Wednesday, March 18, 2015

WGBGB: Val's House Has No Mirrors?

(Editor's note: this is republished from 2008. I had taken it offline as a draft, but put it live again because I think there's some revisionist history going on with the D'Orazio/Sims thing. I might try to restore the proper date if I can track it down.)

Wow. Now this is ridiculous. OK, it passed that point long ago. Now that Val has put all comments into moderation, she's actually going on a crusade against me.

She used my CIVIL DISCUSSION with Marc Guggenheim (one that he didn't express having a problem with at all) where I reported him to the WGA and equates it to the possibility of comic fans stalking and/or physically harming comic book professionals.

You know...taking Guggenheim's own public words on the same message board we were having the conversation on and then debate him on it...that's just like a stalker.

When called on it, here are the examples she gave in order to try to justify the extreme she was taking it to:

Example 1:

I find the fact that Kevin Huxford got involved with the personal life of a comic book professional absolutely chilling.

This is the same person who wrote on my blog alleged personal details of another freelancer's life. Ugly stuff, and rather sexist.

There seems to be a pattern, here.

These are things that are scary and cross the line. It is the job of moderators on boards and blogs to monitor this behavior.

These are the things that make me research security options for conventions and libel laws governing the Internet, and I feel 100% comfortable doing so.

The fact that I had to even say the previous sentence pretty much sums it all up.

Sub-topic closed.
By the way: she doesn't allow any comments from me on her page, while she continues (from the Devin Grayson thing) to try to smear my name through the mud.

Example 2:

Juan, say you run into somebody in your community and you two have a discussion about community policy or recycling or whatever. The other person violently disagrees with you, and insists that you admit he is right.

When you do not admit that he is right, he secretly follows you home and goes through your garbage to see if you were recycling properly or if your lawn adhered to the community codes. When he found something to pin on you, he goes to the sanitation department or the community board and reports you.

Now, the worst that could happen in this instance is that you would pay a fine. Certainly not on the level of "Taxi Driver," right?

But who does something like that to a stranger who happened to not share the same views as himself? What is the mental process behind a such a decision?

I've disagreed with you on this board before, Juan, but I do not go online looking for dirt on you to get you in some sort of trouble as the result of our online disagreement. It would never occur to me as something that people do.

And when things go from "conversation about comics" to "contacting the IRS or employer or WGA or whatever," when the fan in question is now an element in this freelancer's personal life -- there is a serious problem.

And in that case, the moderator of the board should have stepped in as soon as those things were mentioned.
Oh, now she's continuing the slamming of Newsarama that she claims she's not doing. For the record, people did step up as soon as they were aware of it (the reporting to WGA). That's part of how I realized my actions were causing problems for others and then decided to now PUBLICLY leave Newsarama (as I had already cut ties before that) and ShotgunReviews.

Example 3:

And I must say, this moderation feature is awesome!
Oh...I personally take that as her glee in deleting my one attempted post to call her on the twist and any others she might have deleted.

Example 4:

Juan,

A fan contacting someplace related to a freelancer's job or other related personal life issues -- no matter what the circumstances -- is crossing the line.

It's not motivated by a positive impulse. It seems to be more motivated from wanting to make an impact on this public figure's life -- and, in that way, becoming a public figure himself.

And it worked, didn't it?
And now we get to what she really thinks is going on, eh?

I didn't do this to create a name for myself. When I quit Newsarama and Shotgun, I had no idea what else I was going to do. I had just recently started blogging more at Shotgun (a site I miss being a part of). I knew I'd continue reviewing books on my own, because I believed a majority of the views I received on YouTube were still going to be there. I didn't expect any kind of bump from what happened...not positive, anyway. When Rich covered it, I was just glad that there'd be enough attention to insure that no one blamed Matt Brady or Troy Brownfield for anything I said or did.

I haven't actually become much of a public figure. I have a blog. A BLOG. Do THAT many people know my name? Please.

The accusation is extremely ironic, given that it is coming from you, the woman who made herself a public figure by savaging DC Comics due to what she perceived as misogyny with their books and stories of a ripped vagina. If only you had worked at Marvel Comics when it was a boys club (as Gail Simone described it), your fame would be due to savaging Marvel...and your ripped vagina.

You do understand that telling the world about what you perceive to be an environment that encouraged misogyny is impacting the personal lives of multiple people there? Just because you see a faceless target of a corporation doesn't mean that there are no faces behind it to be impacted. And when you keep it anonymous, you cause rampant speculation where even the innocent are thought to be guilty.

That ignores the point that it seems more likely that your difficulties at DC were caused by your incompetency, when you, an ex-DC assistant editor, couldn't tell the difference between Jefferson Pierce and John Henry Irons, despite the book referring to the character by name several times.

There's the additional irony that you deciding to try to drag me through the mud with your exaggerations is just serving to extend what ever 15 minutes of fame I might have gotten from having that talk with Guggenheim.

And to think...when you didn't agree with my comments on Devin Grayson (which weren't nearly as bad as you tried to make them out to be), you cautioned me to fear legal repercussions. I guess that's because she's a public figure and I'm not a...wait a minute. ;)

33 comments:

  1. Face facts bro...you are thiiis close to mark david chapman territory. Quick, someone call Stan Lee and tell him not to leave his hotel room!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dude did she extend the restraining order on you and that's why you are acting this way?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thought you were gone, Frag It? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I heard about this through a thread at Newsarama. You are the talk of the town. But that's your goal isn't it?
    Mission accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'd sleep with this Val. she seems cute.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Frag It, are you really Valerie? Because you two share a brain...which is really a shame, since it doesn't ever seem to be in full working order to begin with.

    Duckula...why express that feeling here and not directly to the subject of your affection?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You are the one acting like a scorned lover. What could she have possibly done to you to elicit such a response?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Scorned lover? Really?

    Other than being a hypocrite and trying to twist my words (that she deleted) into much worse than they were? Not much...but, then again, that's enough.

    I'd want nothing of her, personally...and it has nothing to do with her ripped vagina.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So you claim she twisted your words, but then she deleted it. Why not leave it at that?

    "Ripped vagina?" You are nicer to me and Duckula.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You missed the part about her being a hypocrite? She's doing the same to others these days, too.

    The "ripped vagina" thing isn't me being rough...it was a matter she blogged about...one of the things that got her the most attention when she decided to go anonymous and start dishing on DC for awhile.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Face facts bro...you are thiiis close to mark david chapman territory. Quick, someone call Stan Lee and tell him not to leave his hotel room!"

    The irony of somebody's e-stalker calling that somebody a stalker is just delicious. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Her blog has become weird and hypersensitive, but with still the occasional good post to make it worth reading.

    Maybe you should get security, she keeps slamming you and some of her sycophants might come looking for you, lol. Just read the "I've moderated my blog" post for a list of names, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kevin,

    You find it very difficult to reply to Valerie without being insulting.

    If she's moderating insulting comments, then you'll never get a reply out there.

    I have quite the history of taken screeds against companies and individuals sent to me, ripping out the bile, and turning them into stories.

    Feel free to send something you want to post on Valerie's blog, and I'll rewrite it into something fairly acceptable.

    Then we can tell whether she's deleting you or your attitude...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm going to guess just him, based on the Grayson thing.

    I like no modded posts, Kevin has a good attitude about people coming on and posting "Fuck you, shithead" and rolling with it.

    As far as blogs go, you can always ignore someones argument if you want. Its not a big deal, or joke about it or whatever you want but by nature you're pretty much putting yourself out there with whatever you want to say.

    I don't like the idea of railing on someone and calling them a blog-stalker and then not letting them respond, but hell, you can do whatever you want I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If she's not allowing Kevin to defend himself on her blog, she should come out and say so. Some people may take Kevin's apparent silence and read something into it. I posted a comment over there this morning saying just this, but it hasn't appeared yet. :(

    I really don't like moderated comments.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Richard, she deletes anything I put over there, regardless of tone and tenor. My attempt to post there definitely had some level of attitude, since I knew it wouldn't get through anyway and just wanted to use it as a method for getting a message to her. The only attitude was my saying that I shouldn't expect any better from her than what she pulled in that blog. Still, it was harmless.

    I pointed out how ridiculous it was to associate my argument with stalker fears and security needs. Then I pointed out how it seems wrong for her to be able to attack someone (me, in this instance) but not allow them any response there. I point out the craziness of much of what she says, but my comments are open for ANYONE to answer back.

    Andy, I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy. She tried to threaten me with Grayson suing me, but now she can start saying insane things about me? She's been unable to have a real discussion with anyone for weeks, because she won't treat a dissenting viewpoint seriously. Now she moderates so no criticism ever has to share the page with her blogs. She's trying to build herself an ivory tower and the insecurity and avoidance of reality is scary.

    ReplyDelete
  17. For the record, Andy and Rick...I've appreciated you two managing to be readers of both blogs. Open minds are a good thing, 'round here. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  18. To tell you the truth, I kind of enjoy the back-and-forth that Kevin and "frag it" have on some points. It's much more good-natured in a weird way than duckula invoking Mark David Chapman; that's very insulting.

    And I don't think that Stan has anything to fear from Kevin. Hell, Guggenheim has nothing to fear from Kevin. He totally shrugged off the WGA complaint, anyway. You'll notice that Eli Stone is doing fine for ABC, and that Guggenheim still gets to write Spider-Man. Kevin's worst blows had no effect!! :D

    (Later,
    Troy)

    ReplyDelete
  19. My question is this.

    Why do you need to get your point across to her? She obviously wants nothing to do with you and actually, unless you can show me otherwise, you attacked her first.

    I may be wrong but I can't find how this all started.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Most of the pseudo-controversial posts on OS have had good discussion from Pedro, Kevin and others, but have been met with weird defensive reactions. I don't really get it myself.

    Kevin got turned into some kind of villain, I'm guessing probably because of lingering feelings from the WGA thing; but the most recent cyber-stalker post is pretty over the top

    I don't think there is some evil Newsarama message board cult that will attack creators though, either. People just like talking about comics, some smarter than others. No reason to be scared.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Frag It: I believe I'd made it clear several times that I didn't want to interact with you...yet here you are. :p Doctor, heal thyself.

    But, as Andy pointed out, Val took something I said the wrong way. I made a stupid joke that was very easy to take the wrong way, but each time I tried to clarify it and defend myself from the accusation that I was just making stuff up to begin with, she deleted them and posted a reaction that made it seem like I was posting more inflammatory/libelous material. I asked that she delete the comment if she wouldn't let me clarify it. She still wouldn't.

    But the first time I blogged about a mistake of hers was when she, an ex-DC assistant editor, mistook Jefferson Pierce for John Henry Irons, despite him being called by name three times in the story she read. She then blamed it on all minority characters being so interchangeable in comics (so dreadfully close to "they all look alike") and wanted to make the mistake everyone else's fault but hers. That's the sort of thing she still engages in. I find that kind of person to be extremely annoying.

    With how she's obsessing on the potential to ruin livelihoods, maybe she got in trouble with the FRIENDS OF LULU for pimping out the AYRE FORCE comic, given that Calvin Ayre makes his money by exploiting the sexuality of women. Maybe she's worried I'll report her? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Andy: It's not just Kevin. Myself and Caleb Mozzocco--we're both members of Best Shots and Shotgun Reviews--have attempted to post comments on her blog in defense of Kevin, but she didn't allow either to go up. Of course, she let comments by Shotgun contributor and former Best Shots writer, Steve Ekstrom, go up. But his comments were vitriolic slams against Kevin.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks, Corey. I really appreciate it. I wish I could tell you that the Ekstrom thing will be dropped...but it won't. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  24. You made it clear that you didn't want to interact with me? I'm hurt khux.
    Here I thought we were best friends.
    So to recap, you made a comment that was easily taken the wrong way, she didn't want to accept what should have been an apology, but knowing you was just "You took this the wrong way. Let me tell you how wrong you are." Then, you bashed her in her blog because you found her "annoying." And you have bashed her 2 more times since. But you are the good guy and victim in all this? LOL!

    "But the first time I blogged about a mistake of hers was when she, an ex-DC assistant editor, mistook Jefferson Pierce for John Henry Irons, despite him being called by name three times in the story she read. She then blamed it on all minority characters being so interchangeable in comics (so dreadfully close to "they all look alike") and wanted to make the mistake everyone else's fault but hers. That's the sort of thing she still engages in. I find that kind of person to be extremely annoying. "

    Kind of like the guy who reports comic creators to the WGA being found annoying? Hmm. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Frag, you make hypocritical arguments while trying to call me a hypocrite. You don't see the humor in that? :)

    I've let all of you trolls know that you're not welcome here, but tolerated.

    You can make assumptions as to how I posted on her blog. But I didn't actually bash her IN her blog, I criticized some of her mistakes on MY blog. Until the time that she tried to spin me as meaning something worse than I ever intended, I didn't really go with outright bashing.

    And I never said I apologized. I tried to clarify what I meant. I'm not one to apologize to someone calling me an asshole, Frag.

    Documentation of what I actually said is on this site, Frag. Feel free to read it at your leisure.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Frag, you make hypocritical arguments while trying to call me a hypocrite. You don't see the humor in that? :)"

    Yup! I realized this. But it doesn't change the fact that you still are one.

    "I've let all of you trolls know that you're not welcome here, but tolerated."

    Gee, thanks.

    "You can make assumptions as to how I posted on her blog. But I didn't actually bash her IN her blog, I criticized some of her mistakes on MY blog. Until the time that she tried to spin me as meaning something worse than I ever intended, I didn't really go with outright bashing."

    Oooooooh ok. So by bashing her on your blog you didn't think she would find out? Nobody would tell her?

    "And I never said I apologized. I tried to clarify what I meant. I'm not one to apologize to someone calling me an asshole, Frag."

    Of course you didn't apologize. The word "sorry" isn't in your vocabulary. I thought I was clear that I knew you weren't apologizing.

    "Documentation of what I actually said is on this site, Frag. Feel free to read it at your leisure."

    I read it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Where did I say I didn't expect her to read my blogs about her, Frag? They were created in a way that led them to be listed at the bottom of several of her blogs. OF COURSE she'd read it. She banned me over there before the bashing blogs, so those blogs AREN'T part of her reason for banning me.

    And it has nothing to do with the suggestion that my interaction with Guggenheim makes me a threat of physical violence to creators. It has nothing to do with the suggestion that what I did was akin to picking through someone's garbage and invading their privacy, when his comments were made publicly.

    I'm glad to have her as a reader, whether she lurks or chooses to respond on a blog where she isn't banned and won't have her comments moderated or deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't your blog about her John Henry Irons topic BEFORE her "Threats to comic creators" blog?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Apparently, you missed the part where I said that blog wasn't actually an outright bash-fest. Give me a few minutes and I'll take a look to see if I'm just remembering it more fondly than it deserves. :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. OK...yeah...remembered it more fondly. I talk about her flailing wildly and all. It might not have gone far over the line into bashing (or not as far as some of my other blogs about her), but it did bash. I don't necessarily think it wasn't deserved...but it certainly wasn't an examination of her blog that would allow us to agree to disagree in a friendly manner.

    Still, it isn't why she banned me. It was why she was being an ass to me originally when I posted on her Batwoman blog. Even while I had expected her to at least respond to the points my posts made, I can't say I blamed her for just ignoring me.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Can we make this a weekly feature, this is fun :)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Which part? Pointing out Val's mistakes or the discussion with Frag? :)

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't think you can have one without the other

    ReplyDelete

It is preferred that you sign some sort of name to your posts, rather than remain completely anonymous. Even if it is just an internet nickname/alias, it makes it easier to get to know the people that post here. I hope you all will give it some consideration. Thank you.