I dislike conflict intensely. I abhor drama. I do not like to respond when I am livid. An incident happened on Open Salon in the second week of March 2011 which infuriated me. I chose to avoid an immediate response. I was simply too angry. I have made my visits to Open Salon very cursory since then because I just found the reminder to be distasteful. For me, Open Salon serves as a distraction from the high stress which is a part of my everyday work environment. I do not need to go from a constant high-demand work venue to an internet site which elevates my blood pressure and anger. 

I might not have addressed this issue. However, so many people have written and asked how I am. I know that some people have been concerned that I am not well and have wondered why I have stopped posting regularly on Open Salon. I thank each and every person who has written. The concern and care truly are appreciated. Thank you. This will serve as an explanation as to why I am so incensed.

When the spam on Open Salon became a noticeable problem, I wrote several articles on what might be possible steps to solutions. I did not receive any reply from Open Salon when I sent the suggestions to them. I even volunteered my assistance and the help of some well known, recognized internet security experts to help resolve the problem. This would have been on a strictly 'pro bono' basis. I made it explicitly clear that this would be done without any compensation whatsoever. I know that there were/are financial pressure on Salon/Open Salon. I never received a single reply from the Open Salon web site owners or operators. Those correspondences were not acknowledged. 

In late November 2010, Emily Holleman contacted me in her role as Open Salon editor and asked if I would help with the Open Salon spam problem. I replied and said I would gladly assist. From late November, with the exception of a few days when I was travelling during the December holidays, I deleted the spam as often as possible. I am told there were others who, along with Emily, were performing the same function. I know that Emily attends to the spam diligently, during her regular hours. I have tried to help her during her work day but I made certain that the spam was deleted during the evenings, weekends and American holidays. This is the spam that floods the "Most Recent" time line and some of the spam that invades the comment sections. My priority, however, was the Most Recent feed.

I know that there was always spam to delete, each and every time I looked on the site during Emily's off hours. The more effort that I put into the spam removal, the less assistance there was. I know this because I would pick up from exactly where I left off the spam removal. This happened the majority of the time. Therefore, I wrote scripts [coding] which made it personally easier for me to do the work. I made suggestions to Emily on how the administrative set up could be changed, to save time and be more efficient. She acknowledged those suggestions. Presently, the administration coding to delete the spam accounts requires opening a new tab on the browser to delete that person. It means a continual back and forth between opened browser tabs. That is a waste of time and a highly inefficient paradigm.

I further asked Emily is there was any old monitor in the Open Salon/Salon offices that could be sent to me. It was difficult to do the spam removal from a netbook computer at one major work location. I do not use a direct feed through the facility's internet connection. In looking at the spam postings, there is sometimes harmful malware attached. Therefore, I simply cannot put the facility system at risk of a malware/trojan/rootkit infection. I use a VNC (Virtual Network Computing) system to connect back to my desktop computer at home and remove the spam in that manner. My home computer is well protected and I know how to prevent malware from writing to the computer registry. It would be easier with a second monitor but there is no possible way that I was going to spend money on a second monitor in order to remove spam for Open Salon. That was not going to happen. Unfortunately, there was not an old spare monitor at the Salon offices. [And yes, I have told Emily about the malware problems and drive-by installations that I have found on some of the spam postings.]

As many people will recognize, the spam problem was decreased significantly from November until early March. This was during Emily's work hours, during her off hours and on the weekends. Some spam on the Most Recent feed may have slipped through but it would have been rare. With a second monitor, the spam would have been gone before it advanced beyond the middle of the first page, during a majority of the hours. If I was doing a midnight work rotation, all the spam would be eliminated by the time Emily came online in the morning. 

This work was done without pay or compensation in any manner whatsoever. I did not publicize this work. I never mentioned my involvement in any post or comment. Some regular contributors on Open Salon did figure out my involvement. I preferred to do it quietly, in the background. I neither wanted the attention nor the recognition. I felt more comfortable without the recognition. I did tell two people. One of those people was Mrs Riordan. I told Kathy Riordan that I would keep the spam off her recent posts so that she did not have to think about it, while she focused on distressing family matters. There might be notifications of comments posted to her email but no new remarks would be found. That would have meant that the spam account had been eliminated. 

I was infuriated that one of the people who supposedly was removing spam has used my efforts for his own self aggrandizement. It is unseemly and does not reflect his efforts. Nevertheless, he makes it well known that he is among those managing the spam problem and stresses his prominent contribution. He had made in known in a comment on one of my articles; he has made in known in his own article; and he makes it known in private messages. 

This person demeans the effort that has been expended in controlling the spam. That makes me livid. The spam clearly had been controlled significantly. Regular users of this site will have seen that. It is infuriating to have Emily's efforts, my efforts and others' efforts demeaned, when it obviously was having a positive impact. It is truly low to use Emily's efforts,  my efforts and others' efforts for one's own self aggrandizement. Is the need for attention that desperate? Is the need for recognition that pathetic and pathological? Is there no self esteem?

Each and every person reading this would be absolutely furious if his/her written work and intellectual property were stolen and plagiarism occurred. That work is proprietary. It is no less despicable when one's physical work, time and energies are misappropriated. That is simply unconscionable.

I realize that this is insignificant. Strife and tragedies in Libya, in Japan, in Haiti and on the daily news headlines should have my attention. I was hoping that the old adage that "no good deed goes unpunished" would not apply to my efforts for the Open Salon site. Unfortunately, it has applied emphatically. I am angry and disheartened. I am trying to find something positive to this demoralizing conduct. Perhaps my ire at this despicable, deceptive, demeaning, disgusting behaviour is forcing me to be less conflict adverse. It certainly is making me see the pitiful confabulations and misinformation that some people spew. 

If someone wants to take credit for a majority of work that is not his, then that person can take responsibility as the spam problem invades Open Salon again. If anyone has interpreted my quietness as acceptance of this demeaning conduct or a lack of fight on my part, that person would be very mistaken.

Catherine Forsythe

   *** I have closed comments. This statement is not to solicit support or to create turmoil. It is simply stating my perspective and vehemence at what has happened.