April 2, 2007

kathy and chris publish joint statement

Kathy Sie­rra and Chris Locke published a joint sta­te­ment. Though they disa­gree on some points, they seem very much in accord with the stuff that actually mat­ters. I’m very happy they did this. It looks like a good end to what must have been a horri­ble week for them both.
The only sad thing is, it looks like Dear Kathy won’t be wri­ting anything new for a while. This is espe­cially sad for me, as it was only 3 weeks ago that she and I met in per­son for the first time. And what a sweet, won­der­ful per­son she was.
Hurry back, Kathy. Your fans miss you!

11 Responses to “kathy and chris publish joint statement”

  1. Katharine Newman says:

    Although I haven’t seen the taping that was done for CNN, I have to say that I’m not enti­rely con­vin­ced the blo­gosphere should dig out their Kum­ba­yaa sheet music just yet.
    Admi­ra­ble things were said in those sta­te­ments — but I’m not sure Mr. Locke’s halfhear­ted denun­cia­tions make up for his ini­tial reac­tion: Does “extre­mely bad taste?” ade­qua­tely desc­ribe what was said about Ms. Sie­rra? Really? Is that all?
    Mr. Locke has mis­sed the point. It’s not about whether he has a right to dis­like Ms. Sie­rra or any other wri­ter; it’s not about whether what was said about Ms. Sie­rra were death threats or “death threats.” — Hooray, the they had a cou­ple laughs, but a laugh does not make up for the lack of outrage here.
    I’m sorry Hugh, but all day today I’ve seen peo­ple stan­ding in line to con­gra­du­late this guy — who’s wri­ting I’ve enjo­yed — to con­gra­du­late him for saying “the peo­ple who follo­wed me said things that were wrong but as their lea­der, I wasn’t lea­ding.”
    Accountability.

  2. Locke dele­ted his site in rejec­tion of the con­duct taking place there *before* Sie­rra pos­ted. That should be enough. Kee-rist the outrage bri­gade is wor­king over­time on this one.
    Hugh: I know you were pro­bably angry at the time, but calling Locke and the other three a “posse of middle aged, self-loathing unde­rachie­vers” and com­pa­ring them to rape ena­blers was more shitty con­duct than most of the posts on MeanKids.Org. Do you still stand behind those comments?

  3. a person says:

    Obviously, Chris Locke is des­pe­rate for atten­tion, and now he’s got it. That’s why peo­ple make trash sites in the first place. It’s sad. I’ll bet he knows who made those horri­ble underwear-faced pic­tu­res, and I’ll bet he sta­res that per­son in the eye in the mirror every morning.

  4. hugh macleod says:

    Hey Rogers,
    Of course I stand behind my com­ments. Because I never once said my com­ments were direc­ted at the three you men­tio­ned.
    Read my post again, one more time. Thanks.

  5. NVMojo says:

    I’ll miss Kathy’s posi­tive posts. I hope she doesn’t stay away too long.

  6. Your post: “Appa­rently these Mean­Kids folk were taking the occa­sio­nal pop at me as well. Mommy! Mommy! Come quick! A posse of middle aged, self-loathing unde­rachie­vers is being mean to me Boo hoo hoo hoo…
    “[Afterthought:] Highschool Metaphor: ‘OK, so you weren’t the actual jock who raped the cheer­lea­der. But it seems you were in the posse circ­ling them, chan­ting ‘Go go go go go go go…””
    Your refu­sal to ack­now­ledge that these insults were aimed at the Mean­Kids publishers is strange. But I guess that’s one way to avoid an apology.

  7. hugh macleod says:

    I don’t find it strange at all, Cadenhead. After seeing what was writ­ten about my friends, Robert and Mar­yam, on Mean­kids and appro­ved by its authors, it’ll pro­bably be a cold day in Hell before I do any apo­lo­gi­zing in that direc­tion.
    And if I do apo­lo­gize, it’ll be because one of the peo­ple you men­tion takes issue with it and talks to me about it directly, not because some third-party blog­ger has deci­ded to appoint him­self Chief Apo­logy Offi­cer for the day.

  8. Kathy Sierra says:

    Thanks, but I’m pro­bably not coming back. I think we all know that nothing has chan­ged, and the same thing would just hap­pen again. We’re not tal­king about just one per­son, and we’re not tal­king just about the ran­dom trolls we ALL get. I do not have the sto­mach for it any lon­ger.
    Igno­ring is not always a solu­tion — I tried that, and it only became *worse* (if someone is deter­mi­ned to get a reac­tion from *you*, igno­ring them just means they have to keep taking it up a notch until you do). Tal­king to peo­ple invol­ved is not always a solu­tion — I tried that, but MORE posts went up *after* I wrote to some of the peo­ple invol­ved to tell them how frea­ked out I was.
    No, I think there’s a visi­bi­lity tip­ping point, and when you cross it — some peo­ple will hate you no mat­ter what you write about. Visi­bi­lity alone seems to be a big enough rea­son for peo­ple to want to inflict pain. And unfor­tu­na­tely, if you’re a female they are more likely to add in *sexual* threats and fan­ta­sies as well.
    It was my daugh­ter who found the suffocation/smothering photo. We all have our limits. Whoe­ver crea­ted that post found mine.
    [Rogers, you do not have the story quite correct. If you want to exchange pri­vate email, I can fill in more details.]

  9. Ed says:

    I’m so sorry for what’s hap­pe­ned to Kathy. I agree with Katharine’s com­ment and her final sta­te­ment about Chris Locke –accoun­ta­bi­lity.
    The pic­tu­res, com­ments and pos­ting Kathy’s per­so­nal infor­ma­tion is beyond chil­dish. It’s just down­right scary and cri­mi­nal.
    I’m glad that Kathy had another post today asking her rea­ders for sug­ges­tions with res­pect to her future work.

  10. You can dress it up any way you like, but calling them “middle aged, self-loathing unde­rachie­vers” was crappy.
    The post about Mar­yam Sco­ble was inex­cu­sa­ble and promp­ted Paynter’s dele­tion of the site. To say that those three were res­pon­si­ble for it, when they didn’t make that post, is like saying that you’re res­pon­si­ble for my belief that you’re a mean kid.

  11. hugh macleod says:

    I never named those three you cited as my tar­gets, Cadenhead. But hey, if it makes you feel bet­ter to believe other­wise, go ahead.. Blog about it. Get some lin­klove. Get onto Tech­meme. Feed the Beast. Whatever.