that same time which show what can only be called the treachery of friends. The last post on the matter mentioned this. My friend said tonight and he's not one to mince words, that I am a "guppie being slowly encircled by sharks who are moving in for the kill".
Now I don't know if that is so but I know I am incensed by one particular email tonight which spoke of my "imagined version" of events at Blogpower. Sorry - I think you mean the chronological order of events as they occurred, don't you, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "interpretation"?
It goes on to ask why I, as admin, who called for someone's expulsion at BP for publishing a private email not his own, should now be publishing private emails myself. So let's look at this email from the previous post:
Now perhaps I'm completely wrong but it seems to me that posting this fragment, related directly to me, is a teensy weensy bit different from publishing a whole damned email of someone else's in a group mailing list. I was then accused of being dictatorial for insisting on his expulsion. Then I was accused of being wishy-washy. Now which one was it?"In fact James carried on as if nothing had happened in one way, visiting us and commenting, as we did too ... it was all just so bizarre."
The best one of all was the question of why am I stirring all this up now. That's a real corker, that question. Let me answer it please. Have you seen, in the past two months or even earlier, any reference to this sort of subject matter on this blog? Has any reader on this blog seen a post like this current one from me, in this mood and using this strength of language? Does any reader think that my usual blog persona is that of an "angry-blogger" like, say, DK?
Of course not.
So why then would I suddenly burst out with all this, out of the blue so to speak? Wouldn't it be more intelligent to conclude that there might be the tiniest little bit of provocation behind it? Actually, what there was was a litany of untruths and distortions about events and the reasons behind them. Worse though were assumptions of guilt on my part and assumptions of innocence on the part of the one who was accused. It is the assumptions by "friends" which is the most galling.
As someone else emailed me this evening, a true friend: "People who do these things are not your friends."
So we come to the statement that I tried to ride into Blogpower as a great king [see that motif again] and take it over again. Makes a good story but it actually happened like this: I was approached about coming back to BP. After all, I'd made peace with everyone and we seemed to be back on an even keel. Yes, I replied, just as soon as that person who should have been thrown out is thrown out. The reply came back to me that that would be a very long time. Next there was a post on their mailing list that I had tried to dictate to them from outside BP who could and couldn't be a member.
[UPDATE October 11th: Blogpower have taken issue with the last sentence in the last paragraph here in particular. The "post" was a message put up by Matt Wardman at the time and others concurred. It gave the impression as I've just stated and Matt further commented along the lines of,"It's just James sh-- stirring again." I saw this message but not being in BP now, I can't say what would have happened to it. Of course it may have been removed by now.]
Sorry, there was just the one. Just one.
Someone else wrote to me about an hour ago [this thing's like an iceberg] that "you shouldn't worry about them as you have support you don't even realize in the blogosphere." To that, my friend has just answered: "You do at the moment but they're clearly doing their level best to undermine that."
"Should I have posted nothing?" I asked.
"You're damned if you do, you're dead if you don't."
Better to be damned. I'm guilty all right - of sweeping the injustice done on me under the carpet. Bizarre, eh? Well, I'm now sick to death of the assumptions, the distortions and the lies. It may be the end of nourishing obscurity as we know it, it may not. But one thing runs through the mind:
"Publish and be damned."
James stick with me I can help you through xx
ReplyDeleteJames, As I said earlier, "You may not need me or want me to help but I am here."
ReplyDeleteHang in there!
Also, thanks CP for what you're doing for a friend.
James,
ReplyDeleteBe wary of all friends who befriend your abusers. One cannot be friends to both the victimizer{s) and their victim!
Your only 'crime' is that you are too quick to forgive the unforgivable, to make peace with the unpeaceable for the benefit of the ungrateful.
This leads the ignorant to take liberties, mistaking your kindness and soulful nature for weakness.
Personally, you have more strength of character and guts than any man I have ever known!
Darling, you know you are ahead, when you're being kicked from behind!
Lets all just be happy and be friends?
ReplyDeleteI have removed a number of comments above on the grounds that they could be seen as actionable and do not add to the point in question, where no names had hitherto been mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThis ploy of naming names to damage someone is one of the operational moves I was railing against in BP and exactly the reason they needed to be deleted here.
Similarly, the friends I am referring to are also anonymous - there was no way from my words to identify them. You could surmise if you were a pre-2008 BP member but no newer reader would know the hell what was being referred to.
I repeat that no names were named in my post nor any final identity established except for the one whom I demanded be removed. I did not state in either of these two posts why I wanted him removed beyond the fact of publishing a private email, which is safe ground.
The thrust of the two posts was clearly against "false friends" and references to that person were incidental nor did they either charge or establish the things I called him out for.
In my blog is no reference to the identity of that person nor is there any comment on the matter in general on my blog, other than in these two posts now.
That's for a reason and I'm sure you understand why.
Now, referring only to Colin's comment above and no other matter:
I hardly think it is a good move to trivialize the issue by putting on a Youtube video of soft toys singing a funny song which becomes inane in this context.
I wonder how you'd feel, Colin, if some friends [just a few from many, mind] had run you down behind your back over a period of months and then when you exploded, "Enough!", I came in and ran a link to a video singing, "Don't worry, be happy"?
It's not unlike the Monty Python thing in Holy Grail where, after having murdered half a wedding party, Lancelot is exonerated by the laird: "Let's not bicker about who killed who ... this is supposed to be a happy time."
I believe there is good evidence that I have been character assassinated behind my back over a period of time by five people I have identified [from a group of maybe 20, the others who did not do so] and it was done by revising the actual order of events in an incident in early 2008, combining it with snide character references and passing it round the web via email.
For people to do that who would never count themselves as friends, in the type of language which was used, e.g. "James should have been booted out of BP," would be quite OK - the normal cut and thrust of blogging.
To do it by turning a blind eye to the antics of someone I called out for whatever reason and transferring that conclusion to the one who called him for it and for those people to have been friends - that was beyond the pale.
One would think friends would have said: "We know James and he would not be worked up about something unless there was something in it. Can't see it myself but let's just leave it." That is what a friend should do.
All right then - let's follow the video advice - let's all be friends now I've said this and let's put all I've said to one side. It will be interesting to see if that happens.