to those who want to let Locke
off the hook

As usual, I’m late to the latest bloggery brouhaha, which is going on here and here and here.
What I have to say to Kathy Sierra and Ronni is that I have locked horns with Locke myself, and I have blogged about the battle. In this old post I say

I’ve never been one to follow a leader, and I’ve never understood the human attraction to cult personalities. But there certainly is something in some human natures that needs to feel blessed by someone that they have vested with only vaguely deserved wisdom.

I am thinking about this because of my current altercation with a current cult figure who, in emails to me, has called me a “passive-aggressive bitch” and “doctrinaire moralis” and has accused me of “disgruntled high-horse pretense of moral superiority” and “binary black and white filters.” (Out of sheer perversity, I refuse to link to him. But he did start all of this by indicating on his weblog that he thinks I am a half-wit and an anal retentive.)

Now, in all fairness, in response to his blogassault on me, I commented somewhere that
I do have something against schmucks who publicly harass former “beloveds” and who can dish out invectives out but can’t take them. And, I have only pity and sympathy for narcissistic might have beens who seem to make a great effort to make sure the world at large sees them as emotionally stunted and psychologically deformed (by choice or circumstance — it really doesn’t matter) and then complain that people see them as emotionally stunted and psychologically deformed. In other words, as nasty schmucks.

OK. If you know about whom I’m blogging, I invite you to keep reading. If you don’t, it doesn’t matter. Move on. I have much more interesting posts to take up your time.

My retaliation to his assault was harsh and nasty. I tend to shoot back first, re-load, re-armor, and then look around to see what’s happening. I don’t like what’s happening. But, before you get to be a Crone, you learn to be a warrior. I’ve never run from a fight, especially one that pits me against a cult figure who has pitted himself against me.

He is credited by some bloggers as their teacher — someone who has given them permission to speak their hearts, their guts. In the words of Happy Harry Hardon, to “talk hard.” That’s wonderful. Everyone should know that they have permission to do that. Everyone should do that. I started when I was 17 and haven’t stopped yet. To some, that makes me an aggressive bitch. (I absolutely don’t agree with the “passive” tag!)

He has told me several times to “fuck off.” And I replied that I don’t”fuck off” (in the sense that he means it) that easily. I say that the time has come to diffuse cults of personality. We don’t need self-perpetuating personalities to follow and defer to and seek blessings and approval from. People are people, even in Blogaria. Sometimes they behave like nasty schmucks, and when they do, they should be called on it. Sometimes they write like angels, and they should be applauded for that.

I say that it’s time to invite all bare-assed emperors to climb off their self-constructed pedestals. The view from down here is kind of nasty.

You should go to that post and read the comments.
Somewhere in RageBoy’s archives Is a photo of me onto which he photoshopped a paintball/bullet onto the middle of my forehead.
So in this old post I fantasize about an out and out battle. That post includes this image:
I have noticed that Chris loves to instigate and then, when called to own up to the havoc and hurt that his adolescent sense of humor entices from others, he pulls out his back-pocket eloquence and…”sorry… misunderstood… never meant… it wasn’t me….wasn’t my fault…I would never……..”
Early on, it was Lindsay, a young woman who Locke managed to harrass out of the blogosphere. And this I know for sure because she and I were in email contact long after she bowed out of the fray.
Not only does Locke not believe in deleting any obnoxious or threatening comments, he welcomes them. First Amendment, you know.
Locke doesn’t purposely pick on individuals who can be easily intimidated. But, inevitably, some will cross his perverse path and, well, then what we have is a Lindsay or a Kathy.
In case you think I’m just anti-Chris Locke, I also have just as often posted praise for his other talents, such as in this post.
I’m just asking those who apologize (in the sense of apologetics) for Locke do a little research into his history of nastiness and give Kathy her deserved support.
So says this warrior Crone.
Notice that I have not mentioned the other people who Kathy, in her bout of fear and loathing, thought might be some of her nasty commenters. I have never known any of those bloggers to be intentionally mean. But they are friends of Locke’s who, at times, enable his hurtful antics, if only by not telling him to stop. Maybe they do tell him to stop and maybe he doesn’t listen., I don’t know.
But I do know that the photoshopped photo in the comments to Kathy’s post and the photoshoped photo Locke did of my “headshot” (heh) seem somehow devised by the same kind of mind. I could be wrong, of course. And, lf I am, I’m sure someone out there will tell me.

9 thoughts on “to those who want to let Locke
off the hook

  1. speaking as a longterm, good and current friend of lindsay i can assure you that you are mistaken that chris harrassed her out of the blogosphere. to present this as fact is absurd and self serving at best. get your facts straight Warrior Crone before you jump on that mob hayride.

  2. Well, I only know what Lindsay emailed me while and after she was going through all of that with Chris just about five years ago. Are you sure we are talking about the same Lindsay? If she would like to get in touch with me and tell me that I’m remembering incorrectly, I’ll admit that I must be remembering incorrectly.

  3. I’d say you handled yourself quite well in that past altercation with Chris Locke. Well done!

    And I see that you currently link to him in your sidebar.

    What I wrote in regard to the Kathy Sierra brouhaha has nothing to do with letting anyone off the hook since no one knows who belongs on any hook.

    My objection was and is still Kathy’s conflating a private email threat with the names of four people who appear to be tangentially – if at all – connected to two, crude, online images of her which appear to have no relationship to the email threat. But, again, no one knows.

    I agree with you on many things, Elaine, and consider you a blog friend. But on this post, I disagree; I fear it adds more fuel to a verbal conflagration that has gotten out of hand.

    I had vowed that my comments at BlogHer were the last I’d say on this subject and I’m here only because I’m mentioned by name. This entire affair has taken on the whiff of farce and I am bowing out now.

  4. This entry was brought to my attention by email, otherwise I never would have read it, and the only reason I am even aware of this latest “blogosphere brouhaha” is because someone on my livejournal reading list linked to Kathy’s blog post about it. I had no idea Chris Locke was involved until I clicked on the link. I don’t pay attention or participate in the “blogosphere” anymore, beyond commenting on a small number of blogs written by people whom I consider to be close friends (Madame L. being one of these people, so yes, she is speaking of the same Lindsay) but the fact that I have bowed out has nothing at all to do with my interactions four years ago with Chris Locke.

    On the contrary, although Chris’s attack on things I said did temporarily cause me to remove my blog, he was one of the main reasons I kept coming back to the land of public writing, and the emails he wrote to me during this time were incredibly encouraging. Chris and I came to understand, respect, and quite like one another as people, and I count my interactions with him as one of the major positive influences in my life over the past several years. I do not agree with everything he says and does, and although my initial interactions with him were quite painful, the best lessons in life often result from that kind of pain.

    You and I did share emails back then, Elaine (although I don’t remember sharing any “long after” the incident in question), and I was very appreciative of your support and very understanding of your position. I still am. And I am not upset that you incorrectly remembered the result of this particular incident, but as I said I was made aware of this post by email and when I read it I thought I would set the record straight. I know nothing of Kathy’s situation other than a few things I have read here and there, and I have no desire to become more informed on the issue. The playground squabbles of the internet no longer interest me, and the only complaint I have about Chris Locke is that he doesn’t email me anymore. I kinda miss those random marriage proposals.

    And now I will return to my self-imposed exile. I wish both you and your mother the very best. I know how difficult it is to be a caregiver. Goodnight!

  5. Well, Lindsay, I stand corrected. I suppose that it was your pain and upset that I remembered, since that’s what you shared with me so honestly. I think your situation is a good example of RageBoy’s tactics: take the woman down as much as possible, and then when she cries “uncle,” (hmm. bobsyouruncle?) go in and build her up as much as possible. RageBoy can be as verbally seductive as he is destructive. And he plays it all out beautifully. I wonder if Kathy will fall for it.

    I expressed my opinion about Kathy’s situation because I saw it all happening again. It’s a destructive pattern for the individuals involved as well as for the value of blogging.

    Thanks for you good wishes.

    The record is now straight.

  6. The record is now straight save for the fact that you have implied that I naively fell for something. What a convenient argument tactic you have employed here, making it so that anyone who disagrees with you is simply a fool who can’t see what you do. I am very much aware of Chris’s narcissistic tendencies. In fact, I think he is too.

    I did not cry “uncle” and was not seduced by Chris’s words. Once again, you were not party to those communications and you obviously don’t remember much of what occurred afterward. Therefore, now that you have stopped putting words in my mouth, I would appreciate it if you would also refrain from fabricating my experiences and assuming you are more aware of what goes on inside other people’s heads than those other people are.

    Thank you.

  7. Apropos Lindsay… (inside joke there…) I’m friends with everybody in this comment thread EXCEPT Lindsay, although I remember her frog-star postings from three or four years ago and I guess I see her from time to time in comments at Madame L.’s. (Check your hamsters, Madame L. They seem to have left the wheel and found their way to the keyboard).

    The older this “story” gets, the more it gets spun into something that never was, shaped by people who interpret second order information as fact, and who are looking for a simple explanation when matters are quite complex.

    Just what question would people like to resolve here?

  8. I don’t think there’s any question to resolve. I blogged from my personal experience. I also remember my email conversations with Lindsay differently than she does. But, then again, I’m just a little ol’ grandma raising hell at the keyboard.

    I have an opinion of how RageBoy operates, and some of it is based on experience and some of it on observation over the past four years.

    Maybe my question is “are you guys going to keep your friend RageBoy in some kind of acceptable line??”

    Yeah, right. Like anyone can do that.

Leave a Reply