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.