Let me ask a question.
What do you do when you don’t like what someone says and you have the ability as a self-publisher to respond in one of your own articles?
My answer is-you write an article of your own in response. You do not get other people to take photographs of that person’s comments everywhere online for “proof” of some perceived wrongdoing, then call the person a cyber coward for putting her beliefs under her own name. Because that is a non sequitur.
You don’t like me writing about famous people because that is what you do? Well, stop following me on twitter. It’s silly. I know you are following me because I can see you in my list of followers. I’m sure you’d like me off of that other site-problem though. To ban me would vault me to a journalistic level that would give me a lot of strength. Like a painter whose painting has been stolen. Yes, his painting has been stolen, but what a victory to know his work has been deemed important enough to be stolen!
No, I am not Bernstein and Woodward exposing Watergate. I’m not that important. But banning me would give me a credibility that I would consider a wonderful, fabulous accomplishment, even if for an idiotic reason.
When I died, I could have it said about me,” well, she wrote a lot of poetry, but one time she actually was dangerous enough that she had to be banned from writing on an online magazine.”
What for they will ask? Did she expose a dirty politician?
“No, she just made a reference to having letters signed by Agatha Christie, Edward Hardwicke, and David Suchet.”
I’m confused. Who cares?
“Oh, didn’t you know? It seems a woman similar to Mrs. Van Hopper was the big cheese there. She made it known that Ms. Robison was there only to spread harm to her and Bam! There goes Ms. Robison. But meanwhile, Ms. Robison couldn’t stop laughing because she couldn’t care less about a site where working there helped her starve to death she made so little. And she knew that the name Mrs. Van Hopper was a name that would not make sense to that other person.”