sibannac said:
I believe Andy restarted this thread. He could have commented on Riley's blog and perhaps he should --- here he gets a large sympathy vote.
Perhaps Riley should have thought about that before making disparaging remarks about Andy and others here and on her blog. Plus, on her blog Riley can and has exerted control on what people post. Who are you to tell Andy where to post his reponses to attacks on him and his business?
Ask yourself this: What purpose do her postings have? What is there to be gained by attacking former employers? In the real world, that sort of behaviour is a one-way ticker to personal marginalization and constant professional under-employment. Guess what? In this business, it's the same and the consequences can be more dire.
Riley's shocking lack of discretion and need for a filter (or at least an outlet for her personal demons) has only verified my (and I would guess numerous others') complete lack of desire to see her.
sibannac said:
Personal threats and attacks should be expected and tolerated for someone offering an opinion? That should never happen either at the SPs workplace or on a public board. In fact the question of intimidation Riley felt was never addressed and perhaps this is what leads to Riley's discontentment, I know it would be a source of irritation for me.
While Riley's bog maybe a career limiting move should she ever wish to return to agency work, what I've learned in the past is that there are often two sides to the story with neither side representing the whole truth. For an agency to protect "it's business" it can be done without threats from anyone associated or supporting the agency.
"Threats" simply meant that an agency tell her to cease and desist or be prepared for postings in-kind, aka, the other side of the story, ugly warts and all. You know, something like "cease and desist or else I'll tell the WHOLE story, and you won't like it." At most, it extended to legal threats, which would be within one of the named parties' rights.
(Seriously, stop being such a drama queen - I am the last person to support physical or emotional threats. You're really grasping with that line of thought.)
Personal attacks ARE fair once someone posts the kind of information Riley made public. She has attacked numerous individuals' credibility and as such, she should expect to have herself held accountable. That includes posting the same type of brutal "honesty" that she has shown. Again, if one can dish it out, then one should be able to take it. "Opinions" are a two-way street. Once dirty laundry has been aired, then a no-holds-barred response should be expected.
Remember, Riley started this over the past couple of months by posting her "opinions" about her personal and business dealings with various agencies and individuals on TERB, her blog and other places. Some have since been deleted, but by then, the damage was already done.
So far, I would say the agencies and individuals (including SPs who may or may not be online to defend themselves or respond) involved have shown amazing restraint in their responses.
sibannac said:
As said by Andy in his post, she has the right to post what she wants on her blog. Part of the problem I have with Andy's response here is that he knows full well that his supporters will come to his aid ... in my eyes the appropriate place for that kind of response was on Riley's blog.
The suggestion that you make that simply because she had issues with Mirage she should seek "Professional help" is a great example of this in that your sole attempt here is to ridicule her position as being only the fruits of an unstable mind. That is hardly a fair argument for someone offering their opinion and frankly does Andy no assistance in that it kind of makes this look like an attempt to bully or intimidate Riley, a charge she has made against Mirage.
Riley made her opinions public on TERB and her blog (and probably elsewhere.) Andy is an advertiser and respected member here. Why should Andy, or anyone else for that matter, drive traffic to her blog, particularly when she can choose censor postings? He chose to respond in a forum where he was called out - one that he does business on - to explain his side of things. That is at least as much his right as Riley's, don't you think? Or does your sense of fairness only extend one way?
(As an aside: In fact, the courts have found that blogs and anonymity do not allow one to post whatever you want with impunity. See the recent case involving a model in New York.)
As far as her seeking professional help
or another outlet for her issues (which you conveniently ignored), that was based on the sum of her postings, which again, if you took the time to read objectively, show a pattern of behaviour that led me to believe there are some deep-seated issues that she needs to resolve. That is MY opinion that I took a long time to formulate and think about before posting it here and I am willing to be accountable and answer for it.
But carry on with blindly defending her.
sibannac said:
Of course you say this be taken as a criticism, how else can anyone take this. As far as I'm concerned there are three positions here --- Riley's, Andy's and the unvarnished truth.
I wholeheartedly agree with that and have stated such on numerous occasions in almost every disagreement on TERB and elsewhere.
However, Riley is the one repeatedly posting her "opinions" and claiming her version to be the complete truth in this situation while refusing to believe or acknowledge any other version of the events. To me, that's a sign of someone with serious issues in need of a reality check.
Having been down the path Riley is on, my post truly was a warning. Solely blaming others for one's own faults is a path to nowhere, or worse, ruination.
