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.

Eileen,

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!

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!

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!