People who have been subjected to Blogger the Editor's cyber harassment have been asking, "who is she?" We've been able to piece together some bits here and there from what she's written and from information submitted but not posted here including this picture. Apparently she was a columnist for the Niagara Falls Review in 1991 but got canned for reasons we can only guess at judging by her conduct lately...lying, exaggerating, insulting, threatening, using the column to fight her personal beefs, berating the editor, backstabbing, etc., etc. Apparently she tried to print a newspaper afterward but was not even able to give away advertising. Getting a copy of that would be really interesting.
3 comments:
I've posted an ad and link on my website. I'll do a little story too so that subscribers will be notified.
I strongly suggest that you identify yourself for two reasons: 1) to lend credibility and assume responsibility for your statements; and 2) so that you can track the harassment you will undergo.
This would be a scientific experiment. You have a baseline of zero harassment -- you've not been mentioned, no one has started a whisper campaign, you've not received obscene phone calls, your employer has not been called or emailed, you've not been assaulted or called out, you have not been "run through" the NRP computer (but double check that with the cops -- it's your right to know). Regardless, all inquiries are time-coded along with other useful information.
I also suggest you refrain from personal attacks but that you stick to facts that you know (not just believe) to be true.
Also, I have copies of the "newspaper" to which you refer. I'll scan them and send them to you.
Be careful.
Honestly, I have a family and friends to be concerned about and I would not want to drag any innocent bystanders into the cross hairs of Blogger the Editor. She and her BFF and her family and the gang of brutes and bullies they promote are more than happy to scour the very depths of moral decrepitude to be vindictive.
Communications, psychology and history were my main areas of study many years ago in university and none of this knowledge is put to use in my job. So I'm doing this because I am sickened by Blogger the Editor's attempts to harm good people. I consider it pornographic (eventhough it's not in any way sexual), hate-mongering and cancerous.
She's the one who challenged us to start our own blog when we tried to defend ourselves, and here it is. We have no compassion left for this trash and she is going to get everything back that she has dished out for the past year. The only difference is it will be true.
this was posted to her blog, all comments are encouraged. I doubt you'll see it approved on hers.
Wow, I've refrained from poasting to this fucktarded bleating blog for some time now, but lately the rhetoric has reached historic levels. I feel compelled to voice my opinion of it, even at the risk of the slim chance that someone might give this piece of net-turd some validity. Now, I know "The so-called Editor" will remove my post almost immediately, so I'll be poasting to another blog that she can't "edit".
Now, I've been on the internet for quite some time and seen my share of idiotic net-kookery, but this so-called blog takes the cake. It's slanderous commentary, and twisting of reality indicates a deep seeded mental instability in "The so-called Editor". I mean, who is this kook? Does she work for the region? Does she even work? Or is she an immigrant with a weak (and quite fragile) claim on ODSP? I won't say that she has the mental abilities of a deer tick, because she can string words together (although her grammar leaves something to be desired), and poast those words to a forum that is largely ignored by the masses. She does have other qualities of the deer tick though, burrowing, and sucking the life force out of anyone (myself included) that gets wind of her blies and blgrandstanding. I am sure Hillary's campaign is better off now that she was involved!
Now, why would I care you ask? I am wrestling with that question myself. Why would anyone care if an unemployed geriatric so called editor, blathers and rants with twisted facts and outright blies? Well I am pretty bored here on vacation in Iran, so I thought I'd stir the pot a little. I just don't understand how someone's "reliable sources" can be so unreliable, I mean, the conjecture here is just astounding.
Not only does the "so called editor" attempt to convince people that the council members are corrupt, theives and all around incompetent, she also outright lies about what they say and do, and all this, in print. Simply amazing. I mean, claiming that one councillor was not somewhere, when in fact, she was, and many people saw her, is a sign that her mental instability and need for attention has reached critical mass. Also implying that hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money has "dissapeared" just because she doesn't know where it went, 38 years ago is borderline psychotic.
If she thinks speaking ill of the dead is bad, why does she have so much trouble refraining from it? Why does she constantly bash those living and dead, when she has no clue or subtantiation of her claims? She never lied to Lorraine? Wow, that would be the only person that she was honest with. Of course she could always say that any inconsistancies in her facts were from her reliable sources right?
I do have a suggestion for you. The town councillors do not think that "we" are that stupid, it's just you. Do you wonder why you only got 1 comment on that post? No one cares what you think. Do they care that you plagerize other media outlets? NO! Do they care that you are barely smart enough to rename your images so that no one can find out where you copied them from? NO! I think Ridgeway's charm problem only has one cure, please, stop breathing. Do us all a favour and use your talents to some constructive end. Why don't you run for office, your strong following on your blog should be enough to sway the vote your way. Question for you though, how many times have you posted in the comments section of your own blog, with an anonymous posting?
Now, there have been a very few occassions that you have had good ideas, but instead of using proper channels to funnel them through, gaining support for them with traditional methods, you choose to post them online, shrouding them in your kooky blog. This totally obliterates any real valid thought you have. I mean seriously, do you really believe that your are some sort of "investigative journalist" or or something? Real journalists use real methods and real sources, not gossip and conjecture. How many times have you said things, and not substatiated the claim at all. Every time someone does totally decimate your position, you conveniently delete the posting, then change the subject.
If you know what it takes to make this area a living thriving place, by all means, do what you need to do to accomplish this, but I will give you a hint, ranting on the net will not get you a seat on council.
Post a Comment