I'm pulling this out of the entry I'm working on because it's a distraction. We note a highlight by longterm member Seth. After which, I explained what will follow. Please note that when we note a highlight by Seth in the future if the name isn't in bold print, it's not our longterm member Seth. If it's Seth of Seth in the City, the name will be linked but not in bold print. This is a talking entry, no tags. Here's the section I'm pulling because it will distract from the "And the war goes on . . . Indymedia Round Up" entry.
FYI, Seth above is Seth a longterm member of this community. It is not member Seth that does Seth in the City. When that site went up, original Seth was left wondering what to do. (I had no heads up that someone else was going to be using "Seth." I found out the name of the site the evening I noted it here.) What Seth and I've decided is that he will continue to go by Seth. If there's no boldprint, it's blogger Seth and not Seth who's been a member since December of 2004.
I offered to make that distinction months ago but Seth held off. What changed is the fact that Seth in the City no longer appears to be blogging. Seth notes: "He hasn't blogged for two months now." Members choose their own names and the only rule is you don't grab someone else's. When Mikey Likes It! started, we already had a Mike which was why the one we know as Mike now was blogging as "Michael." He and the then-Mike worked out a swap whereby they each flipped. With the case of Seth in the City, had I been given a heads up, I would've asked that a different name be used since we already had a Seth.
This led to confusion for a number of members early on (Natalie, for instance, wrote of Seth's wedding pictures that he shared in a round-robin last June and wondered if he'd broken up with his wife since Seth in the City is operated by a Seth who is openly gay). Any future site started by a member that wants to be linked will not be if they use a name that a member's already using. If tomorrow, Billie decided she wanted to do a site and entitled it ???'s Musings, we wouldn't link because we already have a member named ??? -- that's the way it's going to be from now on. (Billie would blog under her name, that's why I used her as an example.)
As for Seth in the City not blogging, if you have a problem with it, I believe he has an e-mail address posted at his site. I noted in March (in the round-robin) that I was not responsible for what others did at their sites. (If that seems harsh to anyone, he's blogged at various times that the next post would be about this or about that and members continue to write me asking where those "next posts" are? I have no idea.) I have no ill feelings towards Seth; however, I will note, because some members are easily confused (I've thought it was very obvious), that when Mike writes about how he's not seeking out interviews anymore because he was blown off, he's speaking of Seth who Mike pursued for an interview (and at the time it was a go) for months, only to be blown off. Mike was prepared to do it by phone, by instant message or by e-mail. The fact that there was never an interview done is not Mike's fault nor is it the fault of anyone working on The Third Estate Sunday Review that Seth in the City has not participated there. He has been invited many times. When that invitation also led to what was seen as "Sure" but then forgotten, Dona closed off the edition (I believe this was in December but don't have time to hunt that down and also do the indymedia entry). That was the statement that upset quite a few members who felt Dona was somehow being rude to the community. It's a credit to how strong she is that she weathered the storm (including some nasty names she was called in e-mails) without saying, "Look, I feel strung along repeatedly. I'm tired of holding off on something because maybe he'll work with us this time."
I'm not trying to attack anyone here but since Seth finally agreed to let me note that he wasn't doing a blog, that it was another guy, I'm just putting it all out there. I have no idea if or when Seth in the City will blog again. [Seth has continued to do highlights here in the interum and it's been noted with "We will highlight . . ." He's avoided doing anything for the round-robin because he didn't want to confuse the issue. That wasn't fair to Seth. This was explained to Seth in the City.] I know that Rebecca was encouraging when Seth in the City felt he didn't have a topic to blog about (she was the one suggesting soaps since he was interested in those).
People have been very supportive and have noted a post he did at their own sites if it was a medium one or just a few sentences. Mike and Wally have been very clear that they will not highlight that site anymore. They're tired of e-mails asking them, "Where's his post that he said he was writing about?" Mike's taken a lot of ___ from some members asking why he didn't do an interview with the blogger? Dona took a ton of ___ for her announcement which was her way, not of pissing off the community, but sending a message that she wouldn't be strung along with promises of contributions week after week anymore. Following my lead (or reluctance) they both kept it vague. As a result they both ended up taking flack that they didn't deserve. This is not to attack Seth in the City (and I'll still note it here if he posts something -- it's been two months now since the last post) but whether others do or not is their choice.
Cedric made a point to note him regularly because they both started at Blogger/Blogspot around the same time (Cedric had started earlier with his site hosted by Blogdrive). As Martha noted, week after week, for over six months Cedric's name was mispelled on the blogroll at Seth in the City. I pointed that out and that's really my last communication with the blogger. [I felt it did matter. My own typos were brought up which I readily cop to. But if I mispell someone's name, if it's pointed out, I do correct it. Shirley and Yazz have persuaded me not to worry about politicians and pointed out that the original rule was I would do if I mispelled a "writer's name." I think, others may disagree, that's there's a big difference between a typo in an entry and having a name mispelled on the permalinks/blogroll, month after month after . . .]
Cedric never complained but members did asking why, since Cedric was always writing posts that usually included a sentence like "Seth has an interesting thing up that made me think . . .," blogger Seth seemed completely unaware of Cedric's site or Cedric's posts. When I knew of one of those posts, I would make the time to e-mail the blogger. Why it wasn't noted there, I have no idea. Again, he has an e-mail address at his site, contact him. The whole thing caused a lot of tensions and I told Dona a few months ago (at the height of the ugliness to her) that she should go public. She felt it wasn't worth it and that she could take whatever anyone wanted to say. Now that everyone knows, I expect those who wrote less than kind e-mails to her to do as I suggested to anyone I knew wrote one: Apologize to her. She didn't deserve that.
Seth is apparently very busy. Gina and Krista didn't know him from Adam which is why he never appeared in their round-robin. (They wouldn't ask someone to write something if the person couldn't be sent a copy of the round-robin.) They checked with Mike repeatedly about the interview he was attempting to do and when they learned of the status, they made a decision that the site wouldn't be noted in their round-robin. That wasn't out of malice, the round-robin is a closed community and they saw no point in (Gina's quote with permission) "allowing someone to have a copy of the round-robin when I didn't know him, never heard of him, wondered why he was using another member's name and noticed that it was a three times a month post, then a twice, then a four times, then a twice . . ."
Seth is apparently very busy. Over a month ago, the last time I had an e-mail from him, he was planning to blog that week. Some people are too busy, some don't like to blog, some don't . . . whatever. If you have a question about it, you need to ask him because everyone is tired of being asked about it -- we have no answers on this. We know basically what anyone reading the site would know. I will glady make time for anyone that wants a sounding board; however, I don't have time to coax someone into doing a post. It they want to post, they will. If they don't, they won't. I'll leave it at that (and hope to unless some how the issue arises again) but note that if he does post, I will link to it here. I don't expect members to rush over, I know a lot of members feel like they got all excited about posts that were coming but never arrived. Around January, when I'd have an e-mail that there would be a post that day or the next, I stopped noting it here because I got tired of looking like an idiot and getting the e-mails of "Where is the post you said was going up at that site?"
If members have issues about this post or need further comments, e-mail Beth. She's our ombudsperson and that's what she's there for. (Beth will scream when she reads that.)
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.