Not What I Expected

 

mishima666

mishima666
Birthday
December 31
Bio
Still above ground.

MY RECENT POSTS

MARCH 23, 2011 3:19PM

My Despicable Low Behavior: An Explanation

Rate: 55 Flag

Though the cover page of Open Salon assures me that "YOU MAKE THE HEADLINES," I never suspected that "top rated" item this morning would be a post accusing me of "despicable low behavior," written by well-respected and long-time OS member Catherine Forsythe. 

The despicable low behavior described in this post apparently refers to a post that I published last week:  The Current State of Spam on Open Salon.  I suspect that anyone who wanted to read the post already has, but if you have not, feel free to click on the link.

But for those who have already read the post, or don't want to spend the time, I'll give you a quick summary.  The post describes my experience as an OS "spam cop," one of the people who volunteer to delete spam accounts on OS.  Based on that experience, I then discuss the volume of spam on OS, talking in particular about the large volume of spam accounts that might not be readily visible to most OS members.  I then offered suggestions for ways to do a better job of  controlling spam, and suggested that those who are concerned about spam might want to contact OS management to voice their support for better spam control.

Out of a fairly long post, the portion devoted to my description of my experience consists of two short paragraphs, for a total of  four sentences.

This, apparently, is what Catherine interprets as "self aggrandizement."  even though I use the plural "spam cops," as well as phrases such as "When a spam cop observes a spam post, comment, or link account, he or she can delete the account using a special utility."  So the post clearly acknowledges both the existence and work of other spam cops.

But this obviously was not enough for Catherine.  She takes umbrage over the fact that I have talked about my experience as a spam cop with others:

"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."

Yes, the horror!  The horror!  What a terrible person I must be to mention my spam cop experience in a single comment, and in private messages!  And then to write about it in a post!  To Catherine this is like Clark Kent letting everyone know that he is Superman.  But for me, this was simply a matter of talking about my experience on OS, and part of my experience is, in fact, being a spam cop and deleting spam.  No one ever told me it was supposed to be a secret.

Concerning the contributions of other spam cops, as Catherine well knows, there is no way that I can know how much spam other people are deleting.  All I know is that someone is deleting spam, but I don't know who or how much.  All I know is that whenever I logged in, there was more to delete.

And that was the problem I described in my post.  I mean, you could recruit Einstein, Jesus Christ, and President Obama to be spam cops, and they could delete spam day and night, and you still would not be controlling the spam in any significant sense.

And I don't necessarily even know who all the spam cops are.  Nobody ever sent me a list, and for all I know there could be ten spam cops.  Stated in terms of popular culture, I don't know who the spam cops are any more than the inhabitants of Battlestar Galactica know who the Final Five Cylons are.

So the bottom line is that what she calls "stressing my own contribution" comes from the fact that there's no way for me to know what anyone else's contribution is.   Spam is either deleted or not, and if it's deleted there's  no way to know who deleted it.  Unlike in the movie Apocalypse Now, there is no "spam death card" that we place on deleted spam in order to identify our "kills."  

The sad thing about this little controversy -- a controversy that Catherine has manufactured for reasons known only to her -- is that it is so unnecessary.  After my "spam post" was published, I heard through the grapevine that Catherine was upset with it.  I was sorry about that, because it was not my intent to offend anyone.  And I told a couple of people in private messages to tell her that I would be happy to discuss the post with her.  Whether those messages got to her I don't know.

I do know that she never contacted me.  Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but when a person is in a mind to accuse someone else of "despicable low behavior,"  that person should at least make an attempt to resolve the issue privately. This was not done.  And if someone is going to accuse another OS member of despicable low behavior in a post, the polite thing would be to let the target know that the post is coming.  That was not done, and instead I ended up finding out about the post through private messages written by other people.  And then Catherine closes comments on her post, and I am unable to respond to the accusations in a comment on her post.

As I mentioned at the start, Catherine is a well-respected member of OS.  But in this one case, I feel that she has handled the situation poorly, creating an unnecessary controversy that could have been handled with private communication.

And I guess the lesson for me is not to offend a popular person on OS, or you'll get torn a new orifice in public on the front page.  The last time I looked at her post there were 59 "thumbs up."  And to those who rated that post and thus kept it on the front page,  I would only ask "rated for what?"

Author tags:

spam, open salon

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I read the post you mention and I didn't get the reason for it. As near as I can tell the person in question is offended that you...what, reported honestly on the spam situation? I'm at a loss here.
You're not the only one at a loss.

As far as I can tell, I think she feels that I inappropriately trumpeted my "contribution" to the spam cop program, when in fact she was the one who was doing most of the work. But as I said in the post, there's no way I could know what she was doing.

But really, does it matter who was deleting what? The point of my post was that the spam cop program is not enough to control spam.
As an FYI, the Jack of Diamonds is my Spam Death Card. I'll show those damn VC spammers who's winning!
"The point of my post was that the spam cop program is not enough to control spam."

Yeah, that's how I took it. Now you're being accused of self-aggrandizement, but I'll say for the record: if there's an OSer who doesn't bother with tooting their own horn it is you. I'm guessing a lot of the people rating that post currently in the Top Rated feed don't even know what it's about; some of them are even the same people who commented favorably on your original article discussing the spam problem.
We all need to quit tearing each other up.
I can't tell three quarters of the time who it is that is offended and what for!
The better people here just need to endure temporary (I hope) confusion till the spring solstice (when is that again) when annually all things become clearer.
I recommend NyQuil® till then.
No M, it doesn't matter a hill of imaginary hashish fed horse-shit!

God, I love alliteration!
Yeah, I see your point. I didn't read your original post, but I read Catherine's today, and I was puzzled by it.

I don't think that you did anything "low" or "despicable".
Fred, Mish isn't tearing anyone up. He has been the target of a very public assault on his character and he is defending himself. I realize it's satisfying to say "can't we all just get along" but if that involves sitting back and letting people trash you, to hell with it.
I viewed your original post as one simply passing-along some information.

[R]
Mishima, as you know we go back a very long time here on OS and I want to thank you for all of your efforts towards making this a better place for all! Like others who have commented already, I am puzzled by the accusation set forth earlier.
Well, shit, I was one of the people who rated Catherine's post, I guess because she seemed so hurt and I had only the dimmest memory of your post - and didn't bother to do my *research*. But what you say here corresponds with said memory, so I've (haha) retracted my rating of Catherine's post and given it to you.

I think Catherine has every right to be upset - but she is taking it out on you, who was operating in the dark, instead of on management, who know all the spam cops and probably have some notion of the volume of FREE WORK they're doing. I think management should post a big kissy thank-you to all of you, by name........and both you and C have made suggestions for addressing the spam problem in ways other than having volunteers use their own time on it, and it seems that those suggestions have been ignored (I don't remember yours, but C said in her post she could rustle up some resources to tackle it, again for free).

I do remember your making the point that OS is basically a spam site with a few posters swimming in the spammy sea, and I was a little shocked at that...and concerned about our future. I wish management would take further advantage of you-all, that is, listen and implement your suggestions, and furthermore PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY THANK YOU FOR THE FREE WORK YOU PUT IN TO MAKE THE SPAM SCENE A LITTLE MORE BEARABLE.

I personally thank you (and Catherine, and whoever else). I volunteer nada, being burnt-out (and know nada about computers except how to turn on and type), so I'm impressed by your-all community spirit.

I hope Catherine feels a little better about it all now that you've posted this... (And you have been, as always, a perfect gentleman...)
ditto nana & the situation
Jeanette writes: "I don't think that you did anything "low" or "despicable".

The bar for "low" and "despicable" is being set pretty low -- like about one inch off the ground.

nanatehay writes: "He has been the target of a very public assault on his character . . . "

Yeah. I mean, if that post had slipped through the queue and got 5 or 10 thumbs up I would have let it slide. But when it's on the front page for hours, is the "top rated," and has 60 thumbs up, I feel like I have to respond. But I find this whole situation very distasteful, and take no pleasure in saying critical things about anyone.

Joisey writes: "I viewed your original post as one simply passing-along some information."

I think that's how 99.9 percent of the people took it. I'm aware of only one person who took it otherwise.
Mishima - you have been a valued and highly respected contributor to this community since it was launched. The topic and tenor of Catherine's post, and her decision to close off comments, are sad reflections of what this place has become - a hall of mirrors where little light shines.
I am sorry you had to defend your very rational post, and thank you for everything you have done to defeat the spam bots.
Well, I'm very grateful to you both, and whomever else is laboring away at this Sisyphean task. The difference from last fall is nothing short of miraculous, and while I don't think anyone should have to be doing this, there's no return in being quiet about it. Hell, there's no return, period. What Myriad said.
Nana, I've never been anyone's pushover.
I was actually agreeing with Mish, but I'll stand on my comment here.
Love is all there is!
There may be more to this story than either of you are telling but I didn't get the feeling from your original post that you were hogging credit. As I said at the time in response to Matt ("peaceloving") Pout's attempt to stir up trouble about this, you were clear that you were working with others. As per usual at OS, those with incredibly thin skin and even lower self esteem leap at any opportunity to take offense so as to make themselves more prominent especially if it's at the expense of a senior member. I have nothing against Catherine at all. I'm just questioning the behavior of some of her so-called friends in whipping this into a frenzy.
i'm with nana and 1-mom and designanator. i read catherine's post this morning and it confirmed what has been swirling around the rumor mill for a while. sorry, but i call crap. sounds to me like someone's nose was out of joint because she wasn't given *all* the credit. [sniff]
Let's get this post rated!
This is really the stupidest thing ever on OS. Mishima wrote an article that informed everyone who uses this site what he has observed, from his experience doing a service that helps all of us and - and it hurt someone's feelings?
That's like saying, well, I'm so sorry I was directing traffic and while doing so didn't realize you were also directing traffic. But look, I'm here directing traffic. "You're stealing my traffic jam!" . "But I'm just trying to direct traffic." "You're a depicable low life!"


Really? I would address Catherine directly, but I can't because she has to just control the traffic jam apparently.
How can it possibly be that there is an issue about who is controlling spam? Really??
Catherine Forsythe is a great writer and a great member of this community. It makes me sad to see someone I respect erase so much good will and good work through a self serving post that makes accusations and doesn't allow any discussion or comment.

There was nothing said about her or her work or whatever. I'm a bit horrified that her whiny little rant is getting rated - but...I trust that she is smart enough to reply to this response. And really - put on your adult diapers and stop weeping when someone leaves for five minutes.
I have my Depends on so I can, once again, thank mishima for letting me know that this is a spamming place that just happens to have a few blogs.
Thank you, sir.
@ miss aim, thank you for wearing your adult diapers! This place already smells too much like a nursing home.
Having read both blogs today, I think the misunderstanding comes from the miscommunications of the editors. Had they taken some time just to keep us abreast of the spam situation, had they taken some time to say thank you to all who are spam cops, this confusion could have been avoided. To all who work to keep us somewhat free of spam, from me, I say thank you for your time and efforts.
aim writes: "Catherine Forsythe is a great writer and a great member of this community. It makes me sad to see someone I respect erase so much good will and good work through a self serving post that makes accusations and doesn't allow any discussion or comment."

Hopefully it's not erased. Everyone makes unfortunate decisions, and I am reminded of the old saying "write injuries in dust, benefits in stone." Most OS controversies are forgotten the next day; hopefully this one will be.

Emma writes: "I'm just questioning the behavior of some of her so-called friends in whipping this into a frenzy."

I have a feeling that there were things going on behind the scenes of which I was not aware. The response that I got from the post, both in comments and private messages, was overwhelmingly positive. I believe that the great majority of OS members just want the spam to stop, and they don't care how that happens or who does what. Frankly, they shouldn't have to care about that.

The volunteer spam cop program was a good idea, and it does have a positive effect. But it's not enough.

I look at it this way: let's say that the neighborhood dogs come into your yard and poop on it. There are two ways to control that. The first way is to go into the yard every day and scoop up the poop. The second way is to build a fence so that the dogs can't get to the yard.

The spam cop program is all about scooping up the poop. It improves the venue, but it's not a solution, and it takes a lot of time and effort. My post was about building a fence -- with no offense intended to the other poop-scoopers. We can delete spam all day and night, but the solution is in keeping it from entering the site in the first place.
There were people here under the impression that Catherine was handling the spaminator job solo. I knew there were others, and I knew (somehow) you were one of them, but your handle escaped me and I couldn't enlighten them. When I read your first post, I remembered it was you (duh!) FWIW, I didn't see it as you puffing yourself up at all, but I had a feeling it might rankle. Sigh...

Lezlie

I think jane smithie might be on to something when she says C is frustrated by the lack of response from OS management. And I'm saying I think all of you should have been recognized by OS management for your generous volunteering of your time.
May I offer the following thought (and heaven knows I'm so busy, I hardly have time to share them...):

"Thank you for deleting the spam!"

:-)
Thanks to all who give of thier time and energy to help keep the spambots under control. I haven't seen a spam comment in...I can't remember how long, but certainly several weeks. As far as I'm concerned the situation is vastly improved.
Your work to keep spam at bay is greatly appreciated, as was your post some time back about real barbers and shaving with a single edge blade. I like your contributions around here.
Frankly, this has to be the most idiotic internecine squabble I've seen on OS thusfar.

On another note, could you let the spam come back for maybe an hour? I need a team shirt and some running shoes.
Ahhh the whole lot of you can go puck yourself!! YEA!!! I'm gone, I'm leaving, this is it, everyone on here is a bunch of bitches and whores and sluts, yeah, Mish, you're a slut!!!! That means, you do stuff for free!!! SLUT!!

nana is one too!!

Yea!! There you go!! To show the both of you, C and M, I've rated ya both!!!!

Ed I Tor can go screw herself too!!! The whole lot of you can go screw yourself and when you do, get it on PornTube, it'll go Viral!!!!!!!

See ya all in Hell,

I'm outta here!!!!

It's been real, it's been fun, it ain't never been real fun!!! PFFFFFFFFFFFT!!

Your friend,

Bob X. Williams

P.S.

AND SCREW THE HORSE YOU ALL RODE IN ON!!!!

YEA!

YEA!

PEACE OUT
~BACK~

Nah, I'm just kidding on the real fun, john reminded me, I love spam!!!

There, that's it, I'M GONE!!!!!

~flips everyone a half of a peace sign~
I rated Catherine's post this morning, not because I was aware that it was directed to you, but because I wanted to show support in letting her see that, like many who respect and have benefited from her knowledge and help, I would like to see her come back.

I also rated your previous post, Mishima666, because it was a post which explained what was happening behind the scenes in deleting spam. I thank you as well as any spam cop equally for the pro bono work you have been doing - to fight an up hill battle.

I regret seeing what happened today - especially in fighting against the same cause. Your post explains to me what has been rumored, but I am a stranger to rumors. I am grateful to you and to Catherine as well as any other(s) who has/have given of his and her time. Thank you, thank you!

Peace and Rated.
Here is the body of a message I sent Catherine Forsythe:

It seems to me that you could have contacted mishima666 directly rather than throw gasoline on the fires that alight on OS yet again, given your stated objections to conflict. Instead, you close comments and don't brooch any conversation about your opinion of what he said. That seems unfair to me.

I've worked for free on other websites myself. It's often a lot of work and the people who do the work for free get a lot of grief from other participants who are unburdened by volunteering to make a site a better place to participate.

Seeking to diminish mishima666 isn't going to elevate you, no matter who you find to agree with you. It just makes OS a more inhospitable place, which I think runs counter to your reasons for volunteering here.
I just wanted to add that I have always found you to be "Despicable" but in a Wiley Coyote kind of way.

Thanks for reducing spam around here.
@Mr Tink, RE: My horse

You see, I understand you were just playin' around, but the horse, he just doesn't get it. Course, if you were to apologize...

[Tink Laughs]

I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my horse don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.
**Runs in** PFFFFFFFT TO THE HORSES!! OFFEND THIS!!!

**Points to his butt**

**And runs out once more**
Peace and rated, ala Fusun.
L in the Southeast writes: " . . . I didn't see it as you puffing yourself up at all, but I had a feeling it might rankle."

Catherine thinks that I wanted to be recognized for my efforts in controlling spam. In fact, I wanted people to recognize that my efforts, her efforts, and everyone else's efforts to defeat spam are inadequate to the task -- that no matter how hard we work, our tools and strategies are insufficient. I take no pleasure in being known as a diligent worker in a lost cause.
message to spam cops: thanks. but could you perhaps give up sleep time as well, some still creeps through.

i suspect os management must creep up to 'anonymous' on bended knee and beg for assistance. they have the expertise to track down and bomb the spammers. volunteer maidens are called for, to be offered to the hackers as a reward.
Jim, I will confess to being one of the people who rated Catherine's post. I naively assumed she wasn't speaking about your post. A post I read, rated and thought was really a great post and I was glad you told of your involvement in getting rid of the spam because I was clueless that anyone was devoting their spare time for the benefit of all of us. I assumed, since I haven't been on OS much, that she was surely referring to a different post, one I had missed because not in a million years would I ever think she was speaking of you. It wasn't until you wrote this post that I realized my mistake. I will say again from the bottom of my heart, thank you Jim for all that you have done to keep OS a balanced and spam-free site.
@L in the Southwest: QUOTE There were people here under the impression that Catherine was handling the spaminator job solo.QUOTE

You've nailed the problem with the mutual admiration types who rust to judgment and pick fights/make foul accusations against others all the while demanding apologies. They don't bother to verify facts since it's so much easier to poison OS with their venom. Matt Paust/ClarkK was in the forefront of this smear on Mishima based on nothing more than a desire to avenge someone who did not need avenging. Although he is a former reporter, he doesn't seem able (or willing) to verify facts before launching into attack mode. Of course, his real agenda is to pit one side of OS against the other and he's been very successful. Given that, he'll be continuing on his "tempest in a teapot" tactics.
That should be "rush" to judgment."
I'm spending a lot less time on OS than I used to, partly because of the spam, and partly because of the snarkiness. (Why does that always happen to the good sites anyway?) I agree with many others who have noted your common decency and long-time benign presence on this site, Mishima. Rated.
I read Catherine's post this morning and was confused. I intended to ask in comments something like this: "I'm trying hard to understand precisely what your grievance is. Are you mad that someone else is taking credit for work that you, too, do? Then why not just take credit for it?" I really could not figure out exactly what she objected to. I had absolutely no idea that she was pointing to you, Mish, because I hadn't read your post. Having just now gone back to your post via your link, it's clear in the comments that at least two people were getting an earful from Catherine, because they kept bringing her name up for praise. The problem is that your post was obviously not about taking credit. It was about explaining the scope of the problem. Really, this is the most confounding "dustup" yet. Thank you for your clarification of the issue. You have much capital with me, my friend, having argued your viewpoints over the years with earnestness and integrity.
I read this post and I'm not going to read the others. I don't care. As a user of OS I'm just glad that the vast majority of spam is gone. If it's deleted at the rate of 100:1 I still don't care. One of you deleted a post I don't have to see. Unless you are paid and are working 40 hours a week deleting spam please just keep doing whatever you can.

Actually, I gave the spam deletion to the programmer. I didn't even know there were spam copS.
@emma, I actually prefer "rust to judgment".
I read your previous post on spam and thought, good for you, and thank you. Today I read Catherine's. And now this one, rife like hers with ratings. Yawn. I'm thinking, what we have here is a site that's all hat and no cattle. Cattle being writing. Caitlin Kelly and others are on to something, there's no there here.
Scot, so write something already.
And there it is via Myriad, the svelt rejoinder, the meaningless cut delivered with precision and malice, casuisty personified. I just DID write something Myriad. This site is looking all hat and no cattle, with a few horse's asses thrown in for good measure. Yawn.
"casuistry"-- whoops, lest someone think me illiterate. Look it up Myriad, I'm guessing you'd need to.
"casuistry"-- whoops, lest someone think me illiterate. Look it up Myriad, I'm guessing you'd need to.
Not asshat comments, Scot, but some fine beefy writing.
God bless anyone who helps to cut down on the spam.
Sincere thanks to BOTH of you.
R
I'm not sure what the fuss is all about, but I am grateful to anyone who is deleting spam. So, thank you!
I read that post and left without rating and with a sense of disgust about the post, which seemed completely out of line and, interestingly, seemed more involved with the author’s own “self-aggrandizement” than anything you wrote about yourself. I assumed, like you, that she referred to you, but she never mentioned you by name, so I reserved thought for the possibility that there was yet another post I had missed, as her description of the post did not match my perception of your post.

My sense of disgust exists on at least two levels. One issue is the clearly unreasonable accusations it throws at you. The extreme unreasonableness of the entire post creates a possibility for all kinds of suppositions about its source, and since none of them are respectful, I’ll decline to invest in any of them. Mental health may be in question, though.

But my disgust goes beyond that to another issue, of which this is a perfect example, and that I think should be addressed by the “POWERS-THAT-BE” here on OS. When favoritism reaches a level that a post of such poor quality, inaccuracy and pointlessness takes up space on the cover and warrants so many “ratings”, then favoritism has become as big a problem as the spam itself. At least much of the spam is actually selling product. While that ridiculous post was taking up space, time and ratings in the feed, far more worthy posts were ignored and are ignored regularly. What exactly is the objective of editors when this occurs?

How did that post add value to OS? I agree with femme forte; "I call crap." And I call crap on others trying to excuse the only behavior that was, in fact, low and despicable.

I rated your original post, and I’m rating this one, as well.
@BadScot: Many, many people including myself have written similarly to what Caitlin wrote about OS. You can find dozens of posts on the topic if you look. It is a familiar lament. I've given up on expecting much from OS, much less changing it. I don't have that kind of optimism or energy any more.
In the first place: THANK YOU for your efforts to control spam on this site.

In the second place: on a site that often seems overrun by childish flame wars, THANK YOU for adult, reasoned response to a vitriolic post. I had always enjoyed reading Catherine Forsythe's posts and I was disheartened by her last one.

Assuming, of course, her post was about you, which we don't know for certain. I should think that if Catherine wishes to maintain her credibility on this site, she at the very least owes us an explanation.
I admit to being baffled by the self-aggrandizement remark. I heard about Mishima's efforts privately. He and I discussed how out of control the spam situation was and his thoughts on how it might be combatted. He sounded like he was drowning in it and becoming very demoralized. He never at any time portrayed himself as the only one doing it. I had the sense there was one or more others, since he referred to the spam cops in plural. He didn't volunteer names but I just assumed they were all just quiet heroes doing their best.

I also knew that Mishima had written to the Salon editors but felt hampered that this discussion was not out in the open for others to discuss, since it affects us all. I don't know to what extent my own efforts played into anything, but I encouraged him to make a public post. It wasn't something he seemed to be rushing to do, but I insisted that it was something that really should be spoken about in the open. He sounded hesitant about the idea, but eventually seemed to relent. But I just want to make the point that, from where I stood, the post was anything but an attempt to thump his chest.

I know that Salon itself has the final say on what happens. It's not really for us to say. But then again, we all contribute to content here and we all have an investment in the place, so it seemed reasonable to me that we might have opinions. And it's a very smart group, so someone might have a bright idea. I'm glad Mishima spoke up and offered us such useful data. It's not the first time I've seen him do such an analysis, and I think it's one of the great skills he brings to the table in this complex community.

This is also especially odd in the context of one other odd occurrence. A couple weeks ago, Linda Seccaspina wrote something that said something about Catherine single-handedly holding spam at bay. I wrote her privately and suggested she should be careful about the wording because there was one or more others helping, too. Mishima had not gone public and I didn't want to mention him if he wasn't going to mention himself. I thought I had worded my remark in a way that wouldn't try to diminish Catherine's contribution, which I imagined to be on the same order of magnitude with Mishima's. Linda seemed to be feel she was just trying to be supportive of Catherine, and as far as I can tell just didn't know there were others. No biggie. It all seemed reasonable to me.

But here's my point: It would have been possible to conclude from what Linda had said that Catherine was claiming credit for work that was not entirely hers. I didn't conclude that. It seemed obvious that people, even grateful and generous people, just don't take every moment of every day thanking everyone they are helped by or that they collaborate with. I didn't infer, nor do I think Mishima did, that Catherine was saying she did it all. I think I (and probably Mishima) just assumed that she, like Mishima, was feeling the weight of the world on their shoulders just out of exhaustion, not out of self-aggrandizement. And why not? Would there really be any point in accusing here, given that she was obviously just doing what she could in a complex situation? So there was an opportunity to take her remarks badly, and I/we did not. That's what makes it so odd that Catherine's remarks seem so pointedly focused on Mishima. Why are we not all just focused on the spam?

I'm sorry, Catherine, that your feelings got hurt, but from where I sit, Mishima did nothing to cause it. This seems simply a misunderstanding and one where the cause, if any, is the spammers creating a really bad situation that others have to pay for in terms of money and aggravation. I suspect the real reason Mishima's text focused mostly on himself is not that he was pumping his own contribution as that he is meticulous in not making claims he cannot support, so he only had data about himself. It would be a shame to take that personally. My experience has been in conversation with him that he's never suggested it was only him and he's gone out of his way to say otherwise.

But if somehow there is personal blame to be distributed, I'll take my share of it for whatever effect my prodding may have had. And for whatever confusion my remark to Linda may have caused. My entire intent was to say there was more than one hero, and that doesn't diminish the good work of anyone.

I'm grateful to both Catherine and Mishima—and to any other still-hidden souls who might be doing the same—for their efforts in this regard.
What Kent & patricia k said.
Nobody is doing their job of spam control, from like whenever till 7am the spammers are full force on!! ~:D

F- TO THE LOT OF YOU!! :D

~smooch~ Love and fuck to the lot of you!! Spam patrol an Ed I Tor to spam contrl! Yes, I've been drinking!!

Fuck you to Bonnie and Nanna!! You both need to fuck each othger!! :D

RAteD! Days ago!!
What Kent said. And thanks to all who are doing volunteer work here.
I haven't been around lately because of a new gig in the real world, but your previous post was one I did catch and rate. I have posted before about the spam, and written the editors and personally flagged posts as they came on the feed. I would have been delighted to be tapped to be a spam cop, and said as much, but was never replied to. I was really glad to hear that you were doing the work for them, and that they were allowing some self-policing . I think our frustration with the lack of communication with TPTB is the elephant in the room. It's what we are all complaining about. It's what Catherine spent the first half of her post detailing, suppressing her anger at them. Then she turned it on you. Tempest ensues, and the real despicable behavior is happening in the OS office.
I don't know what to say but by me your OK. Have a short visual trip on me too does the soul and eyes wonder just to get away from whatever your concerned about. http://open.salon.com/blog/alkeme/2011/03/21/pamukkale_--_the_cotton_castle
Now having read all relevant essays, it seems to me that Ms Forsythe was blindsided by your helpful, informative essay about your involvement in the OS volunteer spam-removal project — a project she apparently considered a chummy, exclusive, private consociation between herself and management alone.

This is why people tiptoe around Type As.
I had to go back to C's post to check my comment, before replying here. But of course, I didn't comment because her post came with "comments closed" -- that's seldom a good sign.

I think it's fair to say, you and I have had our fair share of disagreements here about almost everything, but I never felt as tho either of us became disagreeable -- tho no doubt we are both persons who hold strong opinions.

As for the spam, I'm no techie, but I have an idea how to rid the site of it. Just turn spam-hunting into a video game -- say The Legend of Spamalot with characters like Sir Spamisnot -- that appeals to adolescent males, and offer a reward such as virtual gold nuggets, and I guarantee the spam will be gone within 24 hours.
this is sad that you had to write a whole separate post to defend your position
That is hard to understand.Should youhide the fact you deal with spam? Whats it to her, anyway? Could she be more uptight and judgemental?