It's neither your news nor business

We aren't interested in your smutty writings.

For some reason, that's not been clear.

We did not note a governor's problems that led to his step down, we don't do that stuff here. We also don't go after someone's children here.

At Third, Ava and I don't even critique the acting of the under 18 in a TV piece. That's why, though we wanted to review the final episode of Malcolm in the Middle, we didn't. We neither praise children nor stay silent. If we allowed praise, when we were silent the implicit understanding would be that there must be some problem with the child's acting since we didn't mention it. Early on, we dealt with the bad writing of a sitcom scene that involved adults and children. Focused only on the writing of the dialogue, we were still advised that a child could see that differently. Absolutely. We don't even walk it up to that line anymore.

Yet despite the above, despite the ignoring of one 'sex scandal!' article after another that people have sent in trying to have highlighted this year, I go into the public account and there are seven people asking that their 'news' article be highlighted.

An underage woman who is pregnant is not your news. It's not even your damn business.

A child is not a pawn to score a point. Going after a child is not an 'election strategy.'

All you've done is demonstrate a huge lack of understanding and decency.

The child deserves her privacy and you're bad writing full of puns and ha-has and 'I guess that tells us all we need to know . . .' It doesn't tell you s**t. And I'd love to how many of the ones writing about it were born to married parents and were born at nine months or later after their parents were married.

Generally speaking, the first to point the finger is usually someone with their own cluttered closet.

It is not anybody's damn business. It's not their business what happens, it's not their business what's pursued. ____ is not the poster girl for you to splash all your issues on.

She is a young woman, not even an adult, who has done nothing to be in the public eye.

Her getting pregnant is neither shocking nor revolutionary.

None of us would be breathing right now if someone hadn't given birth to us. That required -- hate to shock you -- first getting pregnant.

Proving that you don't have to be a man to be a sexist, the most vile piece sent in is written by a woman. Yeah, Red Annie's back.

Red Annie who tried to smear Hillary, attacked her for what her husband did or didn't do, wrote her little sick fantasies about Hillary's sex life, is going after ___ and she's "just posted this at my blog." You run to the gutter if you want. Splash around in there. Don't think any of us have to join you or that we want to join you.

It really is amazing to see this Closeted Communist flaunt how she herself (a mature woman, to put it mildly) will use anything she can to elect a Democrat.

I would prefer we never talk about it. If she goes public with an interview on TV, Ava and I will have to consider grabbing it and for the reason that so many are now gunning for that woman. Otherwise, we could just ignore it the way it needs to be ignored.

____ is not asking anyone to vote for her, has not asked anyone to vote for her. She is not an adult. She has not tried to be a public person.

I'm not going back into the public account tonight. I can't believe this crap.

We did not cover the 'scandal' around ____ this summer here. (Nor did I participate in writing a word on that scandal at Third.) We did not cover the non-news out of New York State that all the trashy types (including Amy Goodman) tried to pass off as news. We have never been interested in that topic.

If a 'straight' gay-bashing person is revealed to be gay, that's the only time we're interested. And we're only interested because s/he has made life harder for others by voting against LGBT rights, by campaigning against them, whatever.

Keep your crap out of the public account.

I'm not interested.

And you can add to that, a first pregnancy has built-in difficulties for all women regardless of age. The body is making adjustments. I wouldn't be making pregnancy 'jokes' about a 40-year-old woman, I certainly wouldn't make them about a young girl.

Unless you are her or the father-to-be, it's not really your primary business. Unless you are a friend or family member of the parents-to-be, it's not even your secondary business.

You need to butt the hell out. You're supposedly a grown up. The young woman is not even an adult. But you're supposedly grown up. So what's your excuse for your behavior because kids try things, kids test their strengths, they test their decision making and sometimes it works out wonderfully and sometimes it doesn't. And that's all part of growing up and it doesn't need to be 'reported' on or 'analyzed'.

The attitude that you're going to help Barack by shaming this young girl is disgusting. You don't know what the future holds for her and her child nor does she. How dare you try to stamp your tawdry version of events on her.

All of you who e-mailed are nothing but gossips with no scruples and probably a very crowded closet of your own. You have nothing to be proud of or any high ground to stand on. You're trying to publicly shame this young girl when you are the ones who should be ashamed. And 'scoring' a 'win' for Barack via smut only further adds to the perception that he has nothing to run on and no qualifications. Why else would you be tearing into a young girl?

You really need to look in the mirror and examine your own actions.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com and it is not for sex 'scandals' or pseudo-morality. Don't even send that garbage in.

No, the man e-mailing wasn't sincere

Yesterday, I addressed an e-mail appealing for Gutter Trash.

I did that here and without revealing his name because, although he seemed sincere in the e-mail, it was also true that he had posted at Gutter Trash's site and joined in the trashing of me. I had started out responding to him privately. (I didn't even acknowledge it was "he" in the public post yesterday, nor did Ava.) But Ava stopped me and said, "Call ____" (my attorney). I did and told him why I was responding privately and giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was sincere and, having just learned of what had happened, I thought it was nice of him to write. My attorney said he wasn't being nice and that he had posted at Gutter Trash during their Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday . . . . More than once, it was explained to me, he posted there.

So he's taken part in it, early on, at Gutter Trash's site and wants to play on Saturday morning like he's just learned of it? Did he ever post in his comments at Gutter Trash that what she was doing might hurt the "organization"? No.

He only had that concern when I learned what happened and began responding.

He didn't get a private response because it was highly likely that he was insincere and that any e-mail I sent him would end up posted at Gutter Trash's site.

If there were any question of that, he cleared it up by posting his public comment at another site (not Gutter Trash).

It wasn't a private communication he was interested in or he wouldn't have now posted at another site.

To his credit (whether he's sincere or I just shamed him into doing it by noting his concerns didn't include my children's suffering), he makes some sort of statement (I'm told "mealy-mouthed") about their suffering.

He then wants to some offer some advice that maybe I shouldn't have posted about it to begin with.

That's a cute re-working of the whole thing, isn't it?

My oldest son gets a call about what's up at Gutter Trash's site which is why I confirm to him that, yes, the cancer is back. My daughter and younger son have to hear about it over the phone from me (not in person) because I can't risk them hearing about it the way their brother did.

Now that's all Thursday afternoon/evening.

By that point, I hadn't posted a damn thing here.

After it's out, I do post it here. It is my life and I'll be damned if it's commented on elsewhere by others and I'm going to be silent.

The post ignores everything Gutter Trash did. No surprise.

He can go public with his e-mail, I don't care. On the minor chance that it was sincere, he got a reply but only up here. It was very likely he was insincere (and his actions now prove that he was) and that a private reply would have ended up posted at Gutter Trash's site.

Oh, yeah, "Gutter Trash." Poor Gutter Trash, I call her Gutter Trash. And I call her a coward.
That's what he writes. I'm so mean.

Mean? I'm a mother pissed off. And keep blogging and keep dreaming that a court would see it differently.

The three kids who learned their mother had cancer because of Gutter Trash's actions or Gutter Trash, who do you think the jury would side with? The three children with respectable lives or the woman trying to become a citizen? Trying to become a citizen because George W. Bush is in the White House and she will not be an American anymore?

There is on sympathy for her. She launched a week long attack.

She posted and commented at her posts for four working days before I responded Thursday evening. No one's going to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Unlike me, she didn't create names. Unlike here, where some are puzzled (which is why the Friday snapshot included my noting that it wasn't ____ because some visitors were confused and wrongly concluding that ___ was the "organization"), she's been very clear in her trashing.

The man is too vested in Gutter Trash to either see it clearly or care. But his attempt at public relations damage won't help her a damn bit.

Read Third later, we walk you through.

Gutter Trash wanted attention and pulled her stunt. Few read her so she got away with it on Monday and amplified it each day subsequently.

When we found out, I responded and I will continue to respond. Nothing will ever take away my my children having to be told over the phone.

The woman is Gutter Trash and not only do some feel that way about her now, most Americans don't think highly of her either. That's not just the right-wing that laughs at people like her ("I'm leaving if Bush is in the White House!"). That's also the left which made a point rejecting that logic with many "I choose to stay and fight" essays and posts in 2004. That's before you get to all the attacks on America she's left at websites. And those attacks don't instill confidence for her in the country she wants to be part of now. She's not a refugee. She's had no suffering at the hands of the American government. She didn't like the election results so she decided to renounce her citizenship.

That never looks good.

There is no problem with anyone falling in love with another country and moving there to become a citizen. There is no problem with anyone suffering persecution leaving a country for another. But renouncing your citizenship to the country you were born in because you don't like the results of an election? Packing up everything to move to another country because of an election?

No, it doesn't look good. It doesn't look good to the left, it doesn't look good to the right, it doesn't look good to the center.

It plays like some self-created high drama.

And when you then, as she has repeatedly, spew hatred at the United States online, you may think that looks good to the country you're trying to become a citizen of, but it actually looks like: "Well what election are we going to have that pisses her off and makes her leave us and start attacking us?"

The "organization" never should have used her as a representative.

As more and more learn of her, less and less support is there for the "organization." That's not learn of what she did to my children. When that comes out, it'll be even worse for the organization. That's as Americans learn that an "organization" they think might be worthwhile and might be helping people find out all the hate she's spewed at America online, they won't want anything to do with it. They won't want to donate or take part in any actions.

In fact, a number of US left outlets would have to ignore that organization because they don't want the right-wing smear of "America haters! You hate this country!"

Especially in an election year when they have become so tied to Barack's campaign and when Barack has had to wear a flag lapel pin to silence questions that he loves his country.

With Gutter Trash, it's all about Gutter Trash.

Instead of seeing Bully Boy's remaining in the White House until January 2009 as a time to roll up the sleeves and work, she saw it only terms of her ('I can't stand him! I don't want to be an American citizen anymore!'). That takes a lot of self-drama.

As Gutter Trash demonstrated repeatedly last week, she loves being a Drama Queen.

Thank you to the man for posting. It confirmed that he was never sincere. It's confirmed by his not noting (in his post) that he left comments at Gutter Trash siding with her trashing of me. It's confirmed by his not noting any of the attacks on us (right-winger was only one of the many charges she made against us).

Marci e-mailed with one point she wanted made clear. What Gutter Trash did to Rebecca and Mike in 2007 is evident in what Gutter Trash does online at her site. She e-mailed them these supposedly sweet e-mails and when she got a reply she let her true nasty self show. As Marci points out, Gutter Trash tries to play it a little more high minded ("though not high minded") in her actual posts and then unleashes her real attacks in the comments.

Marci is correct. That is a good way of explaining what Gutter Trash did to Mike and Rebecca. Read the posts (but soften them) as her initial e-mail, read all the comments she leaves to her own posts as her subsequent e-mails. Or, she tries to sound semi-rational in her posts and then lets her derangement really shine through in her comments.

Funniest e-mails are from Canadian members who have started a betting pool on how long before election so enrages Gutter Trash that she decides it's time to pick yet another country to call home?

Response to Lady X

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.