because neo_prodigy is a liar
This is a follow-up to the post seluecus and I wrote for inclusive_geeks. I'm posting this to my own journal because I am specifically talking about neo_prodigy this time.
There's a lot of misinformation being disseminated and supported by neo_prodigy and some of his friends, so I wanted to set the record straight. I'm also going to use this space to reiterate some of the motivations that went into making-and supporting-the post we made to i_g.
1) While this journal entry is mine alone, the post Seluecus and I wrote for inclusive_geeks was a reflection of our opinions. And as I mentioned at the start of the post, he's a queer man of color. Pointing to what we wrote as an example of white people being stupid is inaccurate; saying that I'm using Sel for “cred” undermines his contributions. We put equal effort into the essay, so stop acting like I'm the only one who wrote it.
2) I did not actively ban or block neo_prodigy's friends from i_g. Since submitting the post that mentioned neo_prodigy, I've only rejected the membership requests of two people. One of them was later accepted after they provided suitable proof that they were not a sock-puppet by showing that they had an Internet presence to make up for the inactivity of their journal. That person was a blogger from Ars Marginal, neo_prodigy's collaborative blog.
One of his friends, who had a single livejournal entry (a review of neo_prodigy's book, Hollowstone!) and three livejournal friends (one of them Neo, the other two Neo's male friends) was ultimately rejected because he could not produce enough information to prove he wasn't a sock-puppet. I do not accept people's Facebooks as evidence because that can lead members (and mods, since to look at many people's FBs completely you need to friend them) to inadvertently giving out too much personal information. So I gave this person the option of showing me their Twitter, their Tumblr, or some examples of where they commented on LJ. He was unable to do that. When I told him I couldn't accept a membership request from him, I said to apply again when his journal is more active. His response? “OK thanks, and Neo said hi.” That really creeped me out and made me think that the individual was definitely Neo, but apparently the guy does have a history of commenting on Ars Marginal (which I found out later). But he still needs to be a regular commenter on LJ or someone who at least maintains an online presence elsewhere to gain membership to the community.
When I accept or reject requests for membership, I don't care who your friends are. I care about people's actions on livejournal, and particularly within i_g. Our membership likely includes people who don't like me. I'm pretty sure some users are just members so they can wait around for wanky things to happen. And I sometimes get that impression from their friends' list, but I don't reject them for that.
I will never intentionally exclude people from public discussions. I will take the precautions necessary to ensure that the people who belong to i_g are real users, though, because that's been a huge help in preventing needless drama and trolling.
3) When I told dissenters on i_g that I disagreed with them and then expressed why I did-because neo_prodigy is a professional author and is open to the same criticisms as any other author or professional on LJ-I was not being hypocritical and acting without integrity. Well, I mean, that's only what I think. But to bolster my claim, I'll tell you what I'd have to do in order to act without integrity: I would have to delete or screen the comments of those who disagreed with me, ban them, and then brag about how so-and-so just proved my point. (Without explaining the relationship between their comments and what I'm saying, of course, or by misrepresenting my detractor's identity in order to win an argument.) The lack of transparency and good faith discussions were what we critiqued; disagreeing with someone and explaining why I disagree looks nothing like deleting and screening their comments.
***
I'm writing this post to defend myself, of course. I'll be honest and admit that. But I'm also writing it because no-names like Sel and me should be able to voice our concerns. Ideally, we wouldn't have to worry about big bloggers using their position to disseminate incorrect information about us, especially when it's to the end of brushing off well-founded criticism.
If anyone's interested, I've written a less personal follow-up to the i_g post I wrote with Sel here.
ETA (30 July 2011)
I wanted to add that I haven't "continuously stalked and harassed" neo_prodigy and his "other close loved ones,"* so I implore you to not take any claims like this at face value. Besides the i_g post, I compiled evidence of his misogynistic behavior and put that information on my LJ, Wordpress and Blogger (the 3rd happened only because n_p complained in order to have LJ and Wordpress suspend the posts). I also reviewed his book Hollowstone via Amazon and Goodreads, which hardly constitutes stalking/harassment when one is a professional author. My actions re: neo_prodigy and his misogyny ended there (well, until now), because I did not want to come off as if I was doing this for kicks.
I have never harassed or stalked any of his "close loved ones," either; I cannot think of a single action I've taken against his friends. I am not that kind of person.
As a woman who's been stalked, harassed and cyberbullied, I find it incredibly insulting to see a 30+ year old male accuse me of this behavior as a means of censoring me. I've lost friends and respect as part of my very brief stand against neo_prodigy, and I've been truly harassed (told to die, get raped, etc. by anonymous people) as well. But even with neo_prodigy specifically singling me out (despite having lots of other detractors), I have not attempted to blame him for inflaming others.
If his identity as a woman-friendly author/blogger was authentic, then I would not have been able to make the compilation post in the first place - the entire thing consists of his own words and a little editorial. Nothing I've written has been false. And giving women the tools to make informed decisions about him as an author/blogger (who promotes himself and his work as anti-sexist) is far from harassment.
*neo_prodigy sent this complaint to Wordpress: "The copyrighted work are passages from the novel Hollowstone which is written by myself. The blogger has used the passages and made inflammatory and false accusations about myself.
This individual has continuously stalked and harassed myself and other close loved ones. And while we've taken action against her on other blogs, she continues with the harassment."
ETA2 (29 August 2011)
Because these involve neo_prodigy's integrity...
Dennis Upkins Reviews his own book and pretends to be a bisexual WoC. In case the review is altered in some way in the future, here's a cap.
This is how he treats one of his co-bloggers.
----
Here's an early version of the compilation post that I'm referring to in this entry. Someone posted that and other activity related to n_p on Tumblr.
There's a lot of misinformation being disseminated and supported by neo_prodigy and some of his friends, so I wanted to set the record straight. I'm also going to use this space to reiterate some of the motivations that went into making-and supporting-the post we made to i_g.
1) While this journal entry is mine alone, the post Seluecus and I wrote for inclusive_geeks was a reflection of our opinions. And as I mentioned at the start of the post, he's a queer man of color. Pointing to what we wrote as an example of white people being stupid is inaccurate; saying that I'm using Sel for “cred” undermines his contributions. We put equal effort into the essay, so stop acting like I'm the only one who wrote it.
2) I did not actively ban or block neo_prodigy's friends from i_g. Since submitting the post that mentioned neo_prodigy, I've only rejected the membership requests of two people. One of them was later accepted after they provided suitable proof that they were not a sock-puppet by showing that they had an Internet presence to make up for the inactivity of their journal. That person was a blogger from Ars Marginal, neo_prodigy's collaborative blog.
One of his friends, who had a single livejournal entry (a review of neo_prodigy's book, Hollowstone!) and three livejournal friends (one of them Neo, the other two Neo's male friends) was ultimately rejected because he could not produce enough information to prove he wasn't a sock-puppet. I do not accept people's Facebooks as evidence because that can lead members (and mods, since to look at many people's FBs completely you need to friend them) to inadvertently giving out too much personal information. So I gave this person the option of showing me their Twitter, their Tumblr, or some examples of where they commented on LJ. He was unable to do that. When I told him I couldn't accept a membership request from him, I said to apply again when his journal is more active. His response? “OK thanks, and Neo said hi.” That really creeped me out and made me think that the individual was definitely Neo, but apparently the guy does have a history of commenting on Ars Marginal (which I found out later). But he still needs to be a regular commenter on LJ or someone who at least maintains an online presence elsewhere to gain membership to the community.
When I accept or reject requests for membership, I don't care who your friends are. I care about people's actions on livejournal, and particularly within i_g. Our membership likely includes people who don't like me. I'm pretty sure some users are just members so they can wait around for wanky things to happen. And I sometimes get that impression from their friends' list, but I don't reject them for that.
I will never intentionally exclude people from public discussions. I will take the precautions necessary to ensure that the people who belong to i_g are real users, though, because that's been a huge help in preventing needless drama and trolling.
3) When I told dissenters on i_g that I disagreed with them and then expressed why I did-because neo_prodigy is a professional author and is open to the same criticisms as any other author or professional on LJ-I was not being hypocritical and acting without integrity. Well, I mean, that's only what I think. But to bolster my claim, I'll tell you what I'd have to do in order to act without integrity: I would have to delete or screen the comments of those who disagreed with me, ban them, and then brag about how so-and-so just proved my point. (Without explaining the relationship between their comments and what I'm saying, of course, or by misrepresenting my detractor's identity in order to win an argument.) The lack of transparency and good faith discussions were what we critiqued; disagreeing with someone and explaining why I disagree looks nothing like deleting and screening their comments.
***
I'm writing this post to defend myself, of course. I'll be honest and admit that. But I'm also writing it because no-names like Sel and me should be able to voice our concerns. Ideally, we wouldn't have to worry about big bloggers using their position to disseminate incorrect information about us, especially when it's to the end of brushing off well-founded criticism.
If anyone's interested, I've written a less personal follow-up to the i_g post I wrote with Sel here.
ETA (30 July 2011)
I wanted to add that I haven't "continuously stalked and harassed" neo_prodigy and his "other close loved ones,"* so I implore you to not take any claims like this at face value. Besides the i_g post, I compiled evidence of his misogynistic behavior and put that information on my LJ, Wordpress and Blogger (the 3rd happened only because n_p complained in order to have LJ and Wordpress suspend the posts). I also reviewed his book Hollowstone via Amazon and Goodreads, which hardly constitutes stalking/harassment when one is a professional author. My actions re: neo_prodigy and his misogyny ended there (well, until now), because I did not want to come off as if I was doing this for kicks.
I have never harassed or stalked any of his "close loved ones," either; I cannot think of a single action I've taken against his friends. I am not that kind of person.
As a woman who's been stalked, harassed and cyberbullied, I find it incredibly insulting to see a 30+ year old male accuse me of this behavior as a means of censoring me. I've lost friends and respect as part of my very brief stand against neo_prodigy, and I've been truly harassed (told to die, get raped, etc. by anonymous people) as well. But even with neo_prodigy specifically singling me out (despite having lots of other detractors), I have not attempted to blame him for inflaming others.
If his identity as a woman-friendly author/blogger was authentic, then I would not have been able to make the compilation post in the first place - the entire thing consists of his own words and a little editorial. Nothing I've written has been false. And giving women the tools to make informed decisions about him as an author/blogger (who promotes himself and his work as anti-sexist) is far from harassment.
*neo_prodigy sent this complaint to Wordpress: "The copyrighted work are passages from the novel Hollowstone which is written by myself. The blogger has used the passages and made inflammatory and false accusations about myself.
This individual has continuously stalked and harassed myself and other close loved ones. And while we've taken action against her on other blogs, she continues with the harassment."
ETA2 (29 August 2011)
Because these involve neo_prodigy's integrity...
Dennis Upkins Reviews his own book and pretends to be a bisexual WoC. In case the review is altered in some way in the future, here's a cap.
This is how he treats one of his co-bloggers.
----
Here's an early version of the compilation post that I'm referring to in this entry. Someone posted that and other activity related to n_p on Tumblr.