Posts
After keeping her hands off comments for a while, Ginny Maziarka has reverted back to censoring comments at her WISSUP blog.
Some removals are more reasonable than others. On her odd post about the hodag, someone named "Ginny's Third Chin Speaks Out" left a rude remark, which Ginny deleted. Fine.
But she's also removed a comment of mine (and one by "Rolf") at her post complaining about Fireside hosting a book signing by a Wisconsin couple who have raised two gay sons.
About 90 minutes after Ginny published this post, I commented that she's merely re-hashing her old argument, that many pointed out was illogical and misplaced months ago. In doing so, I called her "stubborn" and "single-track-minded". I also wondered aloud if her real issue was the fact that the parents are celebrating the gayness of their children.
Over 3 days later, Ginny responds to me with a query about "what author [Fireside] will be offering next to our community to lend insight into the opposing viewpoint"
Then, over 3 days after that response to me, Ginny gives me this ultimatum:
I'll say this as respectfully as I can. I have allowed you to post time and again on my blog. I've tried to give you your say, yet your personal attacks come one right after the other...to the point of harassment. Therefore, this is simply a first request that you tame your commentary and stick to the content of the blog post. If you cannot do what I request, I will ask you not to post on WISSUP in the future. Thank you.Mind you, I made no other comments on this post since my first 5 days prior, while Ginny had been interacting with other commenters with some frequency.
Seeing this, Maria Hanrahan asks Ginny which comments of mine she feels are personal attacks, and why she didn't bring this up sooner, so no other comments had been made.
Ginny refuses to answer Maria because " The request was directed towards others, not you". (This is that stubbornness I was referring to)
So, a few hours later, I left a comment saying, essentially, "Ok, Ginny, answer Maria's question for my benefit, since it was directed at me." And I also said something to the effect of "If you think being called "stubborn" is a personal attack bordering on harassment, then perhaps the blogosphere isn't the place for you. If you can't take the heat...."
I can't paste my exact words, because Ginny deleted the comment! She even celebrated her "wielding the sword of truth" with an exclamatory "Poof!"
I posted a new comment a few minutes ago (see screenshot) asking for an explanation, and in the time it took me to write this post, she deleted that as well.Unbelievable.
Oh, and the original -- apparently offending -- remarks haven't been deleted, only my comments questioning her reaction to them. Yes, this is crazy.
// UPDATE: Well, folks. It seems I've been banned from commenting at WISSUP.
After Ginny deleted the comment mentioned above, I left a simple reaction: "WOW" (screenshot at right). Ginny proceeded to delete that comment, and left this message:As you will note, CCWB is no longer posting here. This is because I feel the harassment CCWB has delivered on this blog has been an ongoing issue that I have been patient with for way too long. I feel CCWBs rhetoric hinders the intelligent conversations taking place, is used as a distraction, and that CCWB is trying to draw attention to himself. I gave one opportunistic warning, now poof!, gone.....I find it truly amusing that:
We'll miss ya.
(a) I had comments deleted and was banned merely because I was asking for explanation of a warning and the subsequent removal of comments,
(b) none of my comments after the warning could even come close to constituting a personal attack or harassment (in fact, the only comments I left after the "opportunistic warning" are those noted above, and this one asking Dan Kleinman for clarification of an accusation he made of another commenter), and
(c) that Ginny feels my rhetoric is hindering what she sees as otherwise "intelligent conversations" on her blog.
POOF!
.....UPDATE: Ginny has now changed the settings on WISSUP so only people with Google or OpenID accounts can leave comments. No more anonymous comments, or simply providing a name/url. Whatevs.
All this back and forth he-said-she-said is making my head hurt.
ReplyDeleteShe's like a little child - if you don't play with her toys the way she wishes, she packs up and leaves the sandbox. Did you ever wonder why she takes liberty in posting nasty and pointed comments on other blogs that are not censored, but she goes to great lengths to delete opposing views on her blog. And she's the voice of the WB "community"? What community? She needs a dose of reality.
ReplyDeleteI'm totally baffled. But I guess when you object to 80+ books in the YA section, then later say you weren't challenging them, they were just "examples" and refuse to offer any kind of insight as to how the library would develop and put into place the policy changes you've suggested, this sort of bizarre behavior shouldn't be surprising.
ReplyDeleteCan we all be honest? Honestly, CWBC, your comments represent an unending stream of personal attack that usually has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You do it to me on my blog too. You do it on other blogs. You do it on your own blog. It just gets tiring and boring to read long streams of personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issues raised.
ReplyDeleteSome people have an interest in sticking to the issues, others obviously have an interest in drowning out legitimate discourse with neverending drivel.
Why don't you drop the personal attacks and stick with the issues? You are obviously intelligent and have plenty of time on your hands. Please consider making positive contributions instead of persistent personal attacks. No, I'm not saying agree with Ginny, just drop the personal attacks and address the issues.
As Songbreese said in a comment above, "All this back and forth he-said-she-said is making my head hurt."
Exactly.
Naturally, I fully expect to draw your withering personal attacks merely for suggesting you consider sticking to the issues.
Please show a recent personal attack (and no, questioning one's argument or position isn't a personal attack, neither is pointing out a hypocrisy or inconsistency in one's argument)
ReplyDeleteParticularly, show me the personal attack I engaged in AFTER receiving Ginny's "warning" which meant I should be banned from her site.
thanks.
And so it begins, gently, but the ratcheting up will occur again and again.
ReplyDeleteJust in this very blog post CWBC reports making comments about Ginny personally, like the "stubborn" comment. No, it's not harassment, but it's ad hominem in nature. You really don't have to look very hard to see it. You do it again and again and again, practically nonstop.
Really, it's a drag to read your writing. Seeing your name is an instant indication that the attacks are either underway or the probing questions are being asked so as to launch future attacks. Your last comment is an example of that.
It's tiring. Get over it already.
That said, I would not block you from my blog unless you posted commercial links that benefitted yourself, which I'm sure will not happen.
And so "what" begins? I asked you a question to provide evidence to back up claims and actions. It wasn't an attack, but merely a request for you to back up your statements. That's how this works.
ReplyDeleteCalling Ginny stubborn is not an ad hominem attack; it is a description. It would only be an ad hominem if I used that description in order to de facto discredit her argument. Instead, I actually provided a link to her previous post where plenty of sound arguments were made to challenge her assertions.
If Ginny truly felt that distraught over my calling her stubborn (and that hardly rises to some of the things she has called others), one really wonders why it took her 6 days to "warn" me, and then summarily ban me with no evidence of further "attacks". I'm missing her logic, so perhaps you can enlighten me.
Aw, forget it. I was right. You never stop.
ReplyDeleteAs Songbreese said, "All this back and forth he-said-she-said is making my head hurt."
I keep asking because you rarely actually answer questions posed to you. Instead, you complain of attacks, ad hominems, etc. If you don't like "probing questions", perhaps you should make your arguments/claims tighter and less susceptible to questioning in the first place.
ReplyDeletekthxbye!
Once again, don't anybody read anything by Ginny Maziarka. Ignore her and she'll go away - eventually. What she's doing is nothing but an ego trip anyway. She feeds on the conflict, she sees herself martyrized, she thinks she's suffering for her salvation.
ReplyDelete"I gave one opportunistic warning", really. Opportunistic: Taking immediate advantage, often unethically, of any circumstance of possible benefit. I know what she meant: she gave you one opportunity. Still, she should go back and learn a little more of her primary language, like most bloggers.
Don't anybody read or answer anything by the New Jersey @$$hole either. He will, or would, be all over me for using the term, but he's richly earned it.
Really, it's a drag to read your writing. SafeLibraries
ReplyDeleteGotta strongly disagree with Dan on that one. It's great fun to read your writing, CWBC.
It's interesting that Dan only claims personal attack when those that oppose his viewpoint are speaking, and that he cannot offer any examples of your supposed "attack." As you point out, calling Ginny stubborn is not an ad hominem attack. If you said "Ginny's argument doesn't have merit because she's stubborn," that would be an example of an ad hominem.
Funny how he doesn't seem to notice Ginny's personal attacks, like when she recently (in a comment to the Analogy Fail post on B&S) accused Pastor Pam Marolla, author of a guest commentary to the Daily News, of issuing a false police report. Or when she defamed Mark Peterson. Or when she called Kristina Smithers "maniacal." Or when she dubbed me the "West Bend Woman Who Thinks Porn is OK for Kids."
Looks like Dan will be the standard bearer for Ginny - is he her press secretary? The two, and their cohorts, are so embedded in their "I'm right and you're wrong" they will diminish any suggestions they aren't thinking rationally and they will personally attack (Ginny moreso than Dan) those who think differently. Maria pointed out excellent examples above regarding both WBCSLers. Thanks, CWBC, for shedding light on the truth about Ginny and her "crusade." I'm sure Ginny reads your blog, and we know Dan does, so your messages will continue to reach the eyes of the morality police of West Bend and the East coast.
ReplyDeleteMaria said I don't notice Ginny's personal attacks, like when she "defamed" Mark Peterson.
ReplyDelete100% false.
In a post dated Saturday, May 9, 2009, when Ginny did this, I called her out on it. As a result, the following comment by Ginny apologized to Mark Peterson. Ginny even changed the title of her post accordingly, which you can tell because the URL for the post still contains the old title.
So I did call Ginny out, and she apologized and changed.
Maria finds CWBC is "great fun to read." Not surprising, since she herself uses false attack politics to make the same points.
Just look at the comments here. They are all nasty, all ad hominem. Like the "@$$hole" comment. It's boring, to say the least.
I wish I never introduced you to the term "ad hominem", Dan, cuz you over/mis-use it....
ReplyDelete(and that's simple a normative statement, not an ad hominem)
CWBC-
ReplyDeleteMust ditto Maria on this: you are fun to read. One thing I am noticing consistently with the WBCFSL crowd- when you ask for them to give actual answers to real questions regarding this issue, they start screaming "personal attack." Ginny doesn't have any answers, so she plays the victim and tosses you off the blog. My five year old can have a better argument.
Maria said I don't notice Ginny's personal attacks, like when she "defamed" Mark Peterson.
ReplyDelete100% false.
Well, congrats, Dan! You caught ONE of her attacks, but missed several others. Read her post of 7/25 "Peterson shoots self in foot..." where she calls him a liar, and I forgot to mention the one in which she referred to my group as West Bend Parents for Free Sex along with the others I previously mentioned.
Yet calling Ginny "stubborn" is a personal attack? It just doesn't add up.
I tire dealing with such zealotry, but just can't let Ginny (and increasingly, Dan's) rhetoric go unchecked.
ReplyDelete"In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal."
-- Thomas Jefferson