e mërkurë, 4 korrik 2007

Eileen Too Far...

“So I’m ready with a verdict: Jim Hoeft is guilty of being a complete and total disgrace to blogging.”

This was said by Eileen on “we the tax payers paid for the photo’s

This is getting out of hand. It is becoming quite clear that this is becoming one of those Vendettas God Save Va was speaking about.

This comment by Eileen almost made me loose my lunch, well more I just chuckled.

‘“Jim has been a beacon for good wholesome blogging, and Eileen hasn’t been.” ya wanna rethink that statement before i post tomorrow?”

she said this in response to brief e-mail exchange her and I had. She sent me a link, and in the link made a statement. Which I replied asking if she really wanted to leave that comment, she then took the statement down.


I am not impressed with the fact that I kindly asked you about the comment discreetly, and you threw it back in my face. I also fully stand by my statement, you have not been a blog pushing for blogging ethics, if I am incorrect, give me a link. Bearing Drift has been a blog that in most cases is ethical, maybe it is due to its mixed contributor base. Yet, you have yet to prove Jim acted unethically. Somehow you expect me to be intimidated by you asking me to rethink my belief that Jim is a ethical blogger? Sorry, but it didn’t work… I will agree with Mad Hatter, that Jim did act tactlessly, and could have gone about this a different way, but he did act ethically. He is letting it die, he put up a post giving his side of the story, with very little commentary, this is ethical… NLS put out a post with almost the same information, with very little commentary, this is also ethical. I disagree with his conclusions, but this in no way makes him unethical. You put up a post with your side of the story, basically the same information that is on Bearing Drift and NLS, this was ethical. You gave your commentary, although a bit longer, and the tone was not as kind as the other two. Yet, I would still say you were mostly ethical in that post as well. You are Unethical in what you did, in your e-mails, comments on others blogs, and your most recent post with your quote about Jim. You undermined a blog conference that does not only effect you, you were not “excluded” you were kicked off of the planning committee (it seems cause you were hard for Jim to work with.)

If this really has nothing to do with being “excluded” then you need to drop it, and apologize for lying to Ben and to those electeds. It seems very simple, Jim is setting up a conference with the AG attending. Does it make sense having someone VERY outspoken just plain anti McDonnell on a committee asking him to attend? Does that make sense to anybody? Also, is it unethical to no longer work with someone whom you cannot get along with? I can name a large list of people I would NEVER consider working on a blog conference with, both Democrats and Republicans

  1. Eileen WAS on blogs united planning committee. (along with Jim and Alton)

  2. Eileen called the AG’s office and talked to Tucker Martin.

  3. Tucker e-mailed Eileen and others. (not sure why he e-mailed the others. I have an e-mail sent in to him asking that very question)

  4. Jim untactful kicked Eileen off the planning committee, but did have probable cause based on the fact that he is trying to get the AG to attend. Two, that it is clear Eileen and he should not be working THAT closely together.

5. Eileen originally claimed she was banned, and e-mailed Democratic bloggers and electeds who were attending.

So, we are down to Jim and Eileen acting Immaturely. Originally I said “who is in the right? It seems no one…It also seems no one is in the wrong.” Now I would like to amend that statement. Yet, I cannot, for it seems if I call someone unethical, the proper response is to call either I or the other person unethical…

First, Eileen lies about being “excluded.”

Secondly, she E-mails sponsors and attendees with the sole purpose of convincing them not to attend . I would very much like to meet these Democrats, just like I am looking forward to meeting the two Republicans. (It just seems no one is trying to convince them to stay home) I am quite impressed at being able to meet all four candidates at one event. Why must Eileen try to ruin it for the rest of us? I would in a heartbeat drop out of this conference if I felt someone was being unfairly treated, if Eileen was actually “banned” I would very regretfully (I would regret missing the great opportunities taking place, IE meeting DWJ) drop out.

Thirdly, she persists on adding fire to a already out of control situation by saying some rather nasty stuff about Jim Hoeft. Without giving facts or basis for it, other then “he kicked me off the planning committee.”

Fourthly, The the truth, she has a grudge against the AG. I have seen her site, and it is quite clear, which is fine by me. She can like or dislike any politician she chooses. It just makes things clearer. now I know why he keeps getting brought up in this. At first I had no clue what the AG had to do with it, but now I see…

Lastly, why isn’t she happy?? It is clear her and Jim do not get along, does she want to work with him again on the planning committee, and WHY??? Why the shock of not working with someone you can’t stand, and why be upset over it? In my book, she should be glad, if Jim is so horrid… She should be relieved that he kicked her off, and she didn’t have to leave, and give him more ammo to tastelessly attack her with.

Read more!

e martë, 3 korrik 2007

Recent Issues Surrounding the Blog Conference

posted at The Daily Whackjob

First, I would like to thank Whackette for that wonderful self congratulating welcome. :) and the whole Daily Whackjob team for giving me this opportunity to broaden my audience and participate in one of the most talked about fun blogs in Virginia!

Secondly, I would like to discuss some recent actions and events dealing with our local Blogosphere. It seems there has been unrest among a group of bloggers concerning the July 13-15 blog conference. I was first informed of this through an e-mail. Then, I saw several posts dealing with the blog conference, mostly pro with a few regrets and negatives.

Richmond Democrat and blueweeds, sent out their regrets. Richmond Democrat made an interesting point. Should there be a bloggers conference for each party? It makes things run smoother working with like minded people (hence two separate conventions.) I, personally, am really impressed with the idea of a non-partisan blog conference. Yes, I understand there will be many difficulties, but there are many issues that I believe ALL bloggers should be a part of. (ethics)

Which brings up the question, I have been wondering, who has acted ethically and unethically in this brief firefight?

With these thoughts, I e-mailed all three of those involved (NLS, Elieen, and Jim Hoeft).

Jim happened to be the most helpful, sending several e-mails back and forth. Most of what Jim had to say can be found on Bearing Drift and NLS (minus the NLS commentary on the events.

Elieen disappointed me greatl. I was, at first, rather excited to receive the first e-mail from her. Then I asked my questions, and I seem to have made the mistake of using the word “drama” to describe the events surrounding the blog conference. Sadly, she replied, “Drama??” and that is the last I have heard from her.

I must admit, I was much more impressed with Jim’s actions then Elieen’s, but personal feelings aside, who is in the right? It seems no one…It also seems no one is in the wrong. I believe that those attending the blog conference will receive the better end (parties with DWJ), but I find it silly for bloggers to be going around condemning those that do not wish to attend. NLS and Elieen do not need to attend for this event to be successful and fun. Would they be welcomed if they came? Sure. Will I be hurt if they don’t come? Not at all.

The whole drama seemed to be about a disagreement that Eileen and Jim had over whether her actions regarding comments and disclosure with the attorney general were ethical. I really can’t say cause I don’t know all the facts of the case, but I am more prone to trust Jim as he is the one setting up the blog conference. He has rarely been one to personally attack another blogger, or even a candidate unnecessarily. This once again shows that blogging ethics does matter. Jim has been a beacon for good wholesome blogging, and Eileen hasn’t been. So, yes, I trust that Jim had his reasons for kicking her off of the planning committee. Is this partisan of me? I don’t really care. This has little to do with politics, and find it rather amusing that so many try to drag politics into a “Blog Conference”. Yeah, we are all political bloggers, but how sucked into the “my party is right” mentality are we gonna go? Will we stop associating with someone that disagrees with us?

A useful quote from the bible “…They will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Contextually, it is speaking of falling away from sound doctrine, but the truth remains. Those who only receive what they want to hear will never learn anything new. They become so set in their ways that they only associate with those who flatter them by agreeing. This in my humble opinion is a very dangerous thing.

Read more!

e diel, 1 korrik 2007

Look Who Thinks Blogger Ethics is Important...

Not Larry Sabato just raised on the Blogger scale with this post, "Bob McDonnell on the campaign trail" Props to NLS, for stepping past the party barrier and presenting a great post about his "advisary," we need more of this in blogging. The real reason i did this post is, notice who in NLS's post is talking about Blogger ethics...none other then Bob McDonnell.

"Hey Ben, how's the blog been going. I was reading (some story up recently on NLS) and thought it was interesting. By the way, I'm still interested in the blogging ethics we discussed in Martinsville. Please keep me up to date on what you guys decide to do with that". Second event, "Hey Ben, good to see you at (first event). Yeah, that article you did (insert another recent NLS post since the last event) on (someone) was really interesting, I totally agree. I'd really like to see more blogging like that. I just think blogging should have some ethical guidelines, I'm really interested in that, has anything happened with that discussion recently..." and at the third event "Hey Ben, you've been around all over recently (names first two events), good to see you again. Did you see that a lot of the blogs (names a couple) have been talking about ethical blogging recently. Are you going to do something on it? That's a real important issue to me. Let me know what's going on with it".

so, no they aren't exact quotes and maybe NLS is using this to jump onto the bandwagon of blogging Ethically, but then again, this might be an issue that concerns even our AG...
Read more!

e enjte, 28 qershor 2007

What is Ethical Blogging??

God Save Va has a great post up called “What Is Ethical Blogging,” Asking

What does “ethical blogging” mean to you? What does it entail? Does it even matter?”

It seems Virginia Oddsmaker has a bit of the same question.
I also noticed that Whackette of ,The Daily Whackjob has the "Ten commandments of blogging" (I also noticed all eleven of them)

First off, Yes, it does matter, greatly!

Ethical Blogging is being able to remember Chivalry, an ancient art that knights swore to before ever being able to be knighted, it was the “fair conduct” of war, I admit that each of us has our opinions, which is what makes the blogosphere so amazing, if we all agreed we would have nothing to debate or to talk about. Blogging would become boring rather quickly. In medieval times a knight had to swear to certain rules, many of which still apply today, and some even apply to blogging ethics, such as,

· Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

· Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.

· Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.

· Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.

- Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

- virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. This also brings with it the idea of being willing to give one’s life for another’s; whether he would be giving his life for a poor man or his lord.

Blogging Ethics, is all about treating other bloggers the way you desire to be treated…Regardless of there political affiliation, look at "The Daily Whackjob", it has several members, ranging from “Flaming Liberal”, “Religious Conservative”, Moderate, Libertarian…and they can still get along, on one blog. It is cause they understand that there opinions are not more important then the people they interact with. If there were more people willing to have real debate then our blogosphere would be in a much better place, heck, our country would be in a much better place.

Both the owner and the reader have a responsibility to each other, this is cordiality or at the very least civility, we can treat each other civilly, so lets do it!

Read more!

Republitarian, the swac bloggers better be happy...

It seems that STD, and other Swac bloggers will not rest until I do a post about Republitarian and his accusations about Sayre’s wife during the primary. Honestly I don’t have a problem with the fact that he attacked Sayre’s wife, what he reported was facts, Sayre’s wife did receive a DUI.

My issue begins with his intentions. It does not seem Republitarian had any great love for Emmett Hanger, Republitarian had a grudge against a group of bloggers from the Swac region. Seems like nothing more then a vendetta that turned nasty. I strongly question the relevance the DUI’s had to do with the Campaign at hand, but the Campaign is over, so those questions will have to just remain unanswered. Whether it is ethical or not, I am not really sure, it seems unethical to bring it up when it had no relevance, yet seemed ethical in the sense that it was factual information. Whether it mattered or not in the election is a mute point…Republitarian did it to “get back” at some bloggers, just to piss them off.

(can I say piss, and be ethical? The Bible says it, pisseth: 1 Samuel 25:22, 1 Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21, 2 Kings 9:8, and the word piss: 2 Kings 18:27, 1 Samuel 36:12)

but I digress,

he did not release the information out of good intent for the voters, or even in support of “his” candidate, he did it only for shock value of a certain group of bloggers, and he succeeded…he also may have succeeded in making our blogosphere a little less civil.

But on a happier note Republitarian is commended for "giving credit where credit is due"
, so Republitarian receives a five on our Richter scale of ethical behavior, he acted like a little child in his “flame wars” but admitted graciously that the Sayre bloggers did have “influence.”

Read more!

e enjte, 21 qershor 2007

Apology, Rebuke, and More...

Reading over my comments on The Virginian Federalist, I realize I may not have handled the situation as I should have...I spoke rashly and did not consider that my statements would reflect onto bloggers views on God Save Va (not sure how they got lumped into it) I have no affiliation with them, at this time. So I would like to publicly extend my fullest apology to "Spank That Donkey" for any and all actions taken by me, that were "unethical" One being when I said "You are acting like a five year old"

for this

"The Ethical Blogger would like to officially
apologize to Spank, and those who believe that cordiality should be the foundation of blogging."

But, this does not mean that Spank gets off easy...I would like to point out, one a great job done by Krehbiel Strikes Back in his post; Did Bloggers 4 Sayre beat the ODBA? , Spank said.

"B4S is the first time 18 Conservative bloggers has come
together for anything... The ODBA can not even claim that..."

And Krehbiel responded with some great journalism work, in the aforementioned post.

It seems several Swac bloggers, are in for it today, both Std and Swac Girl, had this to say on Vfed,

"So do we pass everything by you, Publius, to see if it qualifies as readable for the blogosphere? Are you judge and jury of what is
acceptable or a proper subject? I only respond since you specifically
mentioned the Sayre bloggers who did not go on personal attacks againt Hanger's family but hammered home issues. Perhaps you could cite
examples of where we were out of line?"

-Swac girl

"So Bloggers 4 Sayre did nothing but attack Senator Hanger? Abusive, Vile, and outright falsehoods... as the Slantin News Leader would put it?A candidates family and even employees get brought into this by pro-Hanger bloggers..."

"and I will repeat (hopefully not to be ignored again) Hanger called Myron and shut down B4H, but Myron's mudslinging continued for days afterward.. "


I bring these comments up for two reasons, one, it seems SOME Bloggers 4 Sayre have a personal issue with Republitarian, and two, that the Bloggers 4 Sayre are getting unfairly treated (gasp, I almost agree with STD)

let me explain...

I went through the site Bloggers 4 Sayre, and realized MOST of the site is only about issues, and was done so fairly tastefully, but I also noticed several similar comments left by STD, Swac girl and some other members of the site, that were anything but "ethical"

This will not become a "Blog War" between the Swacs and I.

Seems that yesterday STD comment on a site called Un Altro Breve Rapporta Su Legge, St Lo Impure posted about the "The Blogging police" and STD responded as such

"Isn't it interesting how these two new creations are not slamming republitarian for actual personal attacks on Scott Sayre's family and even employees?no their concern is Kilo vs. waldo and attacking the SWAC Leadership..I guess no one can see through this, nor care too....Lot's of condemnation of anonymous blogging from anonymous blogs.... amazing the hypocrisy of the mentalities behind these two new ventures... "

After asked

"???? "Lot's of condemnation of anonymous blogging from anonymous blogs.... amazing the hypocrisy of the mentalities behind these two new ventures..." ???Please explain."

by the sites author St. Lo Impure, Std went on to say

"Because they are attempting to slam SWAC leadership saying they are anonymous?coming from an anonymous blog.. this doesn't add up to you?Meanwhile, where have the SWAC bloggers been unethical in their blogging? I do not believe anonymous blogging is unethical, as it should be judged by it's content. "

St. Lo went on to say

"Because they are attempting to slam SWAC leadership saying they are anonymous?"where, I want copy pasted phrases by them. I would love to do a post about it."coming from an anonymous blog.. this doesn't add up to you?" no, need to get snippy, I didn't get what you were saying, I understand now, and would like either a link or something pointing to them condemning anon blogging. cause, lol, yeah they are anon themselves. "

Std, has yet to respond...I would like to know the answer to the questions myself, where did I or God Save Va say any of that stuff? I understand that STD doesn't have the best view of me, due to the fact that I did attack him on VFed, but why God Save Va???

This is not what should be happening in the blogosphere, at every turn we should not be expecting to see STD or any blogger defend there "candidate" against those who do not even assault them. It seems Std, claims that both God Save Va and I attacked swac bloggers, for being anonymous, which he rightly pointed out no anonymous blogger should ever attack another anonymous blogger for being anonymous, but (as far as I can tell) neither God Save Va nor I, did any such thing, and neither did Publius of the Va federalist. If I am incorrect please comment or e-mail me, I hold correct information in the highest regard and do not want to unfairly call STD a liar, but this is more then about "making things up" it is about chivalry, acting with good intentions, and STD is not going around defending himself, he is creating issues with bloggers who have no issue with him.
In this post STD says

"Thanks Ladies and Gentleman it's great to hang out with principled bloggers! Some bloggers have to 'talk' ethics, others 'walk' the ethics."


Why must you try to make this personal? I have to say that Bloggers 4 sayres in itself was a great idea and fairly ethical (100% might be a little too far) and recieves a 7, but you Std recieve a 3...Swac girl gets a 3.5, for continually bringing up Republitian.
If evidence is proven that either God Save Va, Publius, or I posted or commented attacking swac bloggers for posting anonymously, then I will immediatly raise his ethical ranking. St lo Impure receives a 5.5 for trying to stay out of the battle, and linking us :-)

Also, Std I will be doing a post about Republitarian and his posting on Sayre's wife's DUIs, but I will point out this was not a blog war...but the rest I will save for the post.
Read more!

e mërkurë, 20 qershor 2007

Blogging Above and Beyond the Call of Duty

This article is about four separate blogs who have shown outstanding ethical and moral behavior.

Bearing drift,

Which is one of the oldest blogs in the Va Blogosphere, has to my knowledge been a beacon of hope in our blogosphere. they have not joined into these "blog wars" and they have effectively campaigned and treated there opponents with civility, which we could use more of.

The same goes for Vivian J. Paige,
(yes, that is right I don't hold any partisan beliefs as to who is ethical) She has been another such blogger who has been around for a while, who always treats those she disagrees with, with kindness and respect.

The Virginian Federalist,

Has been another such blog, since there creation in 2005 I have heard only good things. they also have sparked a lot of debate over cordiality in discussion, and blogging ethics and this is a very good thing.

lastly God Save Virginia,

This blog is fairly new, and has in its short existence sparked my interest in the fight to keep out blogosphere clean from the gossip and rumors.

each of these blogs shall receive an 8 in my ethical ranking, Bearing drift shall receive a 9, I would love to give them a ten, but that seems a bit premature. These are blogs I hope to see leading the way in a ethical revolution on the blogosphere.
Read more!