kc of AFA,
I beg to differ. Patti is the one who has been harassing me, and the DeafRead team.
Read this excerpt from the post dated Oct 23, 2009:
“…Patti Durr e-mailed me on Thursday when I was in Washington D.C. then three days later, on Sunday, she announces her second boycott. I was in Washington D.C. the entire time! Is there anyone here who wouldn’t be peeved? I was. It was from push to shove.
She KNEW I was out of town. Yet Patti was writing in her blog that I hadn’t replied to her e-mail sent to me last Thursday. She made me look like I was not keeping my word or was not hurrying quickly enough. Did she exploit the fact that I was away from my computer during the trailblazer weekend to tell people I wasn’t replying to her e-mail? She knows I am a trailblazer. She congratulated me. She knew I was out of town. Confusing? Absolutely!
This is Patti’s second boycott against DeafVIDEO.TV and DeafRead. After the first one, she decided to return to DeafRead prematurely saying that we agreed to add tighter protection. I would have preferred to announce it, but I was fine with it – she seemed eager to announce it and get started with blogging on DeafRead. Or was she pressuring me? Making it known to the world so that if I didn’t follow through, I would be made the fool. Maybe it wasn’t simple pressure, but subtly twisting my arm?? Coercion?”
Ever since, I’ve broke dialogue with her. Ever since, she’s been emailing me. I haven’t responded to a single one of them. Yet, she keeps emailing me. It’s not harassment if she emails me, but it slowly turns into harassment if she continues to repeatedly email me without receiving a response. I made it clear I was not interested in dialogue with her by not responding. I can forward you all the emails. Is this harassment? YES IT IS. You better believe it! It’s backed by hard evidence.
In fact, just days before you first emailed me with your complaint, the DeafRead team was discussing whether Patti was harassing us. We had received two emails from her just before that. A team member asked, “Is she harassing us?” Another said “Yes, she is definitely harassing us.” Yet, we chose not to say anything.
Carefully analyze my previous letter I sent you.
“I’ve since taken her words with a grain of salt because she consistently contradicts herself.”
“She’s called people names. It’s OK for her to do it, but not for others?”
“She cries cyberbullying only when the action is against her or her friends, as opposed to whenever it occurs. If someone else is being cyberbullied, she’s silent. This says to me she isn’t attempting to combat cyberbullying, but to use cyberbullying to silence those who oppose or disagree with her or her friends.”
“Now Patti is overusing the word cyberbullying. Anything that is not in her favor is cyberbullying.”
Those are the sentences which mention Patti. Show me. Tell me which one harasses her? I set the record straight. I didn’t call her names. This is the first time I’ve addressed her.
Also from the post, I wrote about the domestic violence letter I received.
“I will have you know that a letter was written to me by a domestic violence agency by her request. After hearing my side of the story, I received the agency’s support and was told something akin to this: “I could do whatever I wanted about Patti”. I am given the green light to address Patti’s ethics and practices.”
Did she use the domestic violence agency to harass me? Definitely likely. As the excerpt explains, the agency reversed their position and supports me and my team. Given the green light to address Patti’s ethics and practices? Green light given by a domestic violence agency?!
The more I paste stuff from my post, the more I think you haven’t read it, at least carefully. You said I didn’t address “the truth of the content of Bgmaron08′s vlog”. To that, I paste this:
“It’s not right for me to judge what the truth is. It’s your word against his.”
Imagine what it would be like if I moderated based on truth. Slippery slope. Just what is the truth? The person who tells me first? The person I know the best? This is ridiculous. You know very well this cannot be done.
Not only has she harassed me by email and in blogs — but Facebook also. As recently as three days ago. She was spewing accusations that I allowed cyberbullying (by not judging Bgmaron08′s story). If her Facebook comments constitutes as the truth to her, then what I say about her, which is my truth, is not harassment.
Patti aligned herself with Ricky Taylor, who is unquestionably a cyberbully. She has responded to Ricky several times in Twitter, showing support and vice versa. Ricky not a cyberbully? The same domestic violence agency called Ricky on his cyberbullying behavior on Twitter! Why is she calling others on cyberbullying, but not Ricky? All the while she is leading the cyberbullying campaign, she befriends one and the worst one. It’s not about cyberbullying or harassing. It’s about using it to control others. Just as your accusation is meant to control me – to shut me up about Patti.
The more you accuse me, the more I am pushed to bring out the truth. Truth backed by concrete evidence. Truth such as the domestic violence agency’s position reversal and calling Ricky out. I refuse to be a sitting duck as you throw accusations at me. It feels like … harassment. Observe that I had not said anything about Patti until you informed me that Patti had made this matter public by posting at her blog. I’d been silent. Silent for too long, as one commenter wrote.
Who is the harasser here? Patti Durr. And she has been doing it to me for almost a year. Magnificent for someone leading a “campaign” on cyberbullying. The irony.
(The Mayer family, by the time you’re reading this, is probably mid-air on our way to Boston for a childhood friend’s wedding. I may be slow in approving comments today, but they will be. If you haven’t yet, read this post about logging in with Facebook in order to leave a comment.)
Update: I publicly said I retracted my commitment to add ‘audism’ into the guidelines.
Last paragraph: http://www.ythree.com/?p=564