ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

THIS IS THE CORRESPONDENCE I HAVE RECEIVED OVER THE PASSED TWO DAYS.
TWO DAYS.
Please, for the love of God, can we lay this shitty little baby to rest yet?

"I think you misjudge me, and it is you that are doing the misreading to make sure that YOUR assumptions stick. After all, you are the one that took my comments personally - and this is not the first time you have done so. Even though they were not intended as such - in effect, YOU are the one assuming that I am out to comment and criticise you at every turn.

When have I criticised you? Besides now - the only other time which could count was the whole St. Patrick's Day thing which wasn't about criticising or correcting you. You wrote about alcohol safety, I clarified hangover prevention. They are two sides of the same coin - yet you think this is criticising you?! The whole email discuss that ensued was about be trying to get you to understand that I was not contradicting you or undermining what you were saying, rather I was clarifying what you had said. Clearly you hadn't understood this - or is there something else you are talking about?

A lot of the stuff that you do is very local, and therefore irrelevant to me, so I can't really comment. Yet, I sent you the stuff about the Canadian UBB for a reason, since you are the best person to make use of that information. I am well aware that you do good stuff - but from my perception it's not the posts that are doing these things, but you've been doing them anyway. I apologise if I'm mistaken in this regard, but it always seems to me that the blog records the stuff after the fact.

I will defend someone I empathise with, particularly when they share traits which so easily represent my own, even if it means slighting you. I do this largely because I expected more of you to be able to take my criticism and share my empathy. I did not comment on Peter Coffin - I had no relationship with him, and he deserved it. But I empathise with Howett - where did she mock anyone? The initial content was the review from Big Al - putting her in the same category as Coffin is not at all fair. She told people to fuck off AFTER they broke her down - maybe it wasn't professional, but what do you expect when you see someone get torn down like that? Where as you were revealing an idiot for what he was with Peter Coffin, your post with Howett made you come across as an ignorant bully.

I'm annoyed, but I don't believe you are a bully. It is distasteful to think that you might be, but I don't believe you are.

Also, the stuff about the radio and the humanitarian causes - When exactly WAS that? The reason I may not have commented on it could have been because I haven't SEEN it. You've been posting several times a day, and I've not really been reading too often, so there's a good chance I may have missed a lot of your recent stuff. Hold it against me if you will, but I'll be sure to file that with the other numerous assumptions and misjudgements you, and others, have made of my actions and their supposed intent. I would hope by now that you'd realise your assumptions about me are generally wrong, but since it seems like you WANT to assume the worst of me to justify whatever issues you have with me, maybe I should just accept that you are going to do that regardless.

As to whether I will continue reading, and commenting - we shall see. But I do like that fact that you'd rather I'd stop reading than comment when I think you might not be so AWESOME - for whatever reason. Would you like become less AWESOME? Because that's a deal-breaker: A decision to stop caring about others with the presumption you are always right. We all make mistakes. C'est la vie.

- Da' Vane"


"Actually, the comments criticising your content were fairly new - they were not part of the now deleted rant.

That new arsehole would have been me going into your lack of empathy about why you'd felt the need to rail against this author. But when I got to the part about the fact that maybe it was because I was being oversensitive, I decided to cull it - after all, why was I defending this woman? She makes a few typos on a post, gets angry because someone tears her down on a review, and despite fixing it they keep the review up without acknowledging any attempt to make a fix. I can't vouch for her, but most systems let people know who is downloading their product, so that new product updates, and more importantly, product fixes, can be sent to them in what would otherwise be considered customer support. So, she'd most likely know if the reviewer downloaded the fixed copy or not.

The whole content of your post was rather inflammatory - on behalf of both you and Amber? The "new Peter Coffin" - seriously? The old Peter Coffin made himself a fool, yet this author, what has she done? Do you really need a "new Peter Coffin" already? The fact that I know what you mean by the term the "new Peter Coffin" speaks volumes - it's kind of distasteful to think that you are now looking for someone to set up as a new villain to keep your few minutes of fame alive.

You haven't edited your post have you? I could have sworn there was an error there: "You've got to be shitting me" was "You're got to be shitting me." Maybe all the spelling errors in there were just spreading and catching, and... Oh, I give up. Like I said, the comments I posted were humorous, because I thought it was funny that there were typos (at least I thought there were typos) on a post about typos ranting about typos... But I'm guessing you don't share my humour. You see, being dyslexic, a rogue typo gets in anywhere, which is why I put the bit about it being more ironic if I included a typo - which I probably did. I do all the time.

Maybe this is why I am sensitive - because you are railing against typos like anyone who makes typos isn't smart and isn't professional, and because I make them, that makes ME unprofessional. People have editors for that sort of thing. That said, it is often easier to proof read someone else's work than your own, so the poor woman could literally be going out of her mind looking for something she can't actually see. While you and everyone else are taking the piss out of her for it. Add to the fact that of the TWO "gems" only one is actually flawed - the other is perfectly correct. This makes me wonder about the integrity of the reviewer.

This is a big part of the rant I culled - because that IS what AWESOME friends do. They give others the benefit of the doubt. In the end, I gave you the benefit of the doubt - there's no way you could know all this, or that I could know all this, and for me to be sensitive over it is rather silly, so I culled it. But still, I AM sensitive over it - it's not about insecurity, it's about prejudice. The fact that you've got this from Amber - did Amber think it was funny? Amber may be an author, but as far as I am aware, she isn't doing digital publishing nor fiction - and displays a rather astonishing lack of empathy on her part. I'd given you both much more credit than that.

You stated that it wasn't her mistakes, but her behaviour that you were commenting on. Yet, it's her mistakes you focus on as part of her behaviour. So, she lost it and told people to "Fuck Off!" - That's totally understandable given the circumstances. Because you don't just have Big Al, but you have everyone who likes Big Al also chiming in as well - yet, nobody stops to question whether Big Al might be in fault, just because he posted calmly and eloquently. No new comments can be added? No updates?

Bear in mind that there is a big difference between writing comments on a blog and writing a novel - look at some of my very own work and you will be able to see the difference in quality. My writing level for professional stuff without pressure is quite good, yet under pressure often becomes highly erratic. Mind you, I too have been called unprofessional lots of times - it's a label given to those you don't want to deal with, right alongside being unreasonable. It's just a reason to justify being a lack of respect to someone else, often on the basis that they would show you no respect.

Big Al may be correct, but he should have been able to show what version the review was based on, and edited it if there were issues that were fixed or attempted to be fixed. He did not. In fact, his review was rather harsh - exactly what were these grammatical errors? He only showed one, and it wasn't in his main review. He closes with the phrase "Reading shouldn't be that hard." Given the nature of his appraisal, I would definitely want to see evidence of his conclusions, but rather fear that he is instead merely trolling.

All that aside, I'm not sure exactly how much of it is me being oversensitive, misreading things, or feeling like I should defend her when I have no real reason or inclination to do so. I shouldn't care, but I do, and I don't like it. That's why I culled it - an email to you is one thing, but a public comment was a waste of time and effort. But you asked about the "contempt" in the irony, and I was putting it into perspective - there wasn't any - not in that bit. At least, not towards you - life in general, maybe, but then I tend to find life worthy of contempt in general anyway.

But yeah, I'm not liking your recent stuff. You were a lot lighter on Facebook - maybe it's just me..."

"Maybe it might help if I broke down how I am reading your post about Jacqueline Howett. We appear to have different viewpoints - but I can't help but feel that you'd already made your mind up about Jacqueline Howett beforehand and this had skewed your perception. This can be seen by the way you frame the entire post to put Jacqueline Howett in a negative light, before we even begin. Introducing the piece as "The next Peter Coffin?" simply because she "doesn't know when the hell to shut up" is somewhat inappropriate. Sure, she could have kept quiet - but then, so could you, yet I don't believe you are the type of person to let things slide when you think there is a problem. People admire you for it - I admire you for it. But that still doesn't explain exactly why you decided to set her up as the villain from the very beginning.

You have the review, which is fair - everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yet, Jacqueline replies, and this is where you start - and you do start. Jacqueline Howett is in fact initially quite civil and rational, and she backs up her claims about her 4 and 5 star reviews by posting them. But, for some reason, you saw fit to dismiss this as a "sad display of desperation" - you are already shooting her down, when she is in fact being quite reasonable. If I am mistaken here, feel free to post where she starts becoming unreasonable during those reviews, because I can't see it. Yet, for some reason you decide she's a jerk and start tearing into her anyway.

Big Al replies, and you barely comment - maybe this is because you are unaware of the process of digital proofing. Quite often editing and proofing is done by someone else other than the writer. Most importantly, Big Al lists two "gems", yet only the second one is flawed. The first one is grammatically correct, and if it gave Big Al pause, it may be because of his reading skills, not because of Jacqueline Howett's writing skills. Yet, there is no mention of this at all - it just slides right by.

Then Jacqueline Howett loses it. It's quite understandable that she would lose it - many people would. She makes a few claims - claims she can easily verify. Most digital distribution systems show when a product is downloaded, so there is reason to believe that when Jacqueline says Big Al didn't download a fresh copy, that she would know this information. Big Al could easily have circumvented this entire argument by putting the file version in the review in the first place. She also asks for e-mail follow-up, which is professional, yet according to her Big Al refused - why would she have reason to lie? Once again, if this this was a lie, either party can simply post a copy of the email to prove it had been sent, and the argument is over.

As she loses it, Jacqueline Howett's writing deteriorates - this is quite common in writing. There is a difference between being an author and a typist. She's clearly losing it, stressed, and falling apart - unprofessional maybe - but that is rather understandable when a review is directly affecting your business and despite trying to rectify the issue and solve any grievances, they basically ignore you. Plus, add in the fact that by going public, Jacqueline Howett has to deal with everyone else who likes Big Al and will defend him simply because he is Big Al. Look at the comments to this post - and see how people are responding to my comments: You put a rallying cry out, and people are trying to oust me as a troll, to make me look unreasonable, to avoid any sort of logical debate. They are doing it because they like you - they don't know what this is about, nor do they care - they just perceive that I've attacked you, and since they like you, I must be wrong and must be attacked and ridiculed. It's the very foundation of bullying in society. It's no wonder that she loses it - the odds are stacked against her on Big Al's forum.

Yet, your immediate response is to tear down her spelling because of this. This is like a howler monkey going in for a kill - you've already set Jacqueline Howett up as the villain, and now your essentially screaming "I told you so." If you were actually on Big Al's forum during this, you'd be making the whole situation worse for her. This entire vein of posting her replies and then tearing them apart for senseless reasons continues right to the end. You mock her for saying "booboo" to imply she is immature. You criticise an "emergency copy" as if she just made it up - even though this sometimes happens in the industry, and actually represents her trying to engage in customer services.

Finally, she loses it completely and tells everyone on that forum to "Fuck off!" This is understandable, having driven her to her breaking point, but then you claim this is unprofessional, and then you reiterate that "fuck off" to try and get it to make her look bad. There's no thought given to why she's telling people to "fuck off!" Instead, it must be because she's a jerk, because that's what you want to believe and want everyone else to believe, and have tried to lead people to believe from the beginning of the post. You put this as your crowning piece of glory - citing Jacqueline Howett as the type of author people shouldn't want to be.

This entire post is basically bullying. I don't see how Jacqueline Howett was unreasonable - she is ultimately a human being. She did not bring this on herself - Big Al wrote that review and instigated it all. He has a significant part to play - he may not have intended to bully her, but he surely wasn't as helpful as he could have been. The community on Big Al's forum DID bully her. And now, you have bullied her as well.

I don't know what Jacqueline Howett did to you to deserve this, or what relationship you have to Big Al (or for that matter, what relationship Amber has to Big Al) - maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I'm too used to being outspoken with unpopular views (i.e. inappropriate) that I know what bullying is thanks to having my fair share of it. Because I'm stupid enough to believe that going to someone I have issue with and speaking openly about my problems MAY just resolve the issue I have and help change people's minds, to make the world a better place for all. Because this is what reasonable people do. This is what AWESOME people do. If my issues are unfounded, at least then they can be put to rest having spoken about them rather than having them go around in my head.

I didn't think you were a bully, Sheena. I guessed you might be inappropriate, and I suspected you might be a bit of a troll, but not a bully. That's why I'm annoyed - I don't get on well with bullies. If anything, it's because I am often regarded as a bully myself, yet the only people I do bully are the bullies themselves. That makes me a hero. That is what makes me AWESOME. You want to do good things, to fight for the underdogs, then great. But this isn't fighting for the underdog, this is picking on the underdog.

-Da' Vane"
 

"You are sort of misinterpreting my humour - it is ironic, and I love irony.

That said, it did go a bit longer and got a bit ranty, but I nixed it - I thought you were unduly harsh, and the entire thing was a bit low for you. Makes you come across as a bit of a hack, to be honest. But I didn't bother with the full rant and stuck with the irony and the humour...

Basically, if you thought THAT was contempt, then I would have loved to have seen what you'd have thought of the eight or so paragraphs of rant I deleted...

Ultimately though, I didn't think it was worth getting into a big argument about.

That said, define her behaviour - because from what I can see, someone gave her a bad review based on some technical errors, she fixed the errors as best she could, and yet the review still stands, unedited. She may have lost it, but it's not like she doesn't have a cause to lose her temper given the attitude of the review. I know that in a similar situation, I would certainly feel the same way. But then, maybe I can empathise with her a bit more since I am in digital publishing, and as far as I am aware, neither you nor Amber are in digital publishing.

It should be noted that editing and proof-reading are sometimes done by a separate person to the writer - some of the best writers have had some of the most atrocious technical writing skills on the planet. So just because she makes a few typos on her comments, particularly when angry, isn't necessarily an indicator of the quality of the product, even though this IS what you are commenting on... at least, that's how I read it. I could be mistaken.

Still, you mean you can't see the irony in including typos in a post about an author ranting about a review commenting on her typos? I suppose this doesn't add extra irony - I believe you mentioned she should have thicker skin as well, yet if YOU had thicker skin, you wouldn't even come close to taking these comments personally. I hesitate to use the term hypocrisy, since that implies you are intentionally saying one thing and doing another, and I give you much more credit than that.

Stay pretty, and maybe you can get back to posting AWESOME stuff... The quality of your blog seems to be dropping of late: you spend a lot more time ranting and trying to cause trouble it seems, than actually being funny and AWESOME, and I miss that..."

Da' Vane said...   

Oh, the irony... You do realise that your blog post has several spelling and grammatical errors, yet you are railing on an author who lost it and spews a spelling and grammatically erroneous rant against someone who has pointed out that her writing was full of spelling and grammatical errors. There could only be more irony if it turns out that this comment also contains spelling and grammatical errors as well!  

Da' Vane said...  

I could have sworn there were typos in there - it wasn't edited was it? Or maybe the spelling errors were catching?

Da' Vane said...  

It's kind of sad really that people are perceiving me as some sort of angry troll here. This post is basically just bullying. It's set up to lead you to hate Jacqueline Howett, and I'm just not seeing any reason why. Peter Coffin, yes, but her... No idea. Did she do something to upset either Amber or Sheena? Maybe I'm missing something, because it seems you are all reading something into this that just doesn't seem to be in there. Likewise, you are all reading more into my actions when there just isn't anything there. I thought I saw a few typos, and I thought it was ironic there were typos when Sheena was going on about typos. But maybe if Sheena wasn't so busy spilling venom into this post, she wouldn't be so offended by the accidental implication that she's no better than Jacqueline Howett. Maybe if you all grew the fuck up and stopped assuming things about people based on your own petty insecurities, then you wouldn't feel the need to enjoy reading someone bully someone else, let alone defend it, and we could ALL enjoy reading her blog.

Da' Vane said...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your complete lack of empathy and awareness. What does it matter WHERE you write something, when you tear into someone? You are still tearing into them. More importantly, a blog isn't just for yourself - it's about sharing your opinions with others. If you write something on the internet it is public for everyone to find. I understand that there is freedom of speech, but she Jacqueline Howett didn't bring this on herself. She didn't ask Big AL to review her. It's not like she was acting like a jerk and then people caught wind of it. She was just another self-published author. Sure, she lost it after being hounded by a hostile crowed, but how is that any different than anybody else losing it after they are being hounded. Sure, she could have handled it better, but you make her out to be a villain, when there is no evidence of that at all. You might not be involved in winding her up, until she breaks down, but that makes no difference. Have you heard of the phrase "happy slapping?" It's an increasingly common form of bullying, where a few people will bully someone else, often violently, and record the ensuing spectacle of the distressed victim, which is often then shared by friends. How is this any different? Those friends still watch the videos and are as complicit in the initial act of bullying as the original perpetrators themselves. This brings up the unanswered question of why? What made you feel like you needed to comment on this on your own blog? What had Jacqueline Howett done to you to make you feel like vilifying her to this degree? If you had an actual motive, maybe it might be more palatable - maybe there might be the sense that she does actually deserve it. But otherwise, there's no point. There's no inherent humour in the comments themselves. It's not a commedian losing the plot after being heckled and unleashing a stream of scathing putdowns that are harsh and funny. It's just you picking out points to prove that Jacquline Howett is, for want of a better term, evil. You think you don't have power, but you do. This is an abuse of that power. You can rally others around through through this blog. Those numbers, creating a pack mentality, give you power. You can bully people through this blog, if you choose to do so. You can spot bullying and the pack mentality within the comments of several of the posts of these blogs, and it almost always starts with me and you. You assume the worst of me, and more often than not anything you respond with often involves you becoming defensive, calling the pack around you, whether you state as much. You set the tone for the response, you set up the pack mentality, and the tendancy for bullying, all based on your own assumptions. That is power. Change the assumptions, change the tone of your responses, and you change the pack. Yet, you choose not to - in fact, communications between us are constantly reminding me of how "others" are noticing how I am acting. What makes the matters worse is not only that your assumptions are continually flawed, but you would rather continue to believe in your assumptions than actually give me any credit. You say I can't wait to criticise you, but when was the last time you actually assumed anything positive about me, and set up the pack mentality in that regard? When was the last time you did NOT question a comment of mine as having a deeper, more negative, meaning?

Like I have said, repeatedly, I hear you- I JUST DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

"Please do not contact me again.
I have no patience for this form of relationship in my life.
Thank you."

Leave well enough alone.
This is bordering on fucking harassment.