Monday, June 27, 2005

About Beth's interview and e-mail drive-bys

A few e-mails are asking about Beth's interview. We did it over the phone and the reason we did it that way was because her back was killing her. That's also why we delayed it. She went to the chiropractor today and hopefully is on the mend. But I've told her (including moments ago on the phone), do not start transcribing that thing. We can work on a different one when she's better. Or if she wants to do something while she's getting better to take her mind off the pain, we can do a short one and I'll take notes during it. But she does not need to be sitting up at the computer right now while she's in so much pain.

She had an alignment today and had X-Rays taken (she gave her permission to pass this on). She goes back again tomorrow. Until she's better, I told her I will not put anything up here that she's transcribed because she doesn't need to be focusing her time on this. If she feels well enough, or wants to get her mind off the pain, to call and do a new interview, I'll take notes and read it back to her so she can edit it however she wants.

Beth, we all hope you get better soon.

One thing that is bothering her is that we started out the discussion by noting drive-by e-mails. There were two last week that we noted.

For the first one, let me repeat, I am not your parent. If your feelings are hurt by something that goes up at another site and I didn't write it, do not come to me expecting me to kiss the boo-boo and make it better. In addition, do not come to me expecting me to take your side over community members. If people do not like you, they have their reasons and you need to take it up with them and not me. As Beth noted during that discussion, "Wasn't this already made obvious with the last interview when we talked about Centrist Ed?" (That's a paraphrase -- I don't have a copy of the tape of the interview.) It should have been obvious but someone felt the need to whine. And since I'd already requested that the person not e-mail me, it was all the more surprising to get this, "They are mean to me" e-mail.

The second drive-by.

(Which is what Beth really wants up here.)

A woman wrote in. She wants me to pass something on. She's under the impression that I've repeatedly praised someone here. (She's mistaken.) She wants the world to know that she says he committed a crime in 2000.

She says she found the site by putting in the person's name and another phrase into a search. I don't know what search engine she used but none of the ones I know of provided that result.
(Pulled up this site let alone an entry on this person.)

I am not law enforcement. If you know of a crime, you go to them. I'm also not passing on your allegations. If they are true, go to law enforcement. If they are true, you should.

Now remember the "She's mistaken?" I have never brought up the man here. Why? Because when I bring up someone I know, I disclose that. I'm getting really tired of doing that. He has been brought up only twice here. Both times by members. And that's clear in the two posts.

However, to the e-mail drive-byer, he is a friend of mine. You didn't know that when you e-mailed. Considering the nature of what you're accusing him of, you might want to be careful about spreading it around because, if it's not true, you're looking at legal charges. (And you know that.)

Because you didn't know I knew the person, I didn't go to him and say, "Do you know a ___ ___ because she's accusing you of ______."

But next time a drive-by e-mail comes in, about someone who is a friend, I will go to them.
The e-mail address is not provided so that you can make accusations about a person that you're not willing to make to law enforcement.

We didn't run passed-on info about Love in the Green Zone (passed on via e-mails) and we haven't run other similar items. We're a resource/review. I can't help you. I can tell you that if you believe what you stated in your e-mail, you need to go to the police. If it's true, he needs to suffer the consequences. If it's not true, you need to stop repeating it.

April of 2000 was a long time ago. You've had time to figure out a course of action. If your allegations are true, you need to report them to the police.

If this were a member, I'd engage in this topic via e-mail to find out what did happen and how I could help the member. This woman is not a member, she's not even a careful reader. (Which is why she thinks I've praised him at this site.) She may know of a crime, I don't know.

I do know that I'm no help to her and that I didn't appreciate hearing what she had to say because I'm trying to be fair and realize that I don't know everything about anyone. And I certainly don't know what happens when I'm not around. So I can't scream "Liar!" because I don't know. She may be telling the truth. If she is, she needs to go to the police.

Without revealing her name or the topic of her e-mail, I checked out that month (April, 2000) as best as I could. I don't see any indication of how it could have happened. That doesn't mean it didn't. That does mean that if she wants people to see ____ ____ in a different light (members like him), then she needs to come forward with her charges in a court of law.

Beth had asked "What if a visitor doesn't read this?" That's their own tough luck. I can't believe that the woman felt the need to share with me what she did. (Again, it may be true, it may not be.) It's really screwed over how I see the man now. And if it's not true, that's not fair to him. But I have no idea of knowing what is true and what is false.

But "Flower" (she'll know why I'm calling her that, due to an e-mail account), a web site can't address your charges, a court of law can. If you're standing by what you've now written twice about, you should be able to make your charges to the police.

Good luck to you whether you were being honest, lying or just pulling a prank. But I can't help you and please don't write again unless you go the authorities.

We aren't a "breaking news" site to begin with. We're a resource/review. And members have issues that they want addressed. You can't show up because you read one post and think you can jump in line ahead of everyone else even if your issue is justified. Until you make those charges to the police, it's not anything we're interested in here.

I'm not even sure we're interested in it if you make your charges. We're trying to focus on the Downing Street Memo, Iraq, abortion rights and a host of other issues. Your reading one post (and misreading it at that) doesn't allow you to leap ahead of people who have been waiting to have their say.

Again, I have no way of knowing what did or did not happen. I have checked out on my end to the best of my abilities while protecting your charge and your identity. It doesn't check out. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. That does mean that if your charges are true, the police will need to do an investigation and they won't be able to do that unless you make your charges publicly.

Based on what "Flower" has shared (and we've used that name before but this is a different visitor) (to use anything other than "Flower" might put the person at risk if she's telling the truth) I can't imagine any other site jumping on it. But they might. Especially if they're a breaking news site. We aren't. I can't help you.

If your telling your truth, take it to the police. If you're not, you took up time for no reason and we don't really have it to waste here. You'll note that once again, I haven't "sung" his "praises."
That's a shame because I did think highly of him. (Your quote came from a member who shared their thoughts on him, not from me.) Now I don't know what to think of him. Again, that's a shame because he's someone I would rate highly were it not for your disclosure.

There's a forum to address your allegation, this isn't it. Good luck to you.

The e-mail address for this site is and it is not provided for drive-by e-mails. It's provided for members (who can talk about whatever they want) and it's provided for someone who has a beef with something I've said here. It's also provided for visitors who are interested in the issues that are being discussed here or who feel that an issue that's not being addressed should be. That doesn't include a personal matter you have with someone. There are 1221 e-mails unread right now. I don't have time for drive-bys.

Right now (to give the heads up Cedric's requested before) I'm in the midst of working on an entry on the Tribunal. But Beth had called and was feeling she was letting the community down so I flipped screens to come over here and post on the drive-bys. Beth, get well. We can all wait for that. (And call tonight or anytime this week that you want to do an interview but I'll take the notes and you relax.)