Alex Blaze

Robin McGehee takes on anonymous blog commenter

Filed By Alex Blaze | October 10, 2010 5:30 PM | comments

Filed in: The Movement
Tags:

Bil posted a few months ago that Robin McGehee of GetEQUAL makes $90K a year, and now we know where a little of that money is going:

Tweet-1.png

Tweet-2.png

(If you can't see the screenshots, they're two Tweets from her offering $500 for identifying information for a prolific blog commenter, AndrewW.)

Now, we here at Bilerico know AndrewW. He's been around for a while, generally asking for accountability and offering $100 million and promising polling data that can only be released when it's completely stale.

He's a character, that's for sure. But that doesn't make it appropriate for someone trying to be a community leader to attack him personally.

The first thing I always think about when someone complains about how queer people comment anonymously online is the fact that not everyone is out of the closet. There are discussions of internet anonymity in straight forums, but we have a special history when it comes to keeping our identities out of the public sphere. I'd guess that many, if not most, people who comment on queer blogs aren't out to 100% of the people in their lives, so it's only logical that people want to discuss these issues privately and not create a Google-able record of their sexuality, gender history, and extracurricular activities.

Queer people have a brilliant and creative history of maintaining privacy and protecting people's identities as a community. LGBT people were behind the creation of the hanky code and stealth and activist groups where everyone goes by "Mary" and books of pictures of anonymous people not showing their faces. We've been on the cutting edge of technology that allows communication but protects privacy, like pagers and zines and chat rooms. E.M. Forster didn't publish his famous novel that involved gay characters until after he was dead, Yukio Mishima wrote Confessions of a Mask, and Eve Sedgewick's famous theoretical work is The Epistemology of the Closet.

Anonymity and queer people isn't anything new, and it isn't behind a rise of incivility among LGBT people as there are plenty of people willing to attach their names to statements who are plenty uncivil. Take, for example, Robin McGehee's statements on other LGBT activists. She's not a shrinking violet either. (And if Geoff Kors or Robin Tyler or Judy Appel or Carolyn Laub or any of the other activists she criticized offered money for her personal information, that'd be troubling too. This post isn't about McGehee herself.)

Which makes me wonder what exactly McGehee wants with this information, since people don't pay $500 for nothing. Does she want to contact his ISP and get him cut off from internet access? Does she want to contact his employer? Does she want to write him a letter? Does she want to publish personal contact information and let her Twitter followers do the rest?

I'm not saying because I particularly like AndrewW or am a personal friend of his. He disagrees with me more often than not here on Bilerico and doesn't have much of a problem with saying it, usually bluntly. I would, of course, prefer it if everyone applauded all the work I do on this site, but that's not a realistic expectation. When you put your beliefs in the public sphere, especially political beliefs, some people will always disagree. That's just the way the world works.

So I can see how it's not fun for Robin McGehee to have to listen to someone who will never in a million years be pleased with her work. But people who set themselves up as community leaders have an obligation to not let pride get in the way of clear thinking or the larger goals at hand, and tweets like the ones above should make people wonder where her commitments lie.

Since the people I know who are involved in GetEQUAL love Martin Luther King, I should mention that in Stride Toward Freedom, King's memoirs of the Montgomery bus boycott, he says that he offered his resignation as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association and leader of the boycott several times. And not for any selfish reasons: white segregationists were distributing tracts about him, posing as concerned black citizens fed up with King, and he didn't want to let his identity get in the way of the larger movement. Even when another minister quit his role in organizing the boycott and accused boycott leaders of misappropriating funds, King's first instinct was reconciliation and forgiveness, not retaliation. It's hard to imagine him offering money to people for help retaliating against his critics.

Not everyone agrees with GetEQUAL's tactics and goals. If everyone did, there'd be no need for the group. But if leadership is their goal, they do have an obligation to make their fight not about their hurt egos, but about the betterment of the community (or full equality now, in their terms).

Unless that's not their goal and it's all about that sweet salary and the applause and feeling good about the work one is doing. In which case, fine, but don't expect much positive work from people like that and they should be prepared for a lot more criticism.


Recent Entries Filed under The Movement:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


someone's ears are ringing in texas... :)

Kathleen O'Neal | October 10, 2010 6:15 PM

Honestly, if Andrew W. would use his real name and allow himself to be more accountable for his words, I could see him being a big asset to the LGBT community. I think that offering exorbitant amounts of money for "a plan" while remaining anonymous is inherently unserious. However, after reading many of his comments I feel that he represents a viewpoint that many (often silent) LGBT people share. Since coming out and becoming involved in the community I have often expressed concern that major LGBT organizations have channeled resources into projects that do very little that is concrete to end discrimination against LGBT persons. Many projects seemed geared primarily or solely towards preaching to the proverbial choir, instead of reaching out to those who are unfamiliar with our message. I also worry that not enough attention is paid to a strategy that holds politicians accountable for their actions. Finally, a lot of the discourse surrounding people being "born gay" has always struck me as problematic given the various ways people experience their sexual orientations and gender identities. It also sets us up to be seen as a permanent minority, as opposed to advocating for everyone's freedom to make their own choices about who they pursue sexual and romantic relationships with. It should be obvious at this point that the larger LGBT movement does need a fresh strategy and more accountability. That involves people speaking out and making their faces seen and names known even when it can be uncomfortable to do so.

Have to agree, Alex. I'm not sure exactly what would change if we could prove the true identity of AndrewW. His opinions and criticisms will not become invalid just because we know who said it. Unless McGehee is hoping for a Perry Mason moment where she hopes to expose some right-wing nut pretending to be AndrewW, it seems pointless. I think it says more about McGehee that she would offer a reward to track down someone who posts on message boards than it does about AndrewW.
You know that there is a part of me that wishes AndrewW is a confident, 100% out and proud man and just "owns it", collects the money for himself and still speaks his mind. It would be an epic fail for McGehee

free the blog commenter 1 | October 10, 2010 7:19 PM

I don't even know who Andrew W is, but the fact that this bureaucrat is riding shotgun for a blog commenter makes me want to start a Free Andrew W movement!

PhoenixRising | October 10, 2010 7:22 PM

I can't imagine what Robin was thinking.

What would change about the specific content from the nattering nabob of negativity that is AndrewW if she knew who it was? What would she do with this information?

And most importantly, how does she expect to be taken seriously as a leader engaged in an online pissing match/witchhunt with/for someone who, hate to say it, may not even exist?

It's lazy, ad hominem mob rule--and that's unworthy of anyone's respect.

finding where andrew w lives, where he works(ed), what business he co-founded, where he was educated for both under grad and grad, who he co-habitates with, what property he owns, when he made campaign contributions to the republican national committee and so forth are quite easy to find with the myriad of public information available on the internet.

god bless IP address in the most atheistic way one possibly can.

hey robin, pay up! ;)

Kathy Padilla | October 11, 2010 12:10 PM

There certainly are times when outing someone is justified. But people need to make the case for doing so.

Especially if you're the leader of an organization. If Robin believes such reasons exist - she owes the public an explanation as to why. Does she think he's a CREEP/Segretti/Rovian plant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks

Or has he harmed others in some way? Does she want to hold him accountable via his own standards?

Make your case, Robin.

Robin doesn't have a "case" she is just avoiding conversation. I have asked very simple questions - she doesn't have answers. Now, she has her friends attacking our server. That's how a terrorist behaves, not a leader.

Oddly enough Robin believes her tactics are somehow more valuable because we know who she is. I think ideas should be judged on their merit, not the messenger.

Yes, I have had difficulty making sense of GetEQUAL and its tactics. I do not believe they are effective and I am not alone. I also do not believe that HRC is effective and I have expressed that many times.

All I have requested is that we create a strategy to WIN, based on what we KNOW is effective and that we hold every tactic, method and strategy accountable. It isn't about Robin, it is about their self-described "crazy shenanigans." I actually think Robin was lucky to secure enough money from Jonathan Lewis to secure a +$90,000 salary, plus benefits. But, at the same time I think Lewis has wasted a million dollars. That's money that could have been be put into something we know is effective.

I have made significant investment in trying to solve our equality. Many people in the community will acknowledge that we have had in-depth conversations. I have paid for a significant amount of research that has lead to the creation of several campaigns. It has tried to find a useful purpose for HRC, GLAAD and the Task Force. As this process completes I will share that with LGBT community leaders AND everyone in our community.

I do not come from the LGBT Advocacy industry, I come from the business community. We create strategies and plans BEFORE we jump in the game. I haven't attempted to sell anyone a solution because it isn't complete yet. I have tried very hard to get all of us to embrace accountability. A few organization and some individuals don't like that idea, but I believe it is necessary.

It is disingenuous for Robin to reject accountability when that has been her rallying call. She wants to hold Democrats, HRC and politicians accountable. Sadly, that doesn't apply to her?

I fully expect that when my efforts are complete and I seek to enroll the LGBT community there will be plenty of questions. I will answer them. All of them.

Finally, regarding "anonymity," I felt that was necessary because I do not believe our most important issues are about personalities, but rather ideas and strategies. Plus, the majority of comments on our LGBT websites are anonymous. I think it allows people to express more - good or bad.

I have offered money for ideas and purchased several. I value ideas and after 40 years of little progress I think it is time to try something new. I have never suggested I had all the answers but I have relentlessly continued to ask the questions. Those questions have lead to many answers. We need to finally organize around "winning."

Winning this struggle is worth a lot more than $500.

is winning this struggle also worth more than the $250 campaign contribution you made to the republican national committee in 2005?

just curious...

Is that all you've got? What about my contributions to PETA and GreenPeace?

You're never going to win the $500 unless you do your homework Conrad.

If you're trying to make some cash - do this, make sense of GetEQUAL and I'll give you $50,000. Tell me how they have changed minds or votes and I will pay you. That's the problem with GetEQUAL, not me.

If you can't do that fine. Can you dance around in a g-string and smile? My sense is that may be worth a few hundred dollars. Of course, I have no idea who you are. I can only judge you on your "words." Get used to it - you are better off.

Interesting company. The Beachcomber technology sounds great:

BeachComber detects CW signals in an input signal that is hundreds of megahertz in bandwidth. Using power spectrum techniques, it provides sub-band tuned snippets of the detected CW signal to a post-processing system for characterization. In order to optimize the sub-band tuning and post-processing, this system applies a set of heuristics to each signal detected and some associated historical information. These rules determine when sub-band tuned snippets of the input signal data are captured for post-processing. Also, the system provides a panoramic environment display that graphically pictures a time versus frequency plot of the signals detected."

Should I invest?

oh honey, sounds like you've got a bad case of multiple personality disorder...

some one call a doctor!

Where am I tonight smarty pants?

Andrew I don't care what other people say. I think you are sexy.

Sorry Andrew W I call BS. Bilerico seems to be the only site who allows you to post because of your shenanigans. I applaud Robin because frankly it would probably prove what I have felt along. That you are one of those who posts on the internet about how important you are etc. and everything you claim is only in your mind. You refuse to show any proof of anything you claim about your million dollar study. The anonymity is so you can make up your stories without consequences. I think you are like that women who claimed to be a sick teenager. It's all attention without producing one thing.

I am going to reply to you TimW even though you are anonymous. I'm not going to search your IP address and try to find out who your "really" are.

You have taken exception to some of my ideas and opinions and I think that's great, but at some point I wish your comments were about what I have said and not just your attacks on my credibility. I haven't offered a Strategy (yet) and I am not asking for donations or participation. I've only suggested we need a strategy and we need accountability for tactics, methods and strategies.

Chris Geidner has written recently about the state of our movement. Robin McGehee was quoted in that article about "having no idea" how we could win. That was a very honest comment and I appreciate robin for making that admission. It's an important conversation and i think we should all participate, even anonymously.

I think the LGBT internet community can be very effective in providing the platform for important conversations and the exchange of ideas. Two site have blocked me from commenting and I understand why. John Aravosis and Pam Spaulding do not tolerate differing opinions, so they block them. Their audience doesn't get the full input of our community and that's their choice. It is part of the story and that is fine with me.

I'm just one guy Tim. What I have been doing is part of the record. I have paid people for their ideas and I have invested in research, campaign development and the creation of media for the benefit of the LGBT community. I did that simply because I want to solve this. I don't care if anyone knows who I am or who you are - that isn't important, winning is.

Please you were banned by Pam and John for many reasons some of the same things you do here and not because they don't like opposition. You were banned because one you tend to hijack a thread like you did with the UCC thread on here. Two you attack everything with show me the proof yet when anyone asks you for the same in return especially about your "study" you refuse to by either ignoring it or giving the insulting answer that you will release it when the unwashed masses are "ready for it". You say that what you have been doing is on the record. Really???? Maybe on your record because you have yet to show on any of the websites that you have posted on anything on the record. At some point John and Pam realized that you were full of it as did most of their posters and since you could not show one piece of evidence about your "study" you were banned. It's really that simple. It had nothing to do with your stances it came down to you constant claims about your study without a shread of proof.

Ok, I admit it, I have always known who Andrew is:
He is Author and Playright Oscar Wilde, still alive thanks to a magic portrait

"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

Oscar Wilde

Watch out, Andrew! They'll block traffic in your neighborhood!

Nothing against GetEqual, but this is really petty. I disagree with him a lot, but he's one voice among many. The bullying comment is really out of line, too, with all the news lately of suicides due to bullying.

there is nothing at all inappropriate in engaging in anonymous political speech--in fact, does everyone remember that thomas paine wrote "common sense" anonymously?

so...why does robin mcghee hate america?

I do agree with Alex. I have no idea what McGehee thinks she would gain from this, and it strikes me as an extraordinarily petty exercise.

That being said, Andrew, the chickens are coming home to roost. I'm always amused by how clueless commenters are about how much we bloggers actually know about them. For instance, I can find information about people's dating/marrying lives and that of their parents simply by following ISP numbers and e-mail addresses; I can tell how many times you visit the blog, how long you stay each time, and so on. I just choose not to use the information.

Perhaps, Andrew, this is a clue that it's time to either stop posting altogether or at least stop posting unproductive and inflated comments about your wealth, imaginary or not. As I wrote, McGeehee is being very petty and it's unbecoming of someone who wants to portray herself as a leader to, in essence, lay a bounty on someone's head. But then, usually, you are quite petty too. I think perhaps the two of you make a good match.

I should clarify: the point of suggesting to Andrew that he might consider not posting or at least not be so unproductive is not to silence his voice, such as it is. If anything, his presence on posts frequently serves to shut down discussions altogether.

People have a right to be obnoxious online. But if you persist in shutting people down with the argument that your way is better, it's inevitable that someone, somewhere will want to know more.

I enjoy the uncensored exchange of ideas. I think it helps our community. I say that without making any references to what I may or may not think about you. I only talk about your "ideas" and "opinions."

Hey, I support your right to say whatever, whenever, and I think McGeeHee is being ridiculous. But let's face it, your pettiness isn't just about being "personal," it's about refusing to stop hijacking threads simply because no one will respond to you, and a myriad other things. And you've often shown up here making all kinds of unproven assertions about people and organisations, usually in a bullying tone. Besides, I recall you making a thinly-veiled threat to me that I was "best being left alone" by you. Using money to prove your worth and hinting that you could use your power is also probably the best way to inspire someone to use money to get back at you.

None of that justifies Robin's silliness, and I think it sets a lousy precedent which I hope no one else follows up on. If she can't stand critique, public life is probably not the best place for her, and even if it's her private funds, I have to wonder about the fate of an organisation with her at the helm (as it is, I'm hardly one of its admirers). At the same time, there's critique and there's showing up just to make your voice heard without engaging in dialogue. As I said, it looks like you deserve each other.

police state | October 12, 2010 8:34 AM

You have mentioned your "police powers" before here a few times. I find it ironic that a purported progressive would be so military intelligence-like in their braggadacio threats about owning personal info that they might release if they need to. Are you with the CIA? You'd have been great working for them in Chile about 1974. What a hypocrite. And a bully.

Nice try at distorting my words. No, the point is simply that all of us have a ton of information, but we don't choose to use that in any way. Mainly because, really, comment threads are not what define our lives. Clearly, Robin has issues if she thinks that a commenter like Andrew who exists mostly in his own head is some kind of threat to her.

Hypocrites and bullies are people who show up with fake names and call people CIA agents.

police state | October 12, 2010 9:52 AM

Nice try but you're busted. I agree that someone who calls "people" the CIA could be a bully. I did not call "people" the CIA. I called YOU the CIA. Not just "people" but YOU based on your actions, your words and your repeated threats to use your secret info against people on this blog. Could your hate-on for Andrew W be because he is actually liked by many readers and maintains some humour and humanity despite his opinions, whereas you are not and do not?

a) I've never threatened anyone. I've said *we* could, but choose not to. But, yes, I think it's useful to remind folks that we know a lot but they're simply not important enough for us to hunt down with reward offers.
b) You and Andrew just keep on dreaming your big dreams. You're both huge, HUGE, in the world of comment threads.

FWIW I was just taking Yasmin's comments as a warning that we don't really have as much privacy as we think we do in the online world. Which is completely true. We can do our best, but at some point if someone is malicious they can figure things out.

This is ridiculous. I mean Absurd with a capital A. I had a bad bout of depression today, and for some ungodly reason this incident made me laugh. You can't be serious? A reward for a commenter's identity? How is this supposed to help? What a strange way to burn $500.

Geeze folks, go donate this money to some grassroots LGBT youth groups. Kids change more people's minds than adults do.

Renee Thomas | October 11, 2010 6:14 AM

Andrew,

Knowing who and what you are has never been much of a challenge. You're simply a pointless and utterly unproductive waste of time . . .

I couldn’t care less who you really are - that's of course assuming you exist at all.

Andrew is probably one of the most annoying and unproductive people who comments here. There are times when I would hope he would just go away and do his armchair quarterbacking somewhere else.

HOWEVER, as a person who is a constant target for hateful right-wing trans people who do nothing but tear people down because as the only pleasure in their life, Andrew is a total sweetheart compared to them. Just being annoying is a bad habit several others have, but I do not recall any of his comments getting deleted. It means he always goes for the subject and idea, but not for the person. It's a lesson even I still have to learn at times.

I have also seen Andrew make wonder, supportive comments to the very people who he has argued with. In my opinion, Robin has gone overboard and needs to understand the concept of "compartmentalization." She cannot separate the person from the comments, where as Andrew has shown he can. I may have given him a hard time here, and probably will in the future, but in this case, I'll stand beside him.

As for Robin, if you want to spend your money wisely, give it to a safe schools project somewhere. Our youths are suffering far more than you ever have.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 11, 2010 8:12 AM

AndrewW is harmless by virtue of his lack of ideas and posturing.

Maybe Robin should get out of the kitchen.

You believe in Mass Demonstration and I believe in Mass Conversation.

I'm not sure what Robin believes.

While sometimes Andrew W seems to be broken record repeating the same old points that demonstration and protest do not produce results and that those groups we contribute to lobby for us seem to be ineffective, I would be the first to support his right to voice his opinion stating such. Sometimes his posts have all the charm of a housefly at the dinner table, he does have a right to speak his mind as long as it is done so in a civil manner. I personally do not believe that keeping silent while trying to win Equality by lobbying your neighbors to vote for LGBT friendly representation in those elected will not work within our lifetimes. I do never the less respect his opinion to say what he thinks and I do not feel anyone has a right to "out" who he is except he himself. Personally I do not care if he is actually Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition. (No I do think Andrew W is Andrea Lafferty) As long as Bllerico is happy to have his comments, then I can accept them as well, even if I disagree with some of his ideas as to how we will get from where we are to were we would all hope to be as far as Equality. Besides if we all agreed on things what would be the point of having a place to add comments?

I don't always agree with Andrew W but I think his posts have value. Even if I knew who AndrewW was I wouldn't give him up for 500,5000, or even 50,000.It's his choice to remain anonymous or not or out or not.

See I disagree. His posts have little value. He goes on here and other sites until he was banned and belittled everyone else's position including GetEqual calling them shortsighted and claimed and has for probably close to a year and a half now he has the answers. Of course we can't see the answers because we aren't ready for them. But just you wait eventually the messiah is going to bless us with everything we need to know. Frankly it's dangerous to buy in to someone like that. They say the proof is in the puddin and contrary to his assertion there is no record anywhere except in his posts that a study even exists. It allows to sit behind a screen and belittle everyone else without adding any concrete solutions. His answer when pressed well you just have to wait for my "study". When asked why he hasn't released anything from it he claims that the community isn't ready for it yet. If that isn't a Messiah complex I'm not sure what qualifies.

Tim, surely it hasn't escaped you that this thread is about Robin. Do you agree with Robin's tactics? Do you want to support Robin and perhaps increase the bounty?

I kinda like some of the Get Equal antics. But the more I have thought about Robin's reward or bounty the more it troubles me. Is Robin frustrated by calls for accountability to the point of "losing it"? Seems a bit hypocritical and childish. I think Robin should consider issuing both a retraction and an apology.

I don't mind anonymity per se but I have never seen Andrew write one productive, support word. From my point of view - it is very troubling to write something personal or political from the heart and mind of an activist and see, again and again, Andrew W make one remark that takes all the air out of the room.
Compassion, openness, community. Sometimes what is written is for someone who is wanting, waiting to be inspired.

I think it is appropriate to disclose that you were one of the Presidential "hecklers." No, I don't support that behavior because it isn't in any way productive. In fact, I believe it has hurt us by alienating our friends.

I fully agree that we need to inspire or motivate participation, but we are better than simply defaulting to the tired tactics of the 1960s.

The GetEQUAL strategy of embarrassing, irritating or inconveniencing people into submission or agreement is counterproductive. Nobody has ever provided a rationale for those actions. Plus, no other liberal or progressive group heckled the President, interrupted Committee hearings or stopped traffic. They know better.

The act of protest is ineffective. You simply cannot find a single successful protest in the last 20 years. In 2006 4 million people marched in cities across the country "demanding" immigration reform - nothing happened. Recently, Dan Choi acknowledged that others "progressives and liberals" at that tiny March in DC disrespected or shunned him. What did he expect?

I believe there is a role for activism as a reaction to an event or injustice, but I see no reason for trying to "make trouble." The world is too fast and too smart for any of these publicity stunts to have any real value. This explains why the mainstream media has ignored GetEQUAl's "crazy shenanigans."

Accountability means we honestly and objectively determine what tactics, methods and strategies are effective. Doing so will enable us to create a winning strategy that will "inspire" participation. (Maybe that's the fairest way to judge how effective something is - participation. GetEQUAL hasn't had any).

I appreciate your enthusiasm and your incredible record of contribution to the LGBT movement. I'm simply asking you to reconsider and rethink our next steps. After November it will be 1994 all over again - repeating the last 16 years of "try everything" and maybe "someday" we'll succeed isn't good enough. We are better than that and the new world we live in requires us to be a little more creative than simply copying tactics from a different era.

He's a character, that's for sure. But that doesn't make it appropriate for someone trying to be a community leader to attack him personally.
Two questions.

(1) Why? When decorum becomes repression....

(2) How is wanting to find out who is behind his crap 'attacking'?

1. I'm moving away from the idea that decorum is always repressive or that it has no place in advancing various agendas, so you're going to have to explain how decorum is repressing anyone here. AndrewW violates decorum by posing a bunch of bluntly-worded comments all over the internet about GetEQUAL, McGehee violates it by "calling out" various gay activists she blames for Prop 8 passing and by trying to out a blog commenter... I'm not seeing anyone particularly repressed by being forced to be civil.

2. She made it about him and not his ideas, she asked for personal information that is useless to her unless it's for an attack (calling his employer, etc.), and she already knows who's behind "his crap." It's not like she's going to learn that AndrewW is really Oscar Wilde's ghost or Maggie Gallagher, the most she can learn is that he's some schmoe she's never heard of anyway.

Am I missing something Alex. If she is asking for this information how does she know who is behind this crap?

Now holding tactics and organizations accountable is considered "crap?" Don't tell Robin, she's a whole bunch of accountability.

PhoenixRising | October 11, 2010 3:09 PM

I disagree with that last bit.

She might learn that "AndrewW" is someone who is preserving his anonymity because he is some schmoe EVERYONE has heard of, and he doesn't want his business or residence picketed by the people Robin leads.

All of that is beside the point, though. How would knowing (and having the power to reveal) AndrewW's IRL ID help GetEqual to develop a better, stronger plan for getting our rights that we should all support?

It wouldn't. If Robin wants an open, transparent debate of ideas, you're providing the platform and "AndrewW" hasn't been shy about providing the debate. I'm waiting for a credible explanation from this self-appointed national leader about the other, less damaging way to read her bounty offer.


I'm asking again: Where is the "attack"?

Is there more to this than those two tweets?

In them, the only things "personal" (and this is what I'm getting at by calling decorum repression given that it seems as though anyone can now get away with saying anything by claiming that any and all criticism is "personal" and, therefore, improper; I won't mention J. Michael Bailey and Alice Dreger by name to that effect) I saw in those tweets were the words "bully" and "naysayer."

As to the latter, are you seriously asserting that that word is not applicable to 'AndrewW'?

As to the former, it might not be a word I'd use in this context but, even if its ultimately disprovable, I have a second question regarding this and "naysayer": Under your apparent its-okay-for-decorum-to-repress-if-I-judge-it-to-be-okay standard, how is any criticism ultimatly not "personal" and, therefore, able to be eliminated from legitimate (as declared by whoever has the pull to so declare; again, I won't mention Bailey and Dreger by name) discourse by the amulet of 'its a personal attack'?

How about asking everyone else on Bilerico that posts anonymously (maybe 30-50%) if they'd like Robin McGehee to have their name and address.

Recently, Robin has been angrily blaming the demise of GetEQUAL on me. Then she offers a "reward" for details about my identity and whereabouts. I suspect that once again she has done something without first giving it some thought. The Board (at least two members) weren't aware of it and would have asked her not to do it. But, they're just a temporary, "provisional" Board.

I've never attacked anyone personally and I have never had single comment blocked by Editors. I express ideas and I promote accountability.

 
No one is offering $500 to identify me ... gee, I'm jealous!
 

I think you're worth more than $500. Well, can you dance?

I want to try to complete this conversation about Robin's childish offer for a reward for my "identity." I think it's a non-story, but GetEQUAL has unfortunately done many things that are not well considered. They were hired to "embarrass Democrats" by Jonathan Lewis and Paul Yandura. It is a dumb idea. Maybe Jonathan and Paul will be happy when Republicans take control of the Congress and Obama's neutering is complete, but i don't see any value there. Maybe they will celebrate on November 3rd, but i think most of us will recognize that it is 1994 all over again. It's a wake-up call.

I emailed Robin when she made this "offer" and in her response she copied Paula Brooks from LetzGetReal.com Robin suggested the offer for $500 was Paula's idea. I'm not sure, but Paula and LGR recently blocked me from commenting simply because I questioned GetEQUAL's tactics. Paula joined Aravosis and Spaulding in censoring comments that encourage accountability. I think that is counterproductive. We NEED to exchange ideas and we NEED to question everything we're doing because we're NOT doing well.

Today GetEQUAL spent $50,000 doing another childish stunt in Miami seeking to "embarrass Democrats." It failed. The mainstream media has again ignored this latest stunt and very few in the LGBT media even acknowledged it. I have organized an effort that requested the media ignore GetEQUAL because they did NOT represent the LGBT community. I am not going to take credit for the fact that they have been ignored - instead I would suggest it is just an honest, objective treatment of GetEQUAL. These childish stunts are NOT newsworthy. Worse, they are counterproductive. This is accountability.

I have invited Robin to have conversations about tactics and strategies and she has declined. I have encouraged her and Board members to provide some insight as to the rationale for these actions. They have not. I have offered $50,000 for anyone that can prove anything GetEQUAL has done has changed any minds or votes. Nobody has accepted that challenge.

I wish today's obvious waste of $50,000 could have gone to LGBT organizations reaching out to our scared and confused youth. We must provide them sanctuary from religious bigotry. We must save their lives. Today's attention-seeking grandstanding wasted money that could have saved lives. Pissing on Obama might feel good, but it didn't help us - in fact it just made us look stupid, again. GetEQUAL is alienating our friends. I can't believe anyone reasonably thinks these ego-driven publicity stunts help us in any way. It doesn't add up.

I appreciate the comments within this thread that respect privacy and also embrace accountability. We need to figure out how to win and open, uncensored conversation is the best way to accomplish that. Bilerico has shown a lot of integrity by allowing the fair exchange of ideas. Agreeing is not the purpose, exploring is. Projectors are allowed to explore. WE need to create the path to victory.

Robin is still welcome to call me. Talking is good. She has my number.

Wow where to start with your delusional rantings. First all the mean bloggers are against me because I speak the truth and they won't listen. Gosh you sound like a teabagger. As I told my brother when it was pointed out to him that 4 people weren't talking to him in the family maybe it's time to realize you are the problem and stop blaming everyone else. But no it's all the mean bloggers who won't see me as the messiah.
Second the LGBT media isn't noticing. Not that we have much but every blog I have visited in the last few hours minus this one has a story on it and they are getting their info from Kerry Evewald of The Advocate but yep it's being ignored. Not surprised by the mainstream media though.
And let's see once again you criticize without giving any suggestions to do better other than don't do that. Pretty much typical BS from you.

Okay Heather. Tell Robin to call. I'd like her to make sense of GetEQUAL and I'm not the only one.

This story is beyond belief. An organization is actually spending hard earned resources seeking out identities of anonymous blog posters? Wow.

I always try and do a smell test on things like this. Use the tweets above and instead of having them coming from Robin, have them coming from Joe Solmonese - people would be going ballistic.

What a complete waste of organizational resources. Is Andrew W really that big of a threat? Wow. Gobsmacked.

There is something about that 140 character limit with tweets that seems to promote stupidity.

Andrew is so much of a threat to Get Equal that he needs to be outed? Wow. Crazy.

Comments posted on Firedoglake to AndrewW truly sum it up perfectly about this anonymous blogger.

Teddy Partridge October 11th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
13
In response to andrewww @ 11

C’mon, andreww, disclose.

Who is paying you to comment repeatedly here and elsewhere about GetEQUAL?

What national LGBT organization do you work for?

Whose ox is being gored here?

Time for full disclosure — it’s very easy, you just need to sign your posts “This is a compensated comment brought to you by The Yooman Rites Champagne.”

Or whoever is paying your freight.

October 11th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
14
In response to andrewww @ 11

ahhh the I’d rather survive on my knees than fight on my feet contingent has arrived.

aren’t you supposed to giving Solmonese a pedicure ’bout now ? run along

Teddy Partridge October 11th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
16

Oh, he’s off to spew his nonsense elsewhere, probably at The Advocate comments section, or AmericaBlogGAY. Just like a little butterfly, or wasp, from flower to flower, leaving his lovely discharge behind him. Careful of what he leaves behind, though — you might catch something you’ll need a clinic visit to treat!

He’ll circle back, though, to check on his missives and see what shit he stirred up; his ego can’t stand not knowing.

Wait, there are actually people who think that AndrewW is being paid by an org to comment on blog posts? And they care? And these people blog at FireDogLake?

As someone emailed me when she read this post, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I had hoped that this silly story would simply go away. Today I was told that the server my comments are placed through has received dozens of attacks during the last 24 hours. This is the result of my IP Address being shared with GetEQUAL and/or others - including a few commenters here.

Was this the intent of Robin's "reward?" Harassment? All because I disagree with GetEQUAL's charades? I disagree with the majority of what HRC does (or doesn't do) but I don't expect Joe Solmonese to offer a reward and then engage in an attempt to disrupt my internet service or gather information about my "identity."

I have brought this to Bilerico's attention because Yasmin and Conrad both claimed to have "information." From where? For what purpose?

My comments have been blocked by John Aravosis and Pam Spaulding because they rejected accountability. They will not allow any disagreement on their websites. Fine. I think it's unfair to censor conversation about ALL issues affecting the LGBT Community, but that's their business and they can operate it whatever way they choose. Bilerico has been very diligent about providing an open forum for discussion.

I have commented on Bilerico for the past 15 months. I have never had a comment removed. I have never made a personal attack on anyone. I have asked questions. I have offered ideas. I have been very unpopular at times, but I have always shown respect.

This bounty by Robin and the resulting attacks on my server are beyond childish, they are troubling. Robin and GetEQUAL need to end the reward offer and promise they will not do that to anyone else - anonymous or not. Because until then, everyone is at risk of this irrational, dangerous behavior.

If you post anonymously be very careful. In the meantime, I hope Bilerico makes it very clear to all their readers that they would never share information about anyone who takes the time and effort to participate in these conversations.

As adults, this conversation is one that we shouldn't have to have. Robin and GetEQUAL need to end it now by making it very clear they will never do it again.

Ok I will admit that Robin's $500 reward is a little silly. But your repeated assertion that you have been banned by Pam and John and I know of at least one other blog because they reject accountability is laughable. This coming from a person who has come on here and other blogs for a least a year harping about all the money he spent on research and he has the way to our rights. But the GLBT community is not ready for it. When asked for the slightest bit of proof you ignore or belittle. So really hypocritical much?

You should b careful with your comments (anonymous) TimW. Soon, your information including IP Address may be shared with those that disagree with you.

I never had a comments removed on any LGBT Blog. Just like you continue to express here, Pam and John are promoters of GetEQUAL and anyone who disagrees with that group or asks questions is blocked. John even acknowledge that in the comments. The reality is some blogs promote their own ideas. That's up to them.

Again you ignore what I said and did not address my point. You tallk about they banned you because they don't believe in accountability. Yep you have been called on to be accountable for the many statements about your research and you have shown none. No proof no anything other than to belittle our community by saying we aren't ready to hear it. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. And again as you see below I am not afraid to you my full name.

Tim Walstrum

Is it too hard to understand that GetEQUAL is a public organization accepting donations from people and claiming a tax exemption. They also claim to speak for the LGBT community. THEY did these stunts, not me.

I've simply engaged people in a conversation, an important one to figure out how to win. Many people have contributed to that conversation. If and when I actually launch campaigns it won't be half-assed or irrational like your friends at GetEQUAL. They've been a very good example of how NOT to do something. She also admitted she has "no idea" how we'll win. That's because she isn't trying to "win," she is trying to embarrass or irritate people and finally realizes that isn't a way to succeed. Headlines are more important than results - they help raise money.

Are you serious enough about protecting GetEQUAL from accountability that you are willing to raise Robin's reward amount?

So now it's if? Boy your story is a constantly evolving one. You spent over half a million now you are saying if. Your BS is astounding. Again show proof or shut up.

YOU are one of those people that make guys like me wonder if it's really worth it. Again, I don't see anything you've contributed to the conversation.

This particular Post is about Robin's shenanigans, not mine.

But if i am not mistaken the article is about Robin trying to find out who you are. So yes the article is about you too. As I said above that I think her reward is silly but it is about you. And it's funny from a guy who goes to numerous blogs to criticize GetEqual and talk about your research and how you have spent over half a million dollars on research thus hijacking many thread about you and your research. Then when it's turned on you you claim it's not about me. Again the juicy hypocrisy of it all.
The funny part is people like me are asking you to be ACCOUNTABLE for statements you have made about how everyone else's tactics are wrong and yours is right. When we try to hold you ACCOUNTABLE you either ignore of us or give the standard line that the GLBT isn't ready. Do you not see the irony of demanding ACCOUNTABILITY from everyone yet taking none for yourself???

When the topic is "strategy" or in response to a comment/question directed at me I will talk about my efforts. Many Bilerico commenters (anonymous and not) have made valuable contributions to that conversation. I appreciate it.

I've been very clear about the damage I think GetEQUAL is doing. Disagree if you want - that's conversation. They have a responsibility to respond to that with some "rationale" or evidence to the contrary. They haven't.

If and when I launch an effort, I will insist that you and everyone else will be able to hold everything about it accountable. I also PROMISE that I will NOT hunt you down if you disagree or ask questions. I won't threaten you. I won't even try to embarrass you. That would be "childish and stupid" and I think another organization already owns that.

But if i am not mistaken the article is about Robin trying to find out who you are. So yes the article is about you too. As I said above that I think her reward is silly but it is about you. And it's funny from a guy who goes to numerous blogs to criticize GetEqual and talk about your research and how you have spent over half a million dollars on research thus hijacking many thread about you and your research. Then when it's turned on you you claim it's not about me. Again the juicy hypocrisy of it all.
The funny part is people like me are asking you to be ACCOUNTABLE for statements you have made about how everyone else's tactics are wrong and yours is right. When we try to hold you ACCOUNTABLE you either ignore of us or give the standard line that the GLBT isn't ready. Do you not see the irony of demanding ACCOUNTABILITY from everyone yet taking none for yourself???

The article is about childish terrorism - Robin's childish terrorism.

Our server was bombarded again today. I also received several emails from people in the LGBT Community that shared Robin was "seeking information about AndrewW." One email suggested she was going to interfere with my business because I interfered with hers. GetEQUAL is "her business?" It's supposed to be a non-profit working at the will of the Board of Directors for the purpose of helping the LGBT Community.

Does anyone know if Robin has any weapons?

...Does anyone else think Andrew should just take the reward for himself? :P