Roch Smith, Jr., Curator of We101 . . . according to Converge South, father of "the archetypal community blog portal" . . . champion of free speech . . . shining example of tolerance, laser logic and superior intellect . . . has banned me from We 101.
Why you ask? Well, because, for purposes of blog "aggregation" (and because I have a story I am trying to get out to as many people/outlets as I can - without benefit of MSM coverage - because the MSM coverage around here is bought and paid for), I chose to associate my blog with Greensboro rather than Asheboro, North Carolina.
Here's how it went down:
Roch (who for years has treated me like dirt - and who is clearly threatened by the "traction" I am slowly getting via my determined perseverance in the blogosphere), showed up a few days ago on MeB's blog to (predictably) cast aspersions on my case/story. Based on a few hours he spent at my website during some "conings" a year or so ago, Roch made grand sweeping negative assertions that he wanted everyone else to accept . . . the usual, "nothing to see here . . . no reason to cover this story . . . move on along" act.
After he cast his black pearls, he ducked out of the thread and would not answer specific questions posed by MeB and Brends (ala "What do you know that we don't?"). It was typical Roch.
And it left me (for the umpteenth time) to clean up the damage. (This is like the third night in a row I've spent hours in front of a computer screen rather than enjoying what small portion of a personal life I do have.)
So I responded on MeB's blog (belatedly - because blogs are blocked at work . . . plus unlike all the techno-geeks I don't sit in front of computer all day).
Exasperated with Roch's tactics, I then decided to blow the notion of his special knowledge of my case (not to mention his legal "expertise") out of the water on my own blog.
I'm sick of Roch's smug, know-it-all-when-he-doesn't snark. He & Cone have a lot in common.
The next day, I discovered that my blog association at We101 had suddenly been moved from Greensboro (high volume/high traffic link) to Asheboro (as everyone knows, a relative blogging black hole). It was a move designed to damn me to the blogging trash-pile.
Moreover, it was done without my knowledge or consent - and was clearly a retaliatory move on Roch's part.
That story is here.
In terms of expertise and matters of medicine, I think Joe Guarino has some. He was one of the first to say to the GSO blogosphere, "There's something here people". I'd say, in this instance, the expertise scales tip to Joe. Roch Smith, Jr. is a lightweight.
Today, I heard from my Blogfather, Mr. P, who has moved to Texas and was having problems with his own We101 listing (P had left comments on my posts about Roch's tactics). Over the course of the day, P kept me appraised of his e mail communications with Roch. He also wondered how many bloggers/commenters in the GSO blogosphere actually live within the city limits.
Meanwhile, I tried to access my blog listing at We101, and found that my password (or at least what I thought was my password) would not work. I tried a variation I sometimes use for other things.
Nothing.
So I fired off an e-mail to We101's curator:
I have miss-placed my We101 password. Please forward it, or a way to reset it, and I will change my city settings myself.
I do not live within the city limits of Asheboro. In fact, I am joining forces with my neighbors (of Dave's Mountain) who are actively opposed to the Asheboro City Council's current plans to annex us.
My Father was born and raised in Greensboro - and I still have extended family who reside there. I was born in Greensboro. My Mother did her undergraduate & Master's work in education at UNC-G (meanwhile I attended pre-school at the campus). I lived in Greensboro for four years - while attending UNC-G (pre-med/triple-major/Phi Beta Kappa). I shop in Greensboro. I dine in Greensboro. I socialize in Greensboro.
I realize my name is not "Cone", but NONE of this should be necessary to "justify" listing my blog in Greensboro.
I will repeat. Roch Smith, Jr. did not ask permission . . . or have my approval . . . to make any changes to my blog's listing or settings.
It is very clear Mr. Smith's actions, as curator of We101, were retaliatory and based on a personal grudge.
Mary H. Johnson, M.D., FAAP
www.drjshousecalls.blogspot.com
While Roch continued to suck up/work to fix P's problem, he ignored my e-mail.
I waited a while, and decided to try again at We101. Suddenly, my password (same one as before) worked again. I pointed and clicked and changed my blog association back to Greensboro . . . where, until yesterday, it had been for months.
I notified Roch by e-mail:
Suddenly, my original password works again.
The city has been edited back to Greensboro. I expect to see this change "take" within an hour or so.
We101 may not make any further changes to the listing without my knowledge or consent.
Mary H. Johnson, M.D.
Fairly quickly, Roch responded with this gem:
From our terms of use:"Visitors and bloggers who disrupt the proper operation of We101, intentionally or unintentionally, may be be banned at our sole discretion."
Well, that was just BS, so I fired off another e-mail:
And tell me Roch, HOW, pray tell, have I disrupted the "proper operation" of We 101"?
No answer. (Remember, during this time, he's talking to P). So, after reviewing those terms of use, I fired off another e-mail:
Some observations to make, and one question to ask (just for clarification for my next blog post):
From your own terms of use:
The only "intended use" I see specifically stated is this one:
"We101 is a tool designed to provide quick and easy navigation to the recent posts of bloggers from cities in the United States."
Furthermore, when a blogger signs up:
"You associate your blog with a city when you add it to We101, provide a zip code and may optionally provide additional information about your location such as your suburb or neighborhood."
The statement makes it clear that the decision about what city to associate with is that of the user/blogger. As I have pointed out, I have many ties to Greensboro and do not actually live within the city limits of Asheboro.
My question is this, Roch. Who exactly is "our"? If We101 has an Editorial/other Board, are you running these fast & dirty decisions by them . . . or are you making them upon your own "sole discretion"?
What you are doing to me - based on a personal grudge - certainly blows all of those high & mighty Converge South & Blogsboro notions about "community" right out of the water.
Mary H. Johnson, M.D.
Let's review how I have NOT violated We101's terms of use.
I've used it at my own risk. I accept that the aggregator is not responsible for content of the blogs to which it links.
I have not hacked or spammed or attacked or disabled anything at the We101 website.
I do not publish pornography.
I do not advertise.
I allow comments (I do moderate - but I think I've moderated only one or two comments out since I imitated the policy).
I haven't broken any of the above rules.
I accept the privacy policy. But that privacy is mine to waive - especially in circumstance where the We1o1 curator is acting in a retaliatory fashion because a personal grudge.
Roch Smith, Jr. cannot come to this blog (like a man) and do fair battle - and answer for his actions or his words. Instead, from the shadows, he abuses his position of relative power to pound me off the blogging scene. Free speech in this blogsphere is only free if you agree with Roch.
In that sense he is very much like the people I fight.
And in another sense, we're back to burning books.
Roch Smith, Jr., curator of We101, does not have a leg to stand on (ethical, legal or otherwise). And I've got news for him (and his Editorial Board if he has one). Malice & retaliation are generally not great defenses to cite in a court of law.
He's just being a blogger-bully.
And that makes him the biggest hypocrite in his "archetypal community blog portal".
There are several. And they all seem to be conspiring together - working the same theme.
3 comments:
What a load of crap. Roch, you will read this I am sure and I can dang well tell you that this lady has never violated any TOS or Policy as you like to call it. I find your actions to be underhanded, conniving and deceitful. Man what is with you? Look , I may be "little fish " to you but I'll tell you one dang thing, you can bet your sweet that I will do all I can to rip you a new one. Don't forget Roch, I have probably more friends than you do in G'boro. What you gonna do bann them all except the coneheads? Not very good advertising for your program now is it Roch. I am sure the blog world would just love to hear how you have screwed the Doc around. Let me be one of the first to tell them. Want to bann me? BFD, I can still get the word out. Roch, I don't know why but I am disappointed. Guess I shouldn't be since it seems to be yours and Ed's deal to bann those who disagree with you or that you all don't like. Folks can read about this on my blog this coming week which now appears in about half dozen cities in and out of NC.
Oh BTW Roch didn't you mention one time that you didn't live in G'boro and couldn't vote in one of the elections? I can look it up but you can save me the time and tell the world and me.
Dr. I'm sorry to hear of this underhanded , low dealing that you once again have been handed by the supposed elites of blogsphere. Always remember , what goes around comes around.
Blogfather
It's very clear that someone here is VERY AFRAID of something and wants me off the canvas of public dialogue. First JR (the newspaper) - now Roch (the blogs). The question begs what are these "men" afraid of?
"Banning" on blogs is pretty much the equivalent of burning books. Yet so many seem to be patting these cowards on the back and going along - instead of saying, your actions belie your rhetoric.
Re: Banning of commentary being the intellectual & ethical equivalent to book-burning. Much irony to be found.
Janet Leigh left another "Sign in My InBox". It's published there and I've pulled the text here:
Dear Dr. J,
I think everyone of us ought to be roaring angry at those who profess to be the guardians of free speech, watchdogs of crime and corruption involving our Illustrious Leaders. It's healthier for people to be angry because it forces us into action. Being "nice" in the face of rebuff from those who ought to know better only makes for a depressed psyche.
We have a big problem here in the US with our mainstream media. They're not doing their jobs which is to keep those in power honest and above-board. They're all too cozy with the political elements, rubbing elbows with the rich and famous, and more concerned about becoming pals with the very people they're supposed to hold at arm's length in order to stay objective and emotionally detached enough to report the facts of any story. There's no professional decorum left in business anymore. The upper echelon knows if they can break down the boundaries and decorum between the people's watchdogs, that the watchdogs will eventually gravitate towards them and away from the public good, the little people they swore to protect against big government and corporate crime, corruption and greed. The WH has an annual bash where the press gets to hobnob with the politicians and socialities. Our press would rather network among those who would do us wrong, than to take the high road and do what's right - and that is talking truth to power. Everyone in DC is subject to graft and bribery. That's how they get things done.
Reporters, investigative reporters, and journalists all have the power to make wrongs right and get any story out into the public domain. Only problem is they all belong under the huge umbrella of a few media conglomerates; all doing the bidding of their Illustrious Leaders. Over the years, our government has managed to ignore anti-trust laws and instead have allowed about 5 gazillionaires to own us, to feed us trash TV and pablum news. Heck, it's not even "news" anymore. Our news has been usurped by entertainment personalities who wouldn't know a legit news item if they tripped over it. If you really want to see what's causing our biggest problems, check out the affiliations of the "newsmen" in our midst. You'll find that many of the press belong to the same "clubs" and affiliations as the politicians and the big corporate heads. There's a hellava percentage of media, government and politicians who belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. These people are bent on global governance, leveling the playing field, bankrupting the US, and stripping our nation's sovereignty. Their allegiance is not to Americans or our country - they belong to the internationalists who want one big happy world family. Only problem is they're also the ones who want to "run the show". Americans no longer have consumer advocates and watchdogs to speak truth to power because they're too busy trying to grab their piece of the elite world pie.
And, oh, just look at how brazen they've become lately. A lot of them are getting sloppy and getting caught. They never think their "insider" friends will abandon them if they're caught in a crime. Why? Because they tend to protect each other - unless of course one starts to oppose the big guys big ideas, or interests.
No, Dr, J, there's plenty of news media that could help your situation and bring a shoddy enterprise into the light of day, but now they're running scared. They are so beholden to their "handlers" and now must do the bidding of those who "own" them.
Not very many people help others anymore. How can they? For the last 7 years everyone in the US has been under warrantless surveillance. The powers that be have the "goods" on everyone of us. Even Congress and federal employees. Everybody can be blackmailed or bribed into doing the will of those who hold the pliers. Really. One of the reasons our former statesmen banned domestic surveillance is for that very reason. They knew that those holding the most power would eventually abuse it and resort to blackmail and bribery to get their way. Think about it. How many people are being brought down right now as a result of blackmail? How did a brilliant man like Gov. Spitzer get that sloppy with his personal, albeit, illegal activities? There are no accidents in poli-gov machinations. They just make it look like there are, heh heh.
Over the last 20-30 years, our society has been hardened, and filled with fear and loathing. We're all at each other's throats. Who started the confrontational, in-your-face revolution? Who started tearing Americans apart and hyphenating our ethnicity? Divided us into little clusters of nationalities? Who came up with the big idea to militarize our neighborhood policemen to the point where they no longer trust ordinary, law-abiding people. They look at us like we're common criminals. That's what the elite does to justify putting us in our place - they reduce us to "little people" as Theresa Heinz-Kerry likes to call us. I mean, really! Too bad more Americans don't know the mind-set of the elite because they'd stop sucking up to them and start taking this country back from those who do not have our best interests in mind.
I'm really sorry for messing your blog up with my comments, Dr. J, but, believe it or not, your treatment and situation is the result of what's going on in this class war between the little people and the privileged elite among us. Everything they do is fueled by self-interest and the all mighty dollar.
And this business about people not knowing how to help you. BS! Here in VA, years ago, the intersection at Rte 50 & 28 was a death trap. People were having serious accidents by what I found out was a faulty traffic light. I went to the Police Station and told them my theory. Nothing happened. I told them to test the lights under the same conditions the lights were malfunctioning, which was in high humidity and/or rain. They went out in bright day light to run a test. I insisted they get the damn fire trucks out there and douse the damn lights to simulate conditions. But no, that was asking too much from our public servants. I told them if I had an accident at that intersection, I was going to own their farm. To peals of laughter.
Well, I went about getting signatures on a petition, asking drivers to sign while stopped at red lights. I got many, many signatures. Still nothing. Then, I had my accident there at 50 & 28. The lights malfunctioned in both directions of traffic and we both had green lights. I can tell you what it feels like to hit a car broadside going 45-50 mph. I sustained some serious injuries. I got myself a lawyer. Thank goodness I had written letters to the Dir. of VDOT, documenting what was going on at that intersection. To make a long story short (ha! too late, right?), I was in the process of suing the state, and only then did they decide to tackle the problem in all seriousness. I told the state I'd drop my case if they installed new traffic light system at 28 & 50. They agreed and I dropped my case; I only wanted them to pay my medical bills. One person against Goliath.
I did a similar thing with malfunctioning elevators at the Reston International Center building. People actually quit work rather than fall in another elevator car, get their arms crushed by slamming doors, cars dropping many stories, you name it we endured it. I got my petition material out and had people write their experiences on the petition. I hounded the director of maintenance. I told them if I fell a foot into an elevator again, or had my arms black & blued one more time, I was going to own their farm. Long story short. I was hurt a number of times, but I finally got Winkler to refit those damn elevators. Of course, I had a number of meetings with the Dir. of Winkler but I never stopped until they fixed the 4 malfunctioning, dangerous elevators! And I'll bet if you brought my name up to Dan Tanna, he'd blanche and head for the nearest exit. lol
So, don't give up the good fight, Dr. J. One day, you'll be exonerated. Until then, state your case forcefully, don't give in or give up. Your day will come! You'll come out of this the victor. Truth!
janetleigh
"Poetmeister...on the road to Parnassus"
Stay the course Mary. I can offer you nothing but my friendship, but that you have. Brenda
Post a Comment