You know, the reason why the comments were disabled last week was because I didn’t actually want to turn this whole thing into a blog mess. Seriously, and actually, it didn’t, did it?
Had Cindy Cruciger left things well alone, after my Friday post, I would have simply ignored her for the rest of my days, and it wouldn’t have been a hardship for me.
Cindy, you’ve poked and prodded, and poked and prodded at me, Jane, and the SB’s for about 4 months in an attempt to get some kind of attention/reaction from us, but despite all of your valiant efforts, we managed to ignore you for long enough.
I wasn’t in the habit of visiting your blog, because I’d decided upon your very first comment here, that you weren’t somebody who interested me enough to bother with. You were so under my radar, it wasn’t funny.
But then came the whole Ann Vremont picture incident, and that’s when your moral crusade against bitchy/mean bloggers started. Not as you keep claiming, eighteen months ago.
You felt it was your duty to teach the likes of me, and others ‘similar’ to me, how to blog properly, so you started your Blog Etiquette 101.
During this time, you took great pleasure in pulling our tails whenever you could. You wanted a reaction, was quite desperate for it infact, but we persevered and ignored you, because we thought you’d get fed up, and find another pet project. We were wrong. You didn’t, and in fact, you seemed to get worse.
Eva Gale wrote that this all started because you were sticking up for authors, but seriously dude, you know that’s a lie.
Cindy, all this started because you felt hurt, rejected, and much maligned, which was mostly in your head, because actually, at that point, nobody was paying any attention to you. Did the Mancusi/Maverick thing take place in March, when you began your crusade? I think not.
Like Robin already mentioned, the photographs of Jane, and the SB’s that you posted, and the accompanying comments, came during a time when most readers and bloggers were feeling good about authors, due to a lot of the reports from these ladies. I never did understand the timing of that post, but it’s not for me to try to decipher what you were thinking.
Selah March talked about sticking by her principles, and once again, standing up for her friends, but at some point, she needs to go back to how all of this started, and it wasn’t with the M&Ms.
When the SB Comments Marathon started, I don’t recall one horrid comment from either of the girls about Maverick, and Mancusi, in fact, from what I gather, they were very much on their side of the argument, correct me if I’m wrong Candy.
Cindy Cruciger blamed the SB’s for attacking the girls, and letting others attack them, when in fact, as far as I can gather, the main cusp of the conversation was about the relevancy of dress, and whether Cosplay was appropriate in certain situations, e.g. RWA conference. Out of the 600 plus comments, there were very few that went beyond the boundaries of taste and decency.
This was just an excuse for you, Cindy, to hammer at the girls, and you know it.
Do you understand that actually, if you’re going to campaign for all that is great and good, you cannot then crawl into the gutter, and start rolling around in it? That’s called hypocrisy, and sooner or later, people were bound to call you on it.
Like I wrote in an earlier post, the problem with holding yourself up to a higher standard, is that you just cannot indulge in the same mode of behaviour that you apparently find so distasteful. That just doesn’t work.
You have got to get some perspective on this before it’s too late. One day, you will wake up and find that you just wasted four months on crap, that in the great scheme of things, really doesn’t matter. And it doesn’t, it really doesn’t. In a couple of weeks there will be another Romanceland kerfuffle, and this and the Cosplay thing will be forgotten. That’s the nature of Romanceland, and as far as I can gather, it’s always been pretty much that way.
I’m willing to let sleeping dogs lie, Cindy, because let’s face it, no matter how much you deny it, this hurts yourself, Eva Gale, and Selah March much more than it does me. And even if you don’t want to sell books, don’t you at least want to be able to get back to not feeling as if the whole world’s against you? No matter how strong minded you are, that’s gotta hurt, because at the end of the day, you are only human.
I’m willing to call a truce.
You stay away from me, and my blog, stop the whole Mean Bloggers crusade thing because, let’s face it, that’s not working out so well for you is it, and just do your own thing. Stick to slagging us off within the confines of your personal group or private e-mails. I am totally fine with that.
If you agree, then I’ll stop, but if you feel as if you have to continue with this, then I too will continue. The choice is yours.
This is an opportunity for both of us to put this behind us. I really think you should take it.
Candy
August 2
9:05 am
Here are some clarifications; many of them are points that are abundantly clear to most people, but some people seem intent on reading a whole lot into what’s happened and tacking on all sorts of interesting motives to our actions.
1. Yes, I spoke out in favor of Mancusi/Maverick’s costumes. That still hasn’t changed. I disagreed strongly (and politely) with several people in the comments, and strongly and not-so-politely with a couple others. I really don’t know how the focus became “Oh my God look at how mean Smart Bitches was towards Mancusi/Maverick.” When one of the blog owners comes right out and says “I like the costumes and really don’t see the big deal,” I’d imagine that would indicate SUPPORT and not criticism from the blog.
The swan hat still makes me cringe, though. But that’s because I’m not a big fan of poultry on my head, just in mah belly.
And by the way, since a lot of people seem to have forgotten this fact: the initial post (that expressed disapproval/skepticism for the costumes) that I commented on was a) posted on an author’s blog (Kate Rothwell), and b) expressed by another author (Kate’s anonymous friend). Watching some people attempt to pin most of the blame on bloggers was surreal, especially when Cruciger tried to blame my rack for opening the conversation.
2. Speaking of which: The comments about my rack didn’t particularly enrage me. I was a bit befuddled at first, and then very, very, VERY amused. Look, my girls are fabu, but they’re not that noteworthy. I was, however, annoyed once Cruciger and co. started nattering about personal attacks on appearance and how inappropriate they were; the lack of self-awareness bugged me, as did the double standards.
3. What really DID piss me off right off the bat were the comments made about Jane; many of the meanest, most appalling things were aimed specifically at her, I think. My ire at the hypocrisy only increased after several of our commenters were quoted out of context, and Cruciger and co. waved their fingers at them for being mean and unprofessional. But I think I’ve already written quite a bit about that.
4. The accusations that Sarah and I are scrambling to ensure big-name authors keep commenting on our site so we can keep up decent readership numbers was pretty breathtaking and completely unexpected. We had a readership in the thousands before people like Nora Roberts and Jenny Crusie started commenting. Don’t get me wrong, we enjoy their comments, but we’d be pissed off and/or concerned if valued regulars left, celebrity status notwithstanding. I’d be every bit as upset to see somebody like, say, Robin or iffygenia or Arethusa ditch SBTB forever as I would Nora Roberts. We enjoy people who have something to add to the big old conversation we have about romance novels and the romance community, and that includes authors AND readers.
We honestly haven’t seen a spike in our hits that correlates with Big Author Presence. You know what causes our hits to go through the roof? When spectacular trainwrecks happen, like the Tony Catanzaro death threat kerfuffle, or when we have a really interesting debate topic up, like rape in romance, or when we’re extensively linked to by non-romance-related media, as in the Bill Napoli Googlebomb.
So really, if we wanted to ensure our readership numbers are high, we’d need to host several trainwrecks a week, and angle ourselves for maximum exposure to the mainstream media. Which we haven’t done. What we do is essentially blog about whatever catches our eye and tickles our brain, and write long-winded reviews about books we’ve recently read.
5. Some people are squawking about how we’re attempting to squelch their right to free speech and/or stifle their opinions. Bitch motherfucking PLEEZE. That’s a classic invocation of Amy E’s law if I ever saw one. Enough with the persecution complex already. Look, we’re disagreeing with you. We’re doing it out in the open. Nobody’s forcing you to keep quiet, and we sure as shit ain’t preventing you from making blog posts; hell, we’re not even preventing you from leaving comments on our blogs, nor are we deleting anybody’s comments, and we’re certainly not forcing you to post something, leave it up for only a couple of hours and then take it down. Some of the people commenting on the blog entries might have said something along the lines of “Shut the hell up already,” but to read that as some sort of prescriptive command or attempt to censor as opposed to good old-fashioned exasperation is, I think, pushing things a bit.
I think I’m mostly done with this topic; I think the disagreeing parties are talking past each other at this point. Cruciger seems bound and determined to assign the most mercenary motives to everything we do–and I really doubt anything we say is going to dissuade her. She seems to have a very firm picture of who we are and what we’re trying to do in her mind. There’s only so much clarification we can do, and only so much she’s willing to believe from somebody she seems determined to view as the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Tant pis. :shrug:
Maralyn
August 2
9:47 am
*Big Applause*
Karen, it’ll be interesting to see if she’s willing to take the olive branch offered.
Nora Roberts
August 2
10:48 am
Here’s my take.
Both Karen and Candy have laid it all out here very clearly. Pretty calmly and concisely, too.
For my part, yes, Candy and I disagreed about costumes. She liked them; I didn’t. I never bashed M&M or SK–I bashed the costumes, and gave my reasons. And when one or two commentors crossed what I saw as a line, I disagreed with them.
That doesn’t make me a bully–and that term was used on CC’s blog. It means I have an opinion.
I comment on blogs when I’m interested. That doesn’t make me a bully, or conversely equate feeding blood to the beast.
Nobody uses me.
I’ve been around long enough that I’m pretty used to people I don’t know tossing my name around and saying things about me that aren’t true, or are just unflattering. It goes with the package, and mostly I ignore it.
But I don’t like someone twisting my comments and opinions and claiming I’ve tromped all over others–then watching them tromp all over someone else–and using my name as a portion of the boot.
I comment here, on SB and on DA because I find them interesting. I don’t always agree with the hosts or with some of the other commentors. Agreement isn’t the point–discussion is.
Anyone who tells me to shut up and write is going to get the same reaction from me as someone who claims I shouldn’t comment on certain blogs or on certain subjects.
I’ll continue to comment as long as, and whenever, I’m interested. It’s a shame if anyone sees that for anything other than what it is. My personal interest and investment in the genre, and my right to discuss it with other writers, with readers, with reviewers and with bloggers.
I agree with Karen–it has to hurt when so many people tell you you’re wrong, or you’ve behaved badly. So I hope the olive branch is accepted.
Kristie (J)
August 2
11:19 am
What has saddened me in this whole thing which I’ve watched but mostly stayed out of, is the collateral damage to people I’ve come to care about. One author in particular who I was fortunate to meet and who I respect totally and completely, was somehow was damaged, undeservedly.
I also met, spent time with and roomed with Jane, a kinder, more thoughtful, decent person you couldn’t hope to meet. I also include Sybil in this. Both of them are remarkable people undeserving of what has transpired. I was also lucky enough to meet both Candy and Sarah and while I didn’t get to spend as much time with them, it was an honour to meet them.
So I join with Karen – let it go. These are good people you are going after. I haven’t met Karen and I’m adding yet but I also include her in the good people group.
You don’t know me and I don’t know you so this is impartial.
So I ask you – please, let it go.
sallahdog
August 2
12:20 pm
Just a reader, but as I said on Cindys blog, I didn’t see the costume discussion as a shame inducing, finger wagging smackdown at Maverick and Co.
I work in a male dominated field, and whether I liked it or not when I was young and starting out, dressing ‘cute’ might have gotten me noticed, but in the end it wouldn’t have been what I would have wanted to be known for. I wanted to be known in my profession for my work ethic and the quality of my work.
I saw the discussion as an interesting and relevant to me personally, not just writers. So I was amazed and saddened that some people seemed to take it as an opportunity to tell people to be “nice” and shut up. Which is in essence what Cindy and Co were trying to do.
Ann Bruce
August 2
1:25 pm
dressing ‘cute’ might have gotten me noticed, but in the end it wouldn’t have been what I would have wanted to be known for. I wanted to be known in my profession for my work ethic and the quality of my work.
You can do both. 🙂
And cutting down on the suits will help with the drycleaning budget.
shiloh walker
August 2
1:57 pm
I’d definitely say it’s time to let this one go.
There’s nothing new here and even I, as trivial as I am getting amused by some of this, am moving a little past amused into bored.
You all don’t have to like each other, agree with other, speak to other or ever type the person’s name again.
I keep hearing that some authors have been hurt by the recent dramas and that mean bloggers suck. Now considering how out of hand the costume thing reportedly got, I get that M/M started feeling a little attacked but it wasn’t just one person feeding that, it wasn’t just one blogger, or group of bloggers.
You don’t want to add to the feeding frenzy, stop throwing blood into the water and just stay the hell away. And Ferfe, I’m not picking on you, but this comment is directed at you. You do every bit as much damage as the ‘mean bloggers’ do just because you can’t manage to throw your two cents in without putting your foot in your mouth.
The ones who are in this claiming they are sticking up for their friends-hey, it’s admirable. But the time has to come to let that go. Whoever these friends, you’re not doing them a service by insulting READERS. Geez… I just don’t get that.
As bitchy as Karen can get, as bitchy as the SBs are, they are just a couple of ladies with opinions.
Opinions never stopped the world from spinning and more often than not, their opinions about a book, negative or otherwise, sell books. Unless of course some author comes in screeching that they had no right to say anything about their darlin baby.
If this whole ‘mean blogger’ crusade was started because an author was insulted / traumatized/ torn up inside over something the mean bloggers said, I’m sorry but said author needs thicker skin.
This isn’t an easy business to be in and most of us go into it wanting to be successful-or at least successful enough to keep selling books.
But with success comes criticism. Be ready for it.
Devon
August 2
2:23 pm
Well said, Karen. I think you summed it up nicely.
I followed that thread compulsively, and until Candy just mentioned it, I had completely forgotten the origin of the thread. It really took on a life of it’s own. I found it interesting how, on that thread and the follow up one on personal attacks, people kept sticking to the whole outfit thing, rather than looking at the big picture.
Anyway, before I digress, I agree it’s time to let it go. I find I’m tired of getting irritated by the willful twisting of bloggers’ words and intent. I’m also beyond irritated with myself at my rubbernecking. I just have to see what’s going to be said next. I’m awful.
sallahdog
August 2
3:51 pm
dressing ‘cute’ might have gotten me noticed, but in the end it wouldn’t have been what I would have wanted to be known for. I wanted to be known in my profession for my work ethic and the quality of my work.
You can do both. 🙂
And cutting down on the suits will help with the drycleaning budget.
LOL, I’m an electrician, so no suits… Some of the young girls come on the job these days in halter tops with thongs hanging out and then get upset when the guys don’t take them ‘seriously’.
Gennita
August 2
4:05 pm
Hey Sallahdog,
I’m a roofer, but since I’m the boss, I figure it’s okay to have a bikini dress code in the Floridian August heat ;-). The last 20 years, I’m known for my work ethic and the quality of my wrath. Heh.
Joking aside, on the construction site, I care very little about how one dresses (even thongs) as long as one can perform under pressure–in the heat and daily showing up for work. I know it’s different for electricians since they do inside work, so there are some rules there about “appropriate” workclothes (Hey, look, we’re back on that dreaded topic!)
I once hired the most good looking man who wore nothing but this pair of shorts. He had a surfing god’s body. Boy, did he make my roofs look pretty. But the man was a meth addict and his work was terrible. So pretty boy had to go.
:looking ashame: I know, I shouldn’t have been looking, since I was the boss.
But you’re right, dressing cute would only get you so far. If I wasn’t good with a hammer and roofwork, I wouldn’t have lasted at all.
azteclady
August 2
4:06 pm
On the dress choice issue…
Call me whatever you want, but for me it ain’t about “freedom of expression” but about common sense. Human nature is what it is, and change don’t come either easily nor immediately.
So go about your business on your terms while allowing for others’ views and needs.
As for the trainwreck…
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Enough already.
Pretty please?
Robin
August 2
5:04 pm
I’m not always in sync with your style, Karen, but today I think you got it spot on, in both content and tone. If Cruciger, Inc. doesn’t accept the branch, IMO it will be a big opportunity to do what they say they want to do/are doing (the moral high ground thing) lost.
Some people are squawking about how we’re attempting to squelch their right to free speech and/or stifle their opinions.
Using what Jane accurately characterizes as one of my very favorite words, I’d just say that IMO a lot of stuff has been conflated in this whole mess, from motives regarding the RWA discussion to the whole ‘shut up and write’ thing. I’ve mostly accepted that people who didn’t follow along with all 600+ comments on that RWA thread had a certain impression of that conversation, and I’m done trying to change their minds. I also get why Mancusi and Maverick felt personally assaulted, because I think it’s monumentally difficult to have your name and dress (intentionally designed marketing costume or not) mentioned without it feeling personal (especially with a couple of comments that really did seem over the line). After all, we are all inclined to take compliments personally, even if they are based on professional work or persona. I still can’t quite wrap my mind around how some folks think they’re just standing up for three authors when the picture post and comments appeared well before the RWA post on SB did. But again, the confluence of a whole lot of stuff has, IMO, fogged up the windshield here to the point where it may be impossible to unwind everything to where it makes universal sense. Take the panda reference, for example. I suspected that Ferfe was simply mirroring your own words, Candy, but when it came out, I thought, wow, that could be taken as racist. And sure enough, that whole thing spun right out of control within a couple of hours, complete with yet another blog post and comments at Gale’s blog.
And while I don’t know where Gale and Cruciger are getting the whole censorship thing from (although I’m sure they have something in mind), I think March is — at least in part — responding to an exchange between her and Jane that occurred somewhere else (to which I will not link — and I can practically feel the collective sigh of relief). Now I personally think March’s response is an over-reaction, in part because of a very provoking remark she made to begin with, and also because I think she’s misreading the comment that set her off. But again, I understand from personal experience how hard it is not to take sharp exchanges personally and not read a whole lot more into them than is actually intended at the time. I would have felt equally stung had I been at the receiving end of either woman’s comment, frankly. So I get that.
But seriously, how often do any of us post with the thought of ‘I so don’t want to get into this,’ or ‘my god, do we have to get into this again,’ or whatever, as you said, exasperated spurt of something that sounds much harsher to the person receiving it than to the person writing it. And pretty soon, a few thoughtless (and I mean that in both senses of the word) comments morph into a moral crusade and the battle takes on a life of its own, even though it began in quite humble terms. And here we are, with this whole ‘splosion of free expression and friendship and professionalism and blogging etiquette and personal integrity and publishing careers in peril, etc., but without IMO the material grounds to really support any of it. I love a good crusade as much as anybody, but let’s face it, this isn’t exactly the assassination of Malcom X or Ruben Salazar here.
Jane
August 2
5:16 pm
What really frustrated me was this idea that romance bloggers were pits of negativity. We bloggers love romance and I believe it shows through the dedicated work we put behind the product that is our hobby.
When I went to RWA, I was infused with such a great joy of the genre. The women were so smart, so charming, so beautiful, from my wonderful roommmates like Kristie, Wendy, and Sybil, to Candy and Sarah, to the wonderful authors, editors, agents, and publicists I met.
(If you have a chance to ever break bread with Heather Osborne, please do, she is the funniest person I have ever met. I could spend hours with her and be entertained).
To come home to the scary blogger picture and have that grow, to see people unhappy that we were there was really disheartening.
I can’t tell you how much that I did not blog about because I felt that it would be inappropriate. I didn’t take pictures at the Harlequin party where any number of bestselling authors let their hair down and were wonderfully wild. It just didn’t seem appropriate to share those unguarded moments. Not that anyone was misbehaving, but it just seemed more circumspect to refrain.
I can’t apologize for what I say on my blog because that would be hypocritical. In my reviews and commentary, I am putting out my honest feelings and emotions because that is what I want to read. I am going to defend my position if I feel I am right. I am willing to be swayed if I am wrong. And I am willing to say I’ve been an ass if I have been.
Let me say this, as an olive branch, Cindy Cruciger, I don’t know you, but like Karen, I’m willing to let bygones be bygones. Ditto with Ms. Gale.
As for Ms. March, I am going to apologize for my terse comment on Keishon’s blog. I assume, but may be totally incorrect, that my comment “I don’t recall directing my comments at you” is one that you believe to be somehow silencing. I simply did not want to engage in a battle since I was tired from RWA, I had loads of real work, and tons of pictures to post and the idea of going back and digging out everyone’s posts as it related to the distrust of the RITA process and responding to “Facts not in evidence, counselor” from you seemed overwhelming. My comment was unnaturally terse. I apologize for the tone. If you in some way felt that I was attempting to inhibit your mode of free speech, I do so apologize because that is certainly not my intention as you seem to be implying in your recent post.
I don’t want to look at the commenters and think, oh no, should I be reading them with a different filter? Is a challenge just around the corner? Because frankly, I don’t have the time or energy to do that. That type of negativity is draining.
The fact is I blog to engage in diverse discussion with romance readers. I want to shout to the tops of the trees about the books I love and I want to commiserate with readers about books that make me angry, unhappy and sad. It’s not about the authors in any way. To me, it is all about the readers and our relationships with the books.
Wendy
August 2
6:17 pm
Pigbacking on what Jane said: What I find most disheartening about this whole thing is that it has slathered a layer of mud over “our” experiences at RWA. Speaking for the women I spent the most time with – I think I can easily say we all had a wonderful time and had so many positive experiences that it was impossible to list them all.
We met lovely, charming people who love romance as much as we do – whether they were authors, bloggers, readers, editors, reviewers etc. Certainly we all had different agendas in mind, but strip away all the personal goals and were were all there for the same reason – we love the genre and want to be around other people who love it as much as we do.
What has gotten lost during this whole sad, pathetic, tiring episode is that (again speaking for the bloggers I had interaction with) we had a wonderful time! The people we met seemed happy to see us. We laughed, we debated, and we spent way too much time in the bar.
But at the end of the day I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s easy to sling this sort of hash on the ‘Net. It’s just really, really sad that it comes down this because I’m afraid it has overshadowed all the fun, good will and good times we shared together in Dallas, and what we conveyed to the larger romance reading world on our personal blogs.
And now, I’m back to staying out of it.
Wendy
August 2
6:18 pm
Pigbacking? I obviously meant piggy-backing. Geesh, and I even read through what I wrote before I posted.
Anne
August 2
7:36 pm
Ahhhhhh… taking the high road is refreshing, isn’t it, Karen?
Good for you.
sallahdog
August 2
7:38 pm
I once hired the most good looking man who wore nothing but this pair
I work in a lot of corporate situations, big office buildings, government projects, so dress does matter for me…
LOL, I just had my roof redone, and I completely understand the looser dress code. Its freakin hot up there.
Lucia
August 2
8:26 pm
Ahh Karen. This is futile. It seems to me your are talking to a horse that dropped dead in your front yard. That you can’t move. It’s just gonna be there forever and flies and maggots comes, and it will get just get uglier. The post before this shows that CC just don’t know when to stop and can’t. Shut. Up.
Of all the nasty comments and spectacles, methinks the one most unwarranted was to Jane. I admit sometimes this site can make me feel a bit, er, toxic, and when that happens I run to Dear Author. Don’t get me wrong, this site and SB are very addictive, but I have to say the contents can be a bit hard to swallow sometimes.
Let CC have war with herself, in her own little corner. Don’t bother yourself. It’s not worth it.
Shannon Stacey
August 3
2:35 am
LOL, I’m an electrician, so no suits… Some of the young girls come on the job these days in halter tops with thongs hanging out and then get upset when the guys don’t take them ‘seriously’.
Sallahdog, my husband’s an electrician, and he’d like to know where he can sign up for some of those apprentices. *g* Actually the only female electrician I know of in the area was born a man.
I hope it’s time for more book reviews. 🙂
eggs
August 3
4:20 am
I don’t read Cruciger’s blog, so (until Karen started posting excerpts here) I only knew of her from her comments here, at SB and DA, which was enough. I’m honestly astonished that someone above high school age would make such vicious comments about people’s appearance and their right to an opinion based on such petty things as their appearance, their choice of career and their level of success within that career. What kind of stone aged misogynistic bullshit is that?
X can’t comment on the professional attire of young women because she’s too old or unattractive to wear a miniskirt herself? Y can’t comment on the publishing industry, because she earns her main income outside of publishing? Z can’t comment on anything at all to do with anything because it’s too painful for people to realize she’s not only successful at her job, she’s a smart woman with an educated opinion as well? These are the kinds of rationalizations I’d expect Hugh Hefner to come up with, to keep the upity women in their place. Not the kinds of arguments one would expect supposedly educated women to make.
All of these arguments have been raised in one form or another in the last couple of weeks, and all of them are ugly in the extreme. Even uglier has been watching intelligent women question their own right to expressing an opinion in the face of this onslaught.
I kind of hope that Cruciger takes the opportunity to let this drop, but somehow I doubt it. I’m not actually opposed to you (Karen) flogging this horse, as it’s kind of fascinating to watch the death throes of the beast, but I would hope that people will stop apologizing for dissagreeing with each other, and stop feeling that they have to justify their right to an opinion on, well, pretty much anything.
Jaye
August 3
12:06 pm
Karen, I can only repeat what I suggested before you started posting excerpts from CC’s blog here. Just let her be. Really. I doubt this olive branch will be accepted because I’m fairly sure this is about ‘winning’ for her. Showing all you mean bloggers whats ‘fer! If she accepts your truce that means she’s accepting the rules *you’ve* laid down for it.
An what are the chances of that happening?
Exactly.
You’ve rightly pointed out that CC must be in a not too nice place right now, not only because of others opinion of her, but within herself spiritually and mentally. Carrying around all that anger and outrage, whether it has a focused output or not, always affects the targetor more than the target. Let her post her bile on her blog for the world to see (at least those interested enough to bother going over there), ever utterance more clearly defines (and shapes) who she is.
Please get back to the variety of topics, observations, reviews & bitchdom *g* that you usually post on in a manner that only you can. 🙂
Although, I can’t recall any bukkake posts here at all…. *g*
Karen Scott
August 3
12:56 pm
Hi Jaye, I see your point, but as far as I’m concerned, my posts did what I wanted them to.
I don’t mind getting down and dirty if necessary, so really she was always playing with the wrong person. If she doesn’t accept the olive branch, (an offer that was actually more for her benefit than mine, in the first place) well, that’s her look out.
The offer is there, if she takes it, great, if she doesn’t, then I can roll round in the mud with her for the rest of the year, it really is no skin off my nose.
And you’re right, I don’t actually think I’ve blogged about bukkake, but give me time… *g*