1. We are all trolls, to someone else. Use of this term is either a self-effacing admission of this fact, or, if meant to deride, no better than the use of the n-word, b-word or f-word. Given the incivility above, it ought to be uncontroversial to declare everyone who posted above more than once at least slightly trollish. Anonymity is a right. Get used to it. One of the consequences of anonymous posts however is to pass journalistic responsibility to the editor or blog owner. If you don’t like it, complain to them, don’t attempt to deride the original poster, don’t speculate who it is.

2. Canadian libel laws were written by criminals to aid in hiding criminal activities. In all other English-speaking countries their use has been very sharply restricted by requirements to prove actual damages, broad exemptions for public issues or public figures as the object of debate, and anti-SLAPP laws. If you see someone threatening one for anything short of a false statement of fact that genuinely inhibits their actions or associations, then, you can be fairly sure they are trying to hide something. If they push it to a lawsuit, you can be sure that what they are hiding is unethical at best. Stephen Harper. Need I say more?

3. All these pissing contests eventually drag in an ‘innocent third party”.

4. Those who pretend to journalism need to at least give the object of their writings a chance to respond. If they don’t respond, they retain a duty to at least pretend that there might be some hidden “other side” to the story. One could argue whether posting publicly to a blog that allows anonymous response gives everyone “a chance to respond”. I’d say yes but thousands wouldn’t, especially not those who deride the anonymous and would force living bodies into the line of fire of every abstract debate. See point 3.

5. These are writers, right? There is no inapproprirate place for a shill.

I apologize for getting Dana started on this schtick of taking fake identities online. Me and her used to do that for fun on a BBS, long before the invention of teh intarwebz, back when she still had the chance of becoming a respectable graphic designer. We used to do this to stalk bearded 40-something men in chatrooms. It seems she’s parlayed our fun little hobby into arts grants and everything – I find that a hilarious commentary on the state of the Canadian arts scene, so good for her – but she forgot the cardinal rule of never taking an identity that’s traceable back to her. Especially taking the identity of me and then screwing with it.

As for the rest of you:

Shut the hell up. Just shut up. Shut the hell up. Your little bitch-slapping contest has now involved an innocent third party, and I’m a little fed up at getting my name dragged into this. As a good father would say: play nice or else.

I apologize for getting Dana started on this schtick of taking fake identities online. Me and her used to do that for fun on a BBS, long before the invention of teh intarwebz, back when she still had the chance of becoming a respectable graphic designer. We used to do this to stalk bearded 40-something men in chatrooms. It seems she’s parlayed our fun little hobby into arts grants and everything – I find that a hilarious commentary on the state of the Canadian arts scene, so good for her – but she forgot the cardinal rule of never taking an identity that’s traceable back to her. Especially taking the identity of me and then screwing with it.

As for the rest of you:

Shut the hell up. Just shut up. Shut the hell up. Your little bitch-slapping contest has now involved an innocent third party, and

Since the past day at lexiconjury,
1 Myna left the group, and,
2 There’s been plenty weird intense debating whether resolution ought get pursued publicly or privately.

Perhaps only to me, debating public versus private resolution seems very silly. There is no versus. These are separate animals. Beasts leading entirely separate lives, likely going separate ways.

At one extreme, private resolution could result simply from no private legal action ever getting brought. Would that mean public resolution would follow? Of course not.

At the other extreme, private resolution could result from the principals sharing genuine hugs. Would that mean the public issues that got raised could also be settled by hugging? Of course not. Issues are not physically huggable.

On distinguishing public from private, it follows pretty obviously that only the public issues are legitimate for public debating. So, I’d like to propose we try never mentioning the principals again. Whether by name or otherwise. Whether here or elsewhere. When in public, let’s stick to the public issues.

What are the public issues, though? Seems to me there’s just one. That when people go public, that’s not the time to play coy. In other words: ought not those making public accusations be fully prepared to publicly substantiate the accusations they’ve made?

Give up Naruda.
Ralph is too Obsessive Compulsive to ever play any role but self-righteous victim finding conspiracy behind every post.
Anyone can see who he really is.

Better to ignore his rants than feed them.
He prefers to hide behind his alias:

The Obscure Erostratus.
There’ll be more burning of bridges before he’s through.

Best leave him to pontificate
To the rest of the faceless.

Naruda, I do understand Maybe even somewhat sympathize. You have thin skin. You are very sensitive. So, having your February 22nd, 3:21 p.m. calls — for privacy and against “all the clamour” — mocked was too much for you. It made perfect sense, mocking your calling out against public discussion while at the public space dedicated to that discussion. But never mind making sense. You being so sensitive and all — it was too much for you. You were overcome by it.

But, Naruda? No way and no how did I “divine” anything whatsoever about your being “affiliated one way or another with any of the parties being discussed”. The reek you are smelling? It is entirely your own paranoia — not mine.

Because who you are affiliated with matters less to me than the nutritive value of any anonymous rat’s hindquarters. Like Max and like me, you are just another anonymous face on the internet. And you command no value in this public discussion other than by the substance of your posts.

That’s what I was ridiculing, Naruda. The (lack of) substance of your posts. And it was totally only your personal paranoia leaping to concluding I had “divined” your “affiliation”.

So. Naruda? Now that you’ve spilled how paranoid you are about the (il)legitimacy of your real life affiliation? Only now do I begin getting slightly curious who you really are.

Just slightly curious. Not even relevant to the (lack of) substance of your posts. Speaking of which? Good luck with your silencing project, Naruda. Because you’ll need more than luck silencing this public discussion at this public space dedicated to it. At the very least you’ll also need to get over your own paranoid “shrill accusations” backfiring on you so spectacularly.

All of which keeps begging and beggaring the question: when will you guys stop posting off topic? This thread isn’t about outing anonymous internet faces. It isn’t about your personal resentments. This here thread’s about why and how ugly this small press book fair public spat has become.

And

My dentist wants to thank you for the free plug.
He’d even take YOUR case.
(And throw in a free filling)

Clearly, some will just look at the letter and get highly satisfied by it soon as noticing it comes from Myna. Those bothering actually reading it notice:

1. how Myna repeats her false and/or unsubstantiated accusation of Stuart
2. how Myna withdraws her threats to litigate just so long as Stuart never again does what he has falsely and/or without substantiation been accused by Myna of doing — like, she won’t sue if he never again does what he hasn’t done
3. how the rest of Myna’s letter is taken up with Myna’s calling for mediation as if she were the victim instead of the very public threatener of Ross

And, for completeness, here’s the latest public statement from Myna:

(quote) Johnny Burnaway and I are running away together to Mexico,
leaving poor Jan behind. In order to spare her any more pain than necessary, I will no longer be on the Lexiconjury list (unquote)

Now, I don’t know any these people personally. No clue whether “Burnaway” is a real name or merely long-standing posting alias at Lexiconjury. But. Whoever Myna is referring to and whatever private troubles of his Myna is insinuating. This is unbelievable. Even as a joke.

Even if Myna’s “only joking”. Joking like that coming from someone who so can’t take a joke as to threaten litigation against fair criticism? Saying anything that defamatory of people’s private relationships — by anyone that’s so falsely and/or without substantiation been publicly capering getting defamed?

Unbelievable. It’s has got to make one wonder whether Myna gets her legal advice from Max’s dentist.

Sorry Max. Check the title in case you forgot. The subject here is why and how ugly this small press book fair public spat has become.