So Gutter Trash has another admirer. Or maybe it's her with a sock puppet.
For the record, only two e-mails have come in pleading for higher understanding for Gutter Trash. It's off the charts at the public account for those saying let her have it.
Unlike the earlier Rodney King Can't We All Get Along e-mail, I don't know the person who sent this one. I don't recognize the name.
She's really, really worried about Gutter Trash.
See, Gutter Trash is just really upset. Gutter Trash is just sick over everything that happened.
Really? Because the e-mails are still posted.
But Lady X writing wants to know how can it all end! How can it all end!
Lady X (I'm calling her that, she provided a name which I'm not using here), you and Gutter Trash should be worried.
[Deleting a lengthy section before it posts. This probably reveals the legal strategy should I pursue that avenue and I'm not showing my hand on that.]
Lady X worries about the ones caught in the middle.
If you think she means my kids, you're wrong.
She's fearful for the 'organization.'
And she wants to know if I ever stopped to think about the 'organization' before I put anything up here.
Lady X, I did not start this.
Lady X, I still have not named the woman here.
Lady X, Gutter Trash did a week's worth of posts trashing us. She then went into her own posts and trashed us some more in the comment section. ("Us" includes me and that only further reveals the malice on her part since I'd had no contact with her.)
If you really believe that Gutter Trash's site and my site are so wonderful and so helpful, why weren't you calling for Gutter Trash to stop her attacks on me.
Gutter Trash didn't invent a name to call me at her site.
There was no element of surprise for drive-bys at Gutter Trash.
She made it clear when she named and posted Jess, Dona and Jim's e-mail. Then she want on to post Mike's.
You were never concerned about any of that, were you?
Now you're concerned.
You weren't concerned when The Common Ills was being trashed despite all the things you've listed as "good" that we've done here.
If you believe that (I doubt you do), then why weren't you going to Gutter Trash as she launched her daily attack on us from Monday through Thursday. (She has continued it. But I'm pointing out the very obvious fact that Gutter Trash should have been called out before I commented on this Thursday night.)
What will happen to the 'organization'?
If the truth hurts, ouch.
Instead of writing me about the harm you fear it will do to the "organization," write them. I understand Gutter Trash's boyfriend gets all the e-mails that get sent to the "organization" and writes angry responses.
Have you raised the issues you raise with me to Gutter Trash?
I doubt it.
And I don't blame you. I'm sure you wouldn't want your e-mail to end up posted at her site.
The public relations nightmare was not created by me.
It was created by Gutter Trash.
Gutter Trash launched a week long attack on Jim, Dona, Jess, Mike, Ava and me. (I consider posting Mike's e-mail without his permission -- expressed or otherwise -- to be an attack on him.)
Don't try to turn it around into anything I did to her.
The "organization" knows what needs to be done. There's some confusion over whether or not I told them to fire her. That's apparently something new that Gutter Trash is putting out. Nowhere in my eight lines of a message does it say "fire her!" The e-mail is entitled "You have been asked to remove those post."
But Lady X is insisting Gutter Trash says I said to fire Gutter Trash.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
XXXX e-mailed this account as a representative of yours.
Jess, Dona and Jim responded to some of her e-mails. They did responding to the representative of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
The woman is now having a "wow" over my cancer.
It is not funny.
You need to do your job and do it now: Tell her to remove those e-mails.
Thus far, I haven't named her or your organization online. That will soon change.
Not only that, but people contacting your organization are getting e-mails from her partner. You have serious problems with trust and it will be addressed in full if you do not have her remove the posts.
c.i.
Where do I say "fire her!" Where did I call for her head to the "organization"?
I didn't.
I know what went in the message. The sentence that begins "Not only that . . ." is my own. The rest was dictated to me by my attorney (and I left out a "so"). That sentence was added due to the number of e-mails coming in here noting they wrote the organization complaining and got a nasty e-mail from her boyfriend. (And agreed to my attorney because the "organization" was being advised of that issue via that sentence. Which they already should have been aware of. If he's part of the "organization," no respectable organization allows complaints on someone to be 'dealt' with by the spouse, love-interest or known sexual partner of the person being complained on. Right away, the issues of whether it will be seriously addressed and whether the organization itself will be informed of the complaints arise.)
Gutter Trash 'summarizes' my e-mail above but doesn't quote it at her site. Why the sudden concern for the law? Because she wants to tell people I'm calling for her to be fired.
She's trying to get some sympathy and off spouting another lie. (Lady X says it's up at Gutter Trash's site that I've called for her to be fired. I haven't read that myself because I don't go to Gutter Trash's site.)
Gutter Trash just tells one lie after another. She's saying I told the "organization" to fire her because she hopes it builds sympathy for her. Nowhere in my e-mail to them on Friday did I call for that. I didn't call for that in my Thursday e-mail because I was not sure she was involved with them. With her posting Jim, Dona and Jess' e-mail, I thought for sure she had lied to us about being part of the "organization."
That's why my attorney said to e-mail them on Friday. The e-mail on Thursday asked if she was part of the organization. Once the organization established she was, I was required (to show that I acted on good faith) to notify them that the posts needed to come down.
They didn't come down.
[Deleted before posting because I'm not going to provide legal strategy.]
I've been very clear throughout on what she needed to do. The law is very clear on what she needs to do.
She's broken the law and continues to break the law.
The fact that she continues to break the law will not look good for her in court.
If she's really as worried as you say, then she needs to start thinking how to limit her liability.
We know she's not going to do anything out of goodness. She is, after all, Gutter Trash.
But you'd think she'd at least be smart enough to have some self-preservation instinct to save her own ass.
Instead of doing that, I suspect she's gotten you and the earlier e-mailer to e-mail me.
What part of "my children have suffered from her actions" is hard for you to understand?
Thus far, I've only asked that she take down the posts. A judge will find my request highly reasonable and will suggest that I could have asked for more (especially some public statement from the "organization").
You and the earlier e-mailer act like this is all so confusing.
How did this public debate start, you both seem to puzzle?
It started when she launched a week long attack on us repeatedly that I wasn't even aware of until Thursday afternoon. I didn't make any comment until Thursday night.
It's awfully strange that you claim to be worried and concerned for both of us (Gutter Trash and myself -- it's cute how her two supporters both avoid the pain she inflicted upon my children) but you never e-mailed me to express that concern on Monday when I was being trashed or on Tuesday or on . . .
Get the picture?
It's why your e-mail is also suspect.
Gutter Trash started this. You aren't apparently bothered by that. You're just bothered that I responded.
It's as if she suckered punch me (repeatedly) and I finally defended myself and you want to rush over and scream, "Stop defending yourself!"
She started it. She started it on Monday, continued it on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday without my knowledge. I would assume she wants attention. (Which is why I've tried to avoid naming her here.) If she didn't want attention, why did she post on it repeatedly at her site? If she didn't want attention, why did she continue it and continue it? She had to know that, in posting those e-mails, at some point it would get back to us.
She started the dance and now you want to whine that she didn't learn the dance steps. Oh, boo hoo.
You want to whine about the "organization" and its future. The "organization" has been derelict in its duties. They believe she gets the word out at her site. So they apparently monitor it in some manner. They shouldn't have required me alerting them to the problem to first learn of it. So you really have a lot of nerve worrying about the "organization".
The "organization" allowed their staffer to do all of this. They have never objected to her.
You need to leave your pity party for Gutter Trash and start looking at it from the outside because it's not pretty.
On behalf of the "organization," she repeatedly e-mailed this site. As a representative of that "organization," she received responses from Jim, Jess and Dona. She took those responses and posted them (without permission or notice) at her site. That alone, leave out all the attacks she made, is alarming and goes to how poorly that "organization" is run.
I mentioned the Red Cross yesterday. I was told that with blogs so numerous, they are especially careful about blogs. I was told that they don't censor anyone's private thoughts but they would have a problem with a representative of theirs contacting anyone and representing herself as their agent and then taking the e-mails public and would explain it is grounds for termination and that, while they reviewed that, she needed to delete all references of it from her blog. That's the case if the responses to her were "abusive" or "violent," they would still have a problem with that. If they were threatening, the e-mails would be turned over to authorities. Even then, unless they were introduced into court, the organization would not allow them to be posted somewhere. When I asked about Gutter Trash writing about e-mails sent to the organization at her own personal site, I was told that if she was a part of their organization, she would not only be terminated, she would be told to delete her blog under threat of lawsuit. Delete the entire thing, every post.
I was told it would reflect poorly on the Red Cross and that they wouldn't want the negative publicity. For days, the "organization" didn't care. Even when I contacted them twice (Thursday and Friday), they were indifferent to their own role or any public relations nightmare. (Indifference defined by the first e-mail which offered no action or plan of action on the issue and by the fact that they did not reply to my second e-mail.)
Gutter Trash's actions created the current climate that has you so upset. I didn't create it. I responded after I found out about it.
I have made a very limited, very reasonable request. A judge will certainly wonder why I didn't request more from the start? I've not been unreasonable in any of this.
Lady X, if you're not Gutter Trash, you need to be a little less quick to believe her claims. If she blogged that I was calling for her to be fired, your first question should have been, "Why didn't she quote that e-mail? She's had no problem reposting e-mails."
The same way that her posting Mike's e-mail without his permission should have raised your eye brows. She's not being honest.
That is why she had her problems with Rebecca and Mike in 2007 and it is why Jess, Dona and Jim wanted nothing to do with her personally but told her if there was news or events she could e-mail.
It's pretty clear. And at Third (posting this evening) we go into it from a more distant view and how, from a distance, her excuses crumble even further.
