Deleted posts? Ed Cone and John Edwards colaboration? Or just Ed Cone's shame?

2007-12-27T17:26:00.000-08:00

Has Ed Cone sunk to a new low as a man who allows the degradation of women on his blog and then goes on to delink the posts in question as national attention is called to this and his relationship with presidential candidate John Edwards? Or is this a glitch in retrieval of his archives by search engines, or the typepad system?

In the May 1, 2007 post below, entitled Word UP, are now broken links to posts made on Cone's blog by he and his 'community of bloggers', who espouse 'building community through blogging' while attacking others. With me, this took the form of nothing less than a gang bang begun with insensitivity to sexual degradation. When it was over I was allowed no recourse for further comment concerning his audacity for continuing to promote values he clearly, as evidenced by allowing these posts, does not possess.

Has Cone delinked the posts in question, so people can't follow what truly happened, creating kind of a my word against his environment? Tomorrow I will try to repair links so the discussion that generated my posts below can be followed as it occurred.

Images

2007-05-02T08:52:00.000-07:00

I think Ed's response would be different if the same the email I received had been directed at his daughter.

Word UP! Ed Cone and Company

2007-05-01T18:46:00.000-07:00

As the grand master of all things,
and the blogfather of the world,
and certainly, at least,
of the United States,
(God save the Ed King)
or certainly, at least,
of Greensboro, North Carolina,
or certainly, at least,
of Elm Street,
or certainly, at least,
of Waldron Drive,
or certainly, at least,
here,

Ed Cone may have become (the self-appointed) unquestionable determiner, great spiritual leader for appropriate (do unto others) content. No crap. For information on how to learn this the high tech way, visit Ed here but beware this woman might need to be warned not to go in unless she appreciates degradement of women by some men who seem to think it is appropriate to do so (and, just for the clean fun of it, throw in a few ladies too).

But, according to the gospel by Ed,
it is completely clear, certainly as demonstrated in by his posting of the quote below, his values are certainly in line with the Washington Post's and he wouldn't treat, or allow to be treated, any woman in a degrading way. I mean, they are someone's daughter, or wife, after all.

Ed's quote from the Washington Post article:

WaPo:
As women gain visibility in the blogosphere, they are targets of sexual harassment and threats. Men are harassed too, and lack of civility is an abiding problem on the Web. But women, who make up about half the online community, are singled out in more starkly sexually threatening terms......women have censored themselves, turned to private forums or closed comments on blogs. Many use gender-neutral pseudonyms. Some just gut it out. But the effect of repeated harassment, bloggers and experts interviewed said, is to make women reluctant to participate online -- undercutting the promise of the Internet as an egalitarian forum.

Comments:
Demonstrated front and center on this blog. Congratulations, Ed, et all.

Posted by: Ginger Bush Apr 30, 2007 at 07:40 PM

The blockquote above, unbelievably, was posted by a man who had just allowed degradation of women to occur on his blog, as evidenced HERE and HERE, with no one else except the woman banned for their comments or actions. Further, Ed removed his original comment about the ban.

Maybe, as the great director, he should have said "Move along, just move along, folks- stage left now" and in an aside
"Atta boy, Hoggard" when Hoggard became angry, depreciatory and degrading to the point of frenzy at the end of the exchange, stating that societal standards for women didn't apply to all.
Ed then actually came pretty close to saying "Hoggard, your comments are going to make us look like we're the ones that are crazy (hummmm-good observation), in the wrong, and we can't have that, now can we? He may as well have said "because we've got to make sure she's the one blamed, and make all this degradation OK, or at least try to minimize the impact of it as much as we can."

It's the old "lay still now, girl, you asked for it and you're getting what you deserve" mentality employed once again. "It's ok, (since she's not some young girl) we can degrade her and get by with making it all look like it's her fault. Let's just rape her online and be done with it. It's not appropriate, but hey, I'll allow it."

So here's my response to Ed, to his fashionable, egalitarian, well crafted and false evenhandedness:

I can't even believe you had the ego and arrogant disregard to post the Washington Post quote after what happened to Kathy and then on your site with me, even going so far as to promote Hoggard as a 'community leader' after the ugly and unjust comments he made. You ask me to stop? I'll be happy to after you admit the truth.

Further, the apology "I never accepted" from Rosenburg apparently came by email. As I said, and you continue to misrepresent, I deleted it before I even heard it was an apology, if in fact it was one. Given that I had related online that the sexually threatening, frightening and sadistic email I had received from someone unknown became a joke between he and David, did Rosenburg really expect me to open it? How was I to know what his email held or contained??

I appreciate that Jim made the effort. And I accept his apology. I do not appreciate Wharton's tongue-in cheek apology; it was not sincere, though it masqueraded as such, for the banter continued on your blog. Through that continuation the banter sanctioned making fun of something that was sexually degrading, sadistic, and frightening to me. The last time I read at Wharton's and Rosenburg's, it may continue still, if the reference to lunch and sex are indicators. In their defense, they may have begun this banter before I saw their comments on your blog. In any event, their comments were at the very least inappropriate given the tone and subject matter that were being discussed.

Additionally, the actions of others on your blog, beyond Rosenburg's and Wharton's, degrading comments directed to me, were way over the top. The 'over the top' response you try to attribute to me in defense of your ban should have been in all fairness applied to their actions also. That didn't happen. I never asked you to delete their comments or ban them. In light of my ban, your "I let people police themselves" response is garbage, an attempt to sanction the actions of Hoggard, Stench (and company), protecting their right to free speech while condemning my own.

The comments made on blogs in Greensboro every day, including yours, are far more antisocial and profane than I have ever been, and many are made by the very same people who responded on your blog to the threads in question.

So, ban away Ed; it is the actions of some of your commenter’s and your own narrow point of view that is reflected. Why not name your blog "Ed Cone's Degradation of Ginger Bush Free for All". That's certainly more appropriate than the fallacious "Word Up."

Ginger Bush on Ed Cone and Company

Deleted posts? Ed Cone and John Edwards colaboration? Or just Ed Cone's shame?

Images

Word UP! Ed Cone and Company