Mary Johnson's Blog

Dr. Mary Johnson previously felt the need to disable comments on her blog because of harassment from another blogger.  She later was excluded from We101, apparently because the aggregator requires that blogs accept comments in order to be listed at that site.

Mary has restored the comment feature on her blog.  I think it should therefore be restored to We101.

Comments

[Roch101]

It will be. Take a look at Greensboro101 and We101, does it look like I make a lot of money from them? They are labors of love, but that should not encourage people to assume they are some kind of public utility to which they can rudely make demands of the operator.

Since restoring comments, Mary has barked demands at me, insulted me and threatened to seek legal action; everything but simply ask that her blog be restored.

I have no interest beyond my own in this matter and that currently is to see, out of curiosity, what kind of legal argument Mary's lawyer will present that compels me to restore her blog. We'll go from there.

[Joseph Guarino]

Roch, I don't think it should have to reach that point. We should remember that all of us have thrown our weight around in various ways.

You are right that it is not a public utility. But I think her blog should now be restored.

[Roch101]

But I want it to reach that point, Joe. It is that course that actually would impart some benefit to me--an exploration of what legal argument one could make for compelling a website to include a blog. I'm interested to know. It will be educational. I can restore her blog in response to her insults and threats or I can wait and learn something. The later is more appealing.

[bubba]

"I can restore her blog in response to her insults and threats or I can wait and learn something. The later is more appealing."

The Jerk once again proves his reputation is deserved.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Sorry I'm late responding to this, Joe. But I drove home through a monster-storm last night and just rolled out of bed.

Roch, your tactics are no better than that crowd at the Courier Tribune - where, excepting the last six months, I've been banned for all of twelve years.

At the Courier last Sunday, I had an entire Editorial in the print edition dedicated to me (without mentioning my name) . . . and some of my friends . . . and that's because Ray-Criscoe-Editor-of-Asheboro's-bought-and-paid-for-Bully-Pulpit is finally running scared.

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/10/courier-tribunes-ray-criscoe-and.html

And I LOVE it - because now the entire town is FINALLY asking questions about what is going on over at that newspaper and City Hall. We have evidence ON TAPE that the City of Asheboro PAID OFF a CT reporter to leave a meeting and not report a story.

Now one would think that, in America, City Hall buying off the fourth estate should be BIG NEWS. I mean, how much more like PRAVDA can it get here? But no. It's not big news in the Piedmont-Triad - where all the premiere, progressive, free-speech-loving bloggers hang out.

Joe blogged about it a few weeks back, and what did we get from the Cones and the Rochs? Radio silence.

Meanwhile, up in Greensboro, on Roch Smith's Jrs. personal labor-of-love, YOU took down the link to Housecalls without warning to me (I thought you had a Board that provided some oversight of your actions) for the horrible, awful "offense" of taking a break from comments for a while after being VICIOUSLY cyber-stalked last year by your hero, "The Stench".

As best I can tell, this apparently happened after I visited your personal blog and pointed out a few flaws in your legal "arguments" shoring up Jeff Martin's latest sick/warped/ILLEGAL antics (issuing global threats against local firemen - A REAL HOOT) . . . and commented talking about the effect my dance with our local cyber-stalker had on me.

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/10/to-answer-your-question-roch.html

You remember, right? You and Cone traded secret passwords with Martin while it was all going on. And you two thought it was great when the Randolph County Court system did what we all knew it would do (a good portion of the evidence against Martin never made it into the Courtroom because the DA's office and Sheriff's Department threw me under the bus).

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/05/when-fecund-stench-permeates-courtroom.html

And here's the thing about that, Roch. You don't know the half of it of what I've been through since - because, for reasons of personal safety, I've not blogged on it.

Your philosophy seems to be, let's feel sorry for anyone victimized by a cyber-bully unless it's Mary Johnson. Oh, and let's victimize the victim some more because we're so morally superior.

Of course, given my dance in the Greensboro blogosphere and with "citizen journalism", it's par for the course.

And, OF COURSE, you want it to reach the point of me bringing it up when I finally do meet with the lawyers ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. Because you cannot EVER be educated unless lawyers are involved. They are your gods (they're not mine - and no one can say I haven't done my damnedest not to have to hire them again).

It's really kind of sad - and pathetic.

You preach about accountability and transparency and free speech, but every opportunity you get to crap on someone that YOU HATE (because her life experience pees in your Obama-loving blue cornflakes) you CRAP. This latest stunt is (as you like to say) abject hypocrisy. It's not because you're noble or acting on any kind of principle. It's because you LOVE to HATE.

The point kind of is that, in response to your bully tactics, I restored comments on my blog (before I was really ready to do so), BUT you did not restore the blog. I put up a post. I sent you e-mails. You did not respond. You wanted to poke and prode and provoke. It's what you do instead of playing fair.

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/10/since-you-brought-it-up-i-know.html

Everyone on these boards knows your game now is crap, but if you want to continue behaving like a petulent two-year old child, that's your business. I'm not going to beg you to put a blog back up that a decent/compassionate human being with a firm grasp of reality would have not taked down in the first place.

That's not an insult. It's the truth.

I hope you've learned something, and it would be nice if you would be what YOU say you are and restore the blog. Because there are people in Greensboro and Asheboro that need to know what is going on, and my time's a wastin.

Oh, and curiosity killed the cat.

Thanks for bringing this out in the open, Joe. Roch, like Criscoe, apparently wants people to believe he's a victim - when he's the part of the problem.

[Hugh]

Roch, I want to put my candidate's campaign signs in your front yard. If you don't do allow it you're not playing fair and I'm going to tell everyone I know about it.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Hugh, for God's sake, GET REAL. This is purely and simply about Smith Jr. playing fair. We're not talking about a campaign, we're talking about a local blog aggregator (it IS a kind of utility) . . . where, if you register, your blog goes up.

We're also talking about someone who styles himself to anyone who will listen as a champion of free speech. But apparently that only applies to his blogging buddies who torment other bloggers with terminal cancer, terrorize women over a period of weeks/months or make threats against local fire-fighters.

Their gift for writing, you see, excuses all that. OBTW, that guy is on We101.

Roch saw an angle and he took it - without really THINKING first, or asking questions or providing warning.

And again, I've got to ask. We101 supposedly has an oversight Board (or at least it did for a while). Do they just let Roch do whatever he wants to do whenever he want to have a unilateral snit fit? Or do they expect him to administrate with a fair and even hand? Perhaps temper the rules with compassion?

And since you bring elections up, it IS interesting that Roch pulls this stunt right before an election.

[Roch101]

Hugh, I think what you meant to say was, "Roch, you are a real piece of work and you make me sick. Put my campaign sign in your yard by tomorrow morning or face consequences. You will play fair or I'll talk to my lawyers."

[Hugh]

Mary, if one want's another to do a favor sugar is the best way not vinegar.

You've made it known in most every thing ever written that you have been a doormat. Yes, that sucks but it's not Roch's problem and is irrelevant to the request to be added to 101.

There is nothing that can be done to become re-listed on 101 other than to politely ask. The diatribe of past "injustices" makes YOU feel good but it's accomplishing nothing for the relationship between you and Roch and the fulfillment of being restored to 101 visibility.

The whole "it's not fair" whine reeks of a spoiled child. Let it go.

The most simple way to accomplish a favor is to ask politely and if the favor is granted, say thank-you. If it's not granted please have respect for a person's right to assoicate with whom they choose.

I'm sure an apology to Roch would go a long way towards restoring your visibility on 101.

[Roch101]

"There is nothing that can be done to become re-listed on 101 other than to politely ask."

Hugh, I appreciate your comments, but please understand, this isn't a matter of "please" or "thank you" or apologies or soothing my hurt feelings. Among her insults and threats Dr. J. commanded me to restore her blog or face legal consequences. A mere request would have been adequate, even without the please or thank you. But, given the choice presented between responding to threats or facing the legal consequences, I think the later will truly be more beneficial. Dr. J doesn't need to apologize or say please, all she has to do is follow through with her promise to consult a lawyer and let me know what he says -- or not.

[Hugh]

OK, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. She's made her bed and you have every right to hold her feet to the fire.

Is it just me or does it appear that over the past year or so most of the "drama" in the local Blogsphere has one central element?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Hugh, spare me the sugar lecture. Being on We101 is not a "favor" that is granted. It's a local blog aggregator. You go to the site. You register (chosing your location). You're on.

If you recall, it's not the first time he's pulled this stunt. The first time, he simply decided that because I live in Asheboro (never mind all my ties to Greensboro - including the fact that I was born there) he would just toss me off We101. That too happened without warning or explanation. He just had a juvenile snit fit.

I was of the impression that We101 has policies in place that were supposed to be applied in a fair and even-handed fashion. I was not aware that what I had done in the wake of the cyber-stalking case was an issue. Indeed, in the disclaimer on the blog, I made it clear I was taking a temporary break from moderating comments (something I was advised to do by friends/family in law enforcement).

That's what one would talk to lawyers about if one was so inclined. Of course, when I do chat up the lawyers, Roch (as much as he might like to be) is not going to be high on the list of things to talk about.

He just doesn't rank.

Roch made it his problem when (like a spoiled child) he de-linked Housecalls without notice or warning - in a retaliatory fashion after I posted comments on his personal blog that did not excuse Jeff Martin's latest acid-rant as just another-day-off-the-meds . . . a comment that alluded to measures I had to take, as a blogger, in order to cope with what Martin did to me.

It's not like I'm knocking on Oprah's door with what lately seems to be the cause-de-jour (but only if you meet certain victimhood requirements). For the most part, I've done my coping in silence. But I'm thinking maybe I should blog about it. Maybe some of our self-righteous/progressive locals (who at the time, played right along) do need to be educated on the long-standing deleterious effects their favorite cyber-bullies have had on their targets.

Of course, when it comes to cyber-bullying, Roch on the side of free-speech and Jeff Martin is his hero.

But when it comes to the consequences the woman on the receiving-end of Martin's practiced malice has had to deal with (which again, I'm not going to blog about right now lest it offend you as a "whine"), Roch is going to pound the hammer down because, you know, he's a real stand-up guy on the side of truth (just not the whole truth) and justice (unless it's for Mary Johnson).

And/so, in this blogger's book, Roch is a real piece of work and he does make me sick. And just so you know, it was We101's Wizard . . . and Ed Cone . . . and Martin sharing their secret passwords to the LIBEL Martin posted online (like a gang of high-school bullies) that pretty much did it for me (I'm thinking the lawyers might be interested in hearing about that). I don't "respect" that and NEVER will. Moreover, I don't recall getting an apology from Roch or the mighty Cone for any of that.

Bottom line: I have complied with Roch's terms and am in compliance with We 101's terms and policies. Comments on Housecalls are restored (before I was really ready to go there).

There isn't going to be an apology for being bullied into doing something I was not ready to do. Mr. Smith-Jr. either is what he says he's about or he's not.

As for my "visibility" online, it appears to be just fine lately - maybe because folks down in Asheboro are tired of rolling over and taking other folks' garbage.

I am speaking both figuratively and literally.

[jaycee]

The real question is whether Roch is treating Dr. Johnson differently or whether she is receiving the same treatment as other bloggers who are listed.
Is Roch being fair or discriminating based on his hate?
If he can't show fairness in his business/professional actions then he has no credibility.

[jaycee]

The real question is whether Roch is treating Dr. Johnson differently or whether she is receiving the same treatment as other bloggers who are listed.
Is Roch being fair or discriminating based on his hate?
If he can't show fairness in his business/professional actions then he has no credibility.

[Hugh]

I'm making popcorn for the rest of the thread.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

While you're at it, Hugh, why don't you get yourself a secret password too?

Don't bother about the popcorn. I'm not going to be doing a tit-for-tat blog battle on this one. Because right now it seems I've become the default leader of a small army in Asheboro taking on the Courier Tribune (aka PRAVDA). The stunts Ray Criscoe has recently pulled in terms of banning readers and blocking/deleting comments that do not tow the party line (you know, like those questioning the notion that the lawyer whose "leadership" DESTROYED FNB/Community One is qualified to lead a university) are opening a lot of eyes.

It's a critical time in terms of changing the way things have been done in Asheboro for years.

I'm thinking that Roch really doesn't want the folks who use "his" aggregator being aware of what is going on down south of Greensboro now that Dr. Johnson is finally getting some real "traction" (I think that's what Cone calls it) after five years of getting pounded in this blogosphere. And that, more than anything else, speaks volumes about his professional credibility, his integrity as a blogger and the stated "mission" of We101.

[Hugh]

Dr. Mary, why are you so belligerent?

[Sue]

Preface: this has been a really bad week. Not that you care. But it's been tough, both professionally (major server attack & disaster recovery plans enacted ate my week), and personally with health issues (critical illness in a long-distance family member for whom I hold health care power of attorney) and the dog was sick. A bad week that used a lot of paper towels (for the dog). So I may regret hitting "submit" later.

Then I looked at this thread and could hardly believe it. It's not a matter of liking or not liking Roch (I do both, depends on circumstances :). He runs a website that is his, he built it, he pays for the hosting, he owns it, he sets the rules for it. No one has a right to it except Roch. If he bans someone or changes the rules or closes it down, it's no one's business but his. If someone has been rude or threatening to him, he is under no obligation to "be fair" in return. When you own it, you get to do most anything you want as long as you don't break the law.

You don't like his rules? Go play in another playground. Neither you nor I have any right to demand a darned thing from WE101.

Just like I cannot demand that Joe stop calling people names with whom he disagrees or insist that he treat people equally - to be "fair." I can ask, I can point out, but I can't expect that he's going to alluvasudden be "fair" to people whose opinions he disdains. So if I don't like it, I should either stop visiting here or understand he's not going to change and I'm merely flapping my figurative lips (or fingers) because maybe it makes me feel better.

So to have anyone, much less someone who has been downright nasty to him personally, "demand" that Roch do something is as ludicrous as it is amusing. Where I can't "demand" that Joe be "fair," it appears that someone seems to think she can demand that Roch "must" be fair. Two sides of mouth. Pot/kettle. Like I said, if you don't like the rules, go play in another sandbox.

But it'd be a real education to have an attorney hired to pursue this "demand." Talk about socialism (and you do). Private ownership requires Roch to include one or another blog? Puh-leez. That's about as socialistic as I can imagine.

Don't you see the natural conclusion? If you have a cake and I want to eat it but you won't let me, I'll get a lawyer so I can have your cake and eat it, too.

Pass the popcorn.

[Joe Guarino]

I agree with the suggestions made that Dr. Mary probably does not have a legal claim against Roch or We101.

I need to point out one thing, however. I personally have never banned anyone from my blog. And that is not because some commenters have not been downright ugly, repeatedly. I just find it is not necessary. Let people have their say, and let the readers judge. In some cases, it is good for two bloggers to have a parting of the ways, and I have encouraged that in a couple of instances.

But if I banned people based on the basis of less-than-civil online behavior, Roch himself would not be permitted to comment here. And I say that not because I do not like and respect Roch-- because I do. I just think sometimes it is best to extend grace, for all kinds of reasons.

Roch does possess a vehicle that requires he extend grace, and be fair. Otherwise the very idea of the aggregator is undermined, especially if significant voices are shut out. Mary's blog, while tough-spoken, is not even in the same league as some others in terms of being objectionable.

[Cheripickr]

That is very commendable, Joe. I admire your restraint and tolerance of all commentary, however ill-intentioned and unconstructive. It is a standard which I doubt I could uphold, if I had a blog. The best I could hope for would be consistency in what would be censored and what would not, based on what was said, or how it was said, not who said it. I have seen select commenters banned from other sites for much less objectionable comments than you tolerate here, and yet the the same site allow frankly obscene comments from others to stand without a word of reprisal. That being said, a blogger has every right to censor whatever he wants without rules, rhyme or reason, and some choose that route.

[michele]

Mary, serious question: You so obviously hate Roch. Why do you want to be listed on his site?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Sue, it's been a BAD TWELVE YEARS for me. Not that you care - or have offered anything since almost the beginning but a sneer and a spit . . . for most of the same partisan reasons Roch behaves as he does.

And it's not like I cannot BELIEVE some of the things you've hit "submit" on.

I'm also asking, what happened to "the Board" overseeing We101? I thought you were on it. Did it all go the way of JR's sorry excuse for "citizen journalism", pre-Edwardian Converge South and the RMA report?

As I told Joe, in my original e-mail to him, "It is RIDICULOUS that I came to this ether five years ago for help - but instead of getting it have been forced to put up with so much crap - courtesy of the so-called enlightened "progressives" in this blogosphere."

So perhaps (Hugh) on top of all the INJUSTICE I endured when I came home, maybe that's why I'm so "beligerent".

And again, you don't know the half of the aftermath of "the Stench". But by ALL means, let's cheer free-speech-loving Roch on as he selectively kicks people off a local blog aggregator for spite. And you (Sue) wanna lecture me on socialism - because (sick of the LIBEL and the secret passwords and the selective bans), I might just chat up a lawyer? Some folks might GET an education. And STUFF your popcorn.

Speaking of feeling bad, right before coming back to this thread I took a call from my ex - who relayed to me the musings of a local politician (representing Asheboro in Raleigh) who had called him directly and asked for his vote. In terms of being offensive on EVERY level, the things this *&^%$#@! poser said on the phone (probably thinking they were "funny") went way beyond offensive. Sexist, purile, religiously insensitive, personally offensive - things that deserve to be on the FRONT PAGE of a newspaper - but it aint' gonna happen at the Courier Tribune short of firing Ray Criscoe.

I've not decided if I'm gonna blog it. But if I do, it's the kind of thing that needs to be seen and heard and discussed. Of course, anyone perusing We101 won't see it because of Roch's snit fit.

So much for "promoting an understanding of the communities in which we live."

Thanks again, Joe, for bringing this out into the sunlight. When it comes to Mary Johnson, Roch Smith Jr. likes to operate in the dark.

[Bubba]

"Otherwise the very idea of the aggregator is undermined, especially if significant voices are shut out."

Indeed.

Why bother having an aggregator if it's misused?

[Roch101]

I did not decline to restore Mary's blog for: spite, political differences, to squelch her free speech or for less than civil behavior. Those reasons would prompt me to delink a number of blogs. I've had five years of opportunity to do so if those were the kinds of things that guided my decisions and I haven't.

Mary's blog has not yet been restored because, as I have said consistently, she threatened that if I did not obey her I would "face consequences." She also said she would be talking to her lawyers about this. Rather than acquiesce to threats, I'd prefer to hear from her lawyers. Seriously. I sincerely want to hear what legal argument there may be--for my own edification and to avoid the other option which would encourage intimidation.

As to fair treatment of Mary. We101 and Greensboro101 aggregate by location. Mary's home and most of her writings are in and about Asheboro (see above). When I moved her blog to Asheboro, she complained. The evil Ed Cone intervened and persuaded me that I should put her blog back under Greensboro. I acquiesced--an accommodation I've not made for any other blogger. Mary has indeed been treated differently: Specially.

As for equal treatment on this particular issue, it is impossible to say. No other blogger has made the kind of threats Mary has. There is no other blogger to compare her to.

Finally, as to my credibility. I will let the fact that hundreds of blogs of a vast variety are represented on We101 and Greensboro101 speak for itself.

Post script. People I respect as thoughtful, even if we may, on occasion, perhaps even often, disagree vehemently on other matters have suggested that I must exercise some extra restraint because of the nature of We101 and Greensboro101. The importance of the sites implied by that advice pleases me but, at times, the effort required seems super-human and restraint in this case seems unwise to me--too much like rewarding threatening belligerence.

As Mary herself wrote on her blog describing her comment policy: "And if you come on board to call me names or threaten me or my livelihood, don't plan on getting posted."

(And Sue, me too.)

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, I don't see the point in waiting on the legal input. You know what that is going to be.

She acquiesced with your stated expectation. That should be the end of it.

Again, all of us have to withstand others being what we view as disagreeable. That comes with the territory.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Roch, in terms of being "disagreeable" or "beligerant", the difference between me and you is that I have never presented myself as anything but what I am . . . a home-grown Pediatrician done way-beyond-wrong, loaded for bear over what was done to me (under state & Federal Democratic adminsitrations preaching accountability and transaparency) and determined to chase the people who did me wrong to Hell and back for what they did.

But you . . . Ed Cone (yes, indeed, I DO think he's evil - because of all the bloggers in the ether, he could have done the most to help) . . . Sue . . . JR . . . all of you professing to be enlightened and progressive and open-minded, are an entirely different story. The bottom line here is that five years ago I came to you-all for help . . . at YOUR invitattion. You promised great and wonderful things in local journalism and did not deliver.

Now you're torqued because a lot of us have noticed.

As for the Asheboro vs. Greensboro business on We101, as was pointed out long ago, under your own rules of engagement (and in the interest of free speech), the person registering their blog picks the area they want to be associated with (mine would be the only blog listed in Asheboro - you KNEW you were putting me in the blogging trashcan when you did it). But in my case, I was summarily bounced without warning because you made an arbitrary decision one day (again after a snit fit). Talk to me some more about your "restraint".

You haven't done it to anyone else. So yeah, I'd say I've been treated differently by We101 all along. And I'm TIRED of it. My e-mails to you after this latest stunt reflected that.

And Roch, this lastest stunt is classic you. You do something underhanded and despicable under the cover of darkness (no notice or warning), your target IMMEDIATELY (and against her better judgement) complies with your demands, and rather than defuse the situation-that-you-provoked-in-the-first-place, you'd rather escalate for the purpose of "education" and play the poor, pitiful victim.

Classic bully tactics. But I'm the banshee because I've had enough of the LIBEL and the dirty tricks and might just chat up a lawyer about it.

Your little band of progressive bloggers have NEVER played fair . . . you've treated GOOD PEOPLE like garbage (much like the people I accuse down in Asheboro - the SAME people the journalists in this ether have not posed a SINGLE objective question to as you called me - or let others call me - every name in the book). You baited and poked and prodded and hurled insults and slurs (largely for partisan reasons) . . . you banned and you delinked . . . and (most recently) you curled up and shared secret passwords with a sick/warped cyber-stalker (whose latest target was local firemen - HAHAHAHAHA) . . . but NO ONE is EVER supposed to talk back to you-all.

We're not supposed to tell you that your actions churn our stomachs - or that if one looks up hypocrite in the dictionary, there you are.

And you don't get that it's not about hating you - it's about having ZERO respect for the stunts you pull while you sit behind your keyboard claiming to be fair and just and nonpartisan (hope that answers Michelle's question).

As I told Joe last night, this isn't about traffic. I actually don't get that much traffic from 101. It's about principle. Is the Greensboro blogosphere what it says it is or not? And I think we have our answer.

As for my "threats", nobody - including Ed Cone - or YOU - had ever stood up to Jeff Martin either. And look where that got me. Indeed it's why we're here right now. You pulled a fast one (to shore up your little bile-spewing blog-buddy) and thought you'd get away with it.

Nobody here has answered my question. I thought We101 was a local aggregator - organized under a larger entity - that had a Board of Directors which offered oversight in terms of following basic rules of fair engagment - as opposed to a Wizard behind a curtain zapping bloggers who disagree with him. There's really no other blogger to compare him to.

Roch, you preach about "free speech" . . . you speak of rules. But Joe is right. As a "professional", and for at least appearances' sake, you have to temper your actions with grace - and you should play fair. Whether or not you do reflects entirely on you at this point, not on me.

Don't play the victim here because you're not.

[Spag]

Wow, this is a lot of fun. Too bad I came in so late. A lot of interesting information revealed, and a whole ton of hypocrisy hitting the walls left and right.

Liberals banning those they disagree with. No big surprise there.

Contrast Joe's position on banning bloggers with that of the liberals. Very interesting to see who really has a backbone and who is a candy ass who can't take criticism. Very interesting to see who really supports free speech and a free exchange of ideas and debate and who doesn't.

[Hugh]

"Ed Cone (yes, indeed, I DO think he's evil - because of all the bloggers in the ether, he could have done the most to help)"

http://img.listal.com/image/1196691/500full.jpg

[Brandon Burgess]

Spag, if Roch bans those he disagrees with then why is your blog still available on We101? And bubba's blog? Get real.

I bet if you cease accepting comments, your blog will be removed just like Dr. J's. Then go ahead and write a bunch of nonsense, libel and threaten the man. Then ask "pretty please feature me on We101, I'll follow the rules now" and see how far that gets you.

Dr. Johnson, for someone so concerned with their own reputation and how alleged libel affects your own livelihood, you certainly have no regard for the reputation and livelihood of others as evident in your own writing where you've accused a number of individuals of, by name, of committing felonies.

It's ridiculous for you to expect kindness or respect from any of the individuals you've called out by name on your own blog. I would guess that at least once a week you post something libelous about Ed Cone, Roch Smith jr., and Sue Polinsky and a host of others. And you expect respect from these folks? What have YOU every done for them?

[Spag]

I wasn't accusing Roch of anything, Brandon. I did find his comment "The evil Ed Cone intervened and persuaded me that I should put her blog back under Greensboro" very interesting considering Cone banned me from commenting on his blog for no legitimate reason whatsoever. He's no hero and shouldn't intervene in how others run their blog until he is ready to practice what he preaches. Maybe Roch should "intervene" with Ed and ask him to explain his cowardly ban.

I wasn't spamming his blog. I wasn't flaming his blog. I wasn't telling people to "go f--k yourself" like Sean Coon was on his blog. I was simply challenging him to defend his own words, arguments and actions in the context of ongoing discussions just as other commenters do to EACH OTHER all of the time. Ed just couldn't do so without looking like the hypocrite I always said he was. That's the real reason he banned me. Maybe an "intervention" is necessary to get him to admit the truth.

[Hugh]

Spag, perhaps Joe can start a thread to elicit sympathy in getting your account restored at Ed's.

I'm confused about the Evil nomenclature. IIRC, there's been past name calling of Joe as the "Evil Dr. Guarino" and there are multiple references to Ed being evil.

Has the Gboro blogsphere turned into Gotham City?

[.]

I think it's called "satire", Hugh

[Brandon Burgess]

Spag, my bad. I thought you were implying that Roch banned Dr. Johnson because they had a disagreement, which I think even you and bubba can admit is a ridiculous notion because your blogs remain even after the disagreements y'all have had with Roch.

Obviously, Dr. Johnson was deleted for not following the rules on We101 (not allowing comments). Now, after breaking the rules and posting nasty and disgusting things about Roch for months, with no regard for his livelihood or reputation (I don't recall Roch posting such nasty things about Dr. Johnson, or threatening her for that matter), she feels entitled to a spot on the aggregator.

I don't blame Roch at all for not giving in to her bullying. I hope Dr. Johnson can find a more productive way to get her message out, without alienating everyone who takes an interest in her story.

[Brandon Burgess]

"Has the Gboro blogsphere turned into Gotham City?"

--I've previously referred to Roch as a "joker".

Hartzman=The Riddler.

[Hugh]

I'm still in the dark on this "secret password" thing.

I've tried to obtain it but get the same result every time:

D R I N K Y O U R O V A L T I N E

[.]

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Hugh, I think you ought to ask Mr. Cone and Mr. Smith-Jr. about the secret passwords. I'd especially like to hear Ed's take on that.

Brandon, in terms of livelihoods and reputations, while you might not recall our Roch addressing me as "crazy woman" (among other terms of endearment), I do. So if I do chat up a lawyer, that's part & parcel of what we'll be chatting about.

We101 is a FREE blog aggregator, not a blog - you register to participate - and as long as you don't do something that might generate criminal charges or set off the Homeland Security bells, you're on.

Well, clearly in Greensboro, that's not entirely true.

I also thought it was part of a bigger operation that had some standards. I'm still waiting to get my "education" about that.

Brandon, you've not been here as long as some of the rest of us, so allow me to educate you. "Blogsboro" is no more "Gotham City" now than it's ever been. You must remember that, journalistically speaking, I hail from Asheboro, Ethan Fiensilver's old stomping ground. Trashing & marginalizng people for sport - destroying their livelihoods - is nothing new. We're used to youse guys coming down south and laying waste - and dropping waste - on our heads. We're just a bunch of dumb-assed rednecks.

And I'm very curious. HOW EXACTLY have I "libeled" Roch - or our dear (as always, missing from the really good conversations) Edward - or Miss Sue? After all, I didn't come to this ether five years ago making promises I did not keep. I came with an invitation . . . with a story about bad medicine and public corruption and the obstruction of justice (under Democratic administrations). And for my trouble, I pretty much got sucked into all of blue-crew's citizen journalism BS like a lamb to slaughter (because the story, you see, does not shore up the viability of Clinton-care . . . or Edwards-care . . . or Obamacare).

I'd REALLY love to hear some "productive" ideas, Brandon. Because obviously, having a relevant story and telling the truth doesn't move the journalists in these parts.

For years I've been the punching bag (again, largely for self-serving partisan reasons) - and if they got tired punching - they just delinked and banned (like the Spag-man, like Bubba). With this latest stunt, I've outlined what Roch did . . . in detail . . . for reasons that had NOTHING to do with rules (my sidebar made it clear that, in the aftermath of the cyber-stalking case I was taking a TEMPORARY break from moderating comments - you know, like the "Anonymous" ones calling me names and threatening my safety) and everything to do with spite and retaliation.

Moreover, I've complied with Roch's demands.

I would remind you that Roch's very first comment on this thread said Housecalls will be restored. So what are we really talking about here, except a guy who got caught being a jerk?

If Roch doesn't want people to publicly call him on this crap, he shouldn't pull the crap. If this is the way he runs his show, it's his problem.

This is all very timely. Kevin MD actually has a post up today on protecting one's online reputation - and I'll be blogging on it shortly at Housecalls . . .

. . . since the journalists in this blogosphere have been so HELPFUL in that department.

[Hugh]

"Hugh, I think you ought to ask Mr. Cone and Mr. Smith-Jr. about the secret passwords. I'd especially like to hear Ed's take on that. "

Secret passwords for what? Without explanation it sounds like UFO or contrails conspiracy theory.

[Brandon Burgess]

"you register to participate - and as long as you don't do something that might generate criminal charges or set off the Homeland Security bells, you're on."

--This is incorrect. There are terms of service one must agree to before registering a blog at We101. One of those terms is that comments will be allowed. I know this because when I started my blog, I contemplated not allowing comments but realized my blog would not be featured on We101 unless I allowed comments.

You ceased to accept comments, breaking the terms of service that everyone abides by and your blog was dropped. Afterwards, you trashed Roch for months and now you want back on the aggregator.

Again, I don't blame Roch for not complying with your request.

If there is one thing I've learned about discourse from engaging folks in on the blogs is that one must be willing to own up to their mistakes. Whenever I feel I have been disrespectful to another person, I own up to it, I apologize and I try my best to make sure the beef is squashed. I can't think of one regular blogger or commenter who I haven't butted heads with but I can't think of one who's hand I wouldn't shake were I to run into them on the street.

You say you want to consult a lawyer because Roch called you crazy. Didn't you threaten to spit on Roch (and Ed and Sue) if you saw him in public?

[Sue]

@spag who wrote, "Liberals banning those they disagree with. No big surprise there.
Contrast Joe's position on banning bloggers with that of the liberals."

Oh sheesh, Sam, Roch categorizes a blog into her local city because she's blogging about her city's events (which is how WE101 is set up) so you declare that ALL LIBERALS BAN BLOGGERS they disagree with? No blog got banned. It got categorized into its local city of focus. Let's not juxtapose this with politics. Or is the upcoming election just frying your brain?

Joe deletes comments he disagrees with; he's deleted one or two of mine. So what does that make him on your Spag scale-of-liberal=evil-and-Joe-is-cool?

Secret Passwords
As for the "secret password" thing...Jeff Martin password-protected one or two of his posts. He shared that password with those he cared to share it with (not me). No, I don't know why, but that's what the entire "secret password" hoopla is about and if you were any sort of Net user, you could get into that post without too much trouble. But that's not my style. Just explanatory.

@brandon - I take her stuff - and spitting threats - with a grain of salt. Telling me how much you hate me and then blaming me for not helping you is hardly the way to get me on your side. I don't specifically recall spitting references but I recall much ugliness directed toward me (Spag and Roch are just two comrades who've received similar ugliness; there are more) and I'll be darned if I'll respond to childish name-calling or even entire screeds directed at me (even though they contain lies couched as speculation, un-deleted anti-Semitic comments, and demands that I share business information about clients). Nope, I've got a great family, a business, friends, two doggies and a full-enough life to ignore that sort of horse manure.

[Brandon Burgess]

Before it gets deleted:

"...while failing to ask EVEN ONE objective question of those I've accused of FELONIES.
If I saw any of these "citizen journalists" on the street right now, I'd spit on them. Good thing, I guess, that I'm forced to make my living 4 hours away. Thanks again."

Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | September 19, 2010 at 02:53 PM @ guarino.typepad.com.

[Spag]

You are correct Sue, it's not all liberals bloggers. It's just the one with the biggest ego and biggest mouth- the dishonest and thin-skinned coward Ed Cone. He's the only person in the local blogosphere who banned someone because they made him look bad.

Joe said he doesn't delete comments, and I have seen no evidence that he has. He certainly hasn't banned a commenter outright for committing the crime of defeating his arguments, challenging him to defend them, and pointing out that his responses or lack thereof indicate that his arrogance is unwarranted.

[Brandon Burgess]

Joe has deleted comments from bubba and I in the past because they were nothing more than personal attacks on each other.

Looking back, he was right to do so. I don't think it shows any kind of bias but more a desire to keep comments on topic.

[.]

Well, this one time, at band camp,...

[Spag]

Brandon, I have deleted comments- but only after warning- that were way off topic or cut and pastes of full articles, such as those from Connie Mack.

I don't know of any local blogger who outright banned a commenter because he/she got tired of being confronted about and/or asked to defend his or her own words and arguments as conveyed in their own post- except Ed Cone.

Has he really explained in any credible way to anyone why he banned me? Are any of his reasons consistent? The answers are "no" and "no". That's because he doesn't want to admit the real reason and that is because I made him look bad and too many others were beginning to take notice.

[Brandon Burgess]

I hear you Spag, but your conflict with Ed does not have anything to do with what has transpired between Dr. Johnson and Roch.

I think Joe's argument that her blog should be added back to the aggregator because she has agreed to follow the rules now is inadequate when one considers the legal threats, the threat of assault and the lame attempts at character assassination over the last few months.

Of course, I think this whole thing could be squashed if Dr. Johnson wanted that to happen but a lot of pride would have to be swallowed. It isn't easy, but once it is done it can be very healing. I would know.

[Spag]

There is no legal case here. But I do think Roch should explain how disabling comments is any different than banning comments from people you don't agree with. Roch and everybody else who is being honest knows that Ed had no legitimate reason for banning me, yet Roch still has Ed's site on WE101. Why is that? Is that really any different?

Obviously, commenting is something that Roch values or he wouldn't have dropped Mary. I assume it's because of the free exchange of ideas. If a blogger bans someone from commenting for illegitimate reasons, that would seem to violate Roch's values.

Maybe he can explain where I am wrong here. So yeah, I do think it's relevant.

[Brandon Burgess]

Spag, the difference between moderating comments and not allowing comments at all seems pretty clear to me.

[Brandon Burgess]

It is also worth noting that for months, Dr. Johnson has trashed Roch and many other people without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves on her blog.

I'm not aware of Ed doing the same thing to you. I'm not aware of any other blogger who does that.

Also, I think many of your comments at Ed's could be looked at as off topic and even harassing in nature, much like Connie's. Ed still allows comments from folks who frequently disagree with him, like me and bubba (who has a habit of cutting and pasting).

[bubba]

"like me and bubba (who has a habit of cutting and pasting)."

Apparently, things like research, source citations, and substantiation of your opinion are not required for the highly detailed, in depth heavy lifting academic work you're required to produce at the community college, huh?