We (Ava and C.I.) have been working the public account all last week. Just us. Everyone was told to take time off on December 23rd and it's just been us since then. Now the way it works on replies (true, we believe of everyone in the community with a website) is they go into a "Draft" folder and are then sent out by various members. Why? Ron Brynaert, now of Raw Story, long ago (2004) warned against sending out anything directly.
This is why many people outside the community are confused to read an e-mail sent out one morning obviously written at night or one written in the early morning that is sent out late at night. The e-mails are in the "Draft" folder and stay there until they're sent out. (Those waiting in the folder, currently 2406, go out no sooner than Monday morning, for anyone waiting on a reply.) Normally, if it's an e-mail for Ruth, Kat, Isaiah or Beth, it automatically gets moved into their folder (see "My Folders" at the bottom of the screen snap). In fact, it gets moved as soon as whomever is reading it realizes who it is written to. (Starting next week, those reading the public account will include: Martha, Shirley, Eli, Braeden, Heather, Jim, Dona, Jess, and the two of us.) If the heading mentions Ruth, Kat, Isaiah or Beth, it's moved to their folder without being opened.
Now we took off New Year's Eve and New Year's Day and didn't expect much to be in the public account. We figured we'd spend about an hour there and two or more in each of the private e-mail accounts that members e-mail.
We were wrong. Not the first time.
We went through them as quickly as we could. Things needing some sort of response (by our judgments) got one. Those are quick responses, we don't spell check, we dash it off quickly so we can delete the original e-mail and move on. And we dashed off 2406 replies in about four hours (where possible, those were one word replies) and that still leave 31,238 that we haven't yet read.
What needs a reply? Very few things need a reply.
If someone's asking about a resource and we know the answer, we'll provide them with it. That's pretty much the only "need a reply" that we can think of.
In a normal week, we'll work the public account for about two hours each day, Monday through Friday. That's one early in the morning and one later in the day usually late at night. Everyone else will be working throughout the day. If it's something that's important, it'll go into the "C.I. MUST READ" folder. "C.I. FYI" is stuff of interest but not pressing. Martha and Shirley prepare a summary of the e-mails to the public account (and to the private ones) each Monday through Friday. Eli does something similar.
All e-mails are read by someone.
And we read one this evening from a real piece of work that really pissed us off.
The piece of trash is a Marcy Winograd follower. She wasn't writing us, she was writing Ruth. Ruth'll never see it because we're not passing it on to her. We printed up a copy and then deleted it.
We thought we'd share a little of Jane H.'s e-mail (we don't know if that's her real name) because we found her to be a real piece of s**t.
Now let's explain how she e-mailed. She didn't e-mail common_ills@yahoo.com. She went to the TCI mirror site and used the contact form there. We mention because Jane's a liar and we'll deal with that at the end.
"Ruth, I don't know if my last email was" received, she begins pleasantly enough. Three words later, she's calling Ruth "pathetic."
She's also confused that The Common Ills is a "blog." It's not a blog. It's a website or a resource. It's not a blog. Who's pathetic, Jane?
She then whines that Ruth's "commentaries, and only" those appear at The Common Ills. Uh, Jane, Ruth's website is Ruth's Report. The Common Ills features entries by Isaiah, Ruth, Kat, Beth, Keesha, Kayla, Martha and Shirley and us. We're sure there are others during any given year but Idiot Jane is e-mailing The Common Ills to complain that only Ruth appears and Jane doesn't know the first damn thing she's talking about.
Does it matter?
She calls Ruth "pathetic" based on her belief that Ruth doesn't "have the facts correct". Jane, you're ass is showing -- and it's ugly as your face.
She goes on to accuse Ruth of a number of 'crimes' including that Ruth believes that the "equal time" doctrine still exists.
Equal time?
When did Ruth write about equal time?
Oh, in her year-in-review Friday. The one where she wrote, "What I do know is that there used to be a thing called 'equal time'."
Ruth writes that there used to be something called equal time and Jane wants to 'correct' Ruth (in a rude manner) that "there is no longer" equal time? Uh, Idiot, Ruth knew that. Why do you think she said "used to be"?
The sentence where she 'corrects' Ruth is next to one that's especially funny when you grasp that Jane's an idiot accusing Ruth of things she never did: "There is no accountability." Certainly not on your end, Jane.
She then wants to lecture Ruth about equal time and sound off: "Glad you're paying attention." Well Ruth was paying attention, Jane, you're the idiot who can't read.
Jane's all upset that Ruth was harsh with Professional Trash Marcy Winograd. Let's stop here for just one moment. Thus far, we've just toyed with Marcy. We're not "pajama bloggers." We're two wealthy women. Though we don't care for Jane Harman, piss us off and we'll throw all of our support behind her. Is that clear? We could sell her to a number of voters in her district (especially women) right now. We know how to do it and we have the money to throw around to do so. Marcy Winograd's Brigade of Whores better back the hell off or we'll show you the ugly that has you running from the mirrors each morning. We are not joking.
Jane wants the world to know that Marcy "ran, quite successfully in many ways, in 2006" -- uh, Jane, who won?
See, Jane, here's reality for you. In a political race, there is a winner. The winner is the one who ran a successful campaign. Jane, you say Marcy ran in 2006. (Jane disputes that Marcy ran for the Democratic Congressional nomination other than 2006 -- she apparently spent 2008 in her crib and missed that run by Marcy -- so we'll use 2006.) Well did Marcy get elected to Congress in 2006?
What's that?
No.
No, she didn't.
She ran a losing campaign.
She wasn't an 'independent,' she wasn't a third party. She ran in a Democratic Party primary trying to get the nomination and she, pay attention, lost.
LOST.
Jane insists, "If you were paying attention to her campaign positions as the facts and politics develop, you would realize that she will not be a rubber stamp for President Obama." She's the one who keeps saying it, Jane. She's the one who refuses to say, "If you send me to DC, you'll be sending a fighter. I will fight for what's right and take on anyone, regardless of whether it's a Republican or Barack Obama. I will stand up for the people."
If Marcy said something like that, we'd leave her alone.
But Marcy keeps going on Lila Garrett's show and saying something quite differently. It's not Ruth's job, or Elaine's job or our job to go to Marcy's campaign website. Lila gives her at least 20 minutes of radio airtime a month to talk up her own campaign. That means we've heard speak about her positions and campaign for nearly six hours this year alone. If in six hours, she can't state what she stands for clearly, she not much of a candidate.
Marcy Winograd does not call out the Afghanistan escalation when she's on with Lila. She makes excuses for Barack. We don't give a damn what her campaign site says, we've heard her on the radio. She's just another toe-the-line apologist.
If that's not what she is, she needs to make that damn clear.
Jane closes by insisting that she hopes Ruth will "take more time to get your facts straight." Ruth didn't make any mistakes, Ruth had her facts. It's Jane H. that doesn't know what the hell she's writing about.
Now remember how Jane wasn't sure if Ruth had gotten the earlier e-mail?
She's talking about when Ruth wrote about Marcy Winograd before.
But, pay attention, Ruth never wrote about Marcy before at The Common Ills. Ruth does write about Marcy at her own website. Though Ruth is more than welcome to cross-post to the mirror site for The Common Ills, she doesn't. The only thing of Ruth's that goes to the mirror site currently and so far is Ruth's entries that she writes for The Common Ills.
Point?
Jane H. is pissed at all of the comments Ruth has made about Marcy at Ruth's website. Why is she using the contact form at the mirror site?
Jane can't figure out where she read something. Who's the idiot?
Too many more of those Whores show up and Jane Harman's going to have a war chest because we'll donate to the max and we'll call in favors and get others to donate as well. We'll camp out at the Hilton in LA and work those voters in the district and explain to them why Jane Harman needs to be re-elected.
Again, we're not Jane Harman fans. Anyone who's read The Common Ills for any length of time should know one of our positions (C.I.'s) very clearly.
But if Marcy Winograd's Brigade of Whores doesn't learn real quick how to curb themselves on their leash, we'll show you how a campaign is won and how a campaign is lost.
And if Marcy doesn't want to be called out, she can stop act like such a simpering coward. Her first step should be to stop praising Barack Obama. He's not done a damn thing worthy of praise and if she wants to win the primary, she better grasp she needs to energize as many discontented voters as she can. The contented? If they're contented right now, they're are already going to vote for Jane Harman.
The discontented? Those are the ones Marcy needs to energize. She needs to give those voters a reason to turn out and vote in a primary for an off-year election.
Does she not get that? Is she as stupid as her Brigade of Whores?
Possibly. That would explain why she's a loser.
But here's your tip, Jane H., the only way that Marcy can beat Jane Harman is to energize the discontented voters. Why are they discontented? Because they thought they were electing 'change' and they weren't. Barack has disappointed them.
Jane Harman's already standing with Barack. Marcy wants to defeat her? By being the new Jane Harman? It won't work.
Jane Harman's already standing by Barack. Jane Harman's also already in office. Which means she has the seniority to steer many things (pork) back home that newcomer Marcy wouldn't be able to.
Jane H. thinks Marcy Winograd's biggest problem is Ruth.
Marcy Winograd's biggest problem is Marcy Winograd.
After that, it's idiots like Jane H.
-------------
Jim note added 1-6-10: Jane H. wrote an abusive e-mail. At The Common Ills's main page, this is noted:
Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting. This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.
Jane H.'s e-mail was not quoted in full but for the two who e-mail repeatedly saying, "I thought . . ." At Third, you write us, it's a letter to the editor and we'll quote it unless you say otherwise. C.I. and Ava brought that e-mail over to Third to write about and it was an abusive and offensive e-mail but even if it hadn't been, the pull quotes are more than fine. And Jane H. got a heads up because Ava and C.I. wrote her a reply which Dallas sent out Saturday night (before or after he took the screen snap used for this article). Jane H.'s response to the e-mail was go ahead and that she'd said she wanted to be quoted at The Common Ills in her original e-mail (she had said that). C.I.'s not going to allow Jane H.'s trash to go up at The Common Ills. The two e-mailing are clogging up Third's account. I will now begin deleting your e-mails without reading them.
-------
Ava and C.I. added 1-7-10. We have changed the illustration. It is the same one but it is cropped more. Dallas did the screen snap. We didn't study it and he had no reason to. It's no secret that he lives in Dallas; however, he wasn't and we weren't aware that his zip code was included in the larger image. Our apologies to Dallas for not checking the illustration (he says it's not our fault, we say it is, we wrote this piece and we put in the illustration) and we regret that his personal info was up here.
