Reply #346: It's not a question of forgiveness -- not even close

[Eloriel]

David Allen put it well: doesn't mean you have to be Bev's doormat.

She's done good work; we all applaud that and MANY people have contributed, either financially or in research and other free services for "the cause" or both. She goes off half-cocked and can be a loose cannon; okay, so none of us is perfect. She can use people (and their talents) without proper credit or thanks and appreciation; for some of us what we offered was for the effort anyway, not the glory.

But THOSE small human failings (and several others) are not the issue either.

I've mostly stayed out of this latest spate of threads, reading just one of the SIX "discuss Bev Harris and K.O. here" threads started by Admin. In that thread was one post that affected me deeply. I think it was by Wiley57 (???), and he was beside himself because someone local to him whom he'd worked very hard to cultivate on this issue happened to call Bev within the last day or so, actually got through to her, and got totally reamed out for his trouble. Wiley was distraught that this hard-won new local computerized voting issue activist was treated that way and that he might be lost as a co-activist as a result. I felt so sorry for Wiley (if that's who the poster was), and also for the poor new activist who was so unlucky as to actually reach Bev on the phone.

His retelling of that experience brought back some unpleasant memories for me. I myself was treated precisely that way twice by Bev (and made it my business to make sure it NEVER happened again), and Roxanne and David and Alistair (althecat) and no doubt others ALL received precisely that kind of abusive treatment from Bev as well. In the case of the others, because of the urgency and importance of this issue, they took it and took it far longer than I was willing to.

This is also the type of treatment that apparently one of K.O.'s producers received at her hands (or mouth). The threats of lawsuits and overuse of alerts Earl mentioned seems to be part of the same abusive pattern as well.

These are not examples of a personality quirk, a minor flaw, a foible, something to overlook and tolerate "for the good of the cause." That's not possible for emotionally healthy people to do -- healthy people ISOLATE themselves from people who abuse them. Period. You might take it for a while, but there comes a point when you realize that THIS IS NOT HEALTHY PERSON TREATING YOU THIS WAY and it's not healthy to ALLOW yourself to be in a position to BE treated that way.

Being lied about publicly (i.e., here at DU), as several of us were (as well as several other prominent members of the movement who are not part of DU) -- without either retraction or apology to this day! -- is another part of her particular pattern of abuse or perhaps paranoia or who knows what? But it IS a pattern, and I share the same sentiment as another poster upthread who said s/he hopes Bev gets some professional help.

No one I know of doubts her talent, her commitment and zeal and passion or even her body of work to any great extent (so well supported by DU and DUers, as EarlG pointed out). We just all reached a point -- individually reached decisions, all -- that we can't work with her, can't let her near us, can't give her opportunities to continue to treat us abusively, and can't let any lies about us stand unchallenged.

I'm saddened by this development (I've been away all afternoon), including the banning -- but I support the decision whole-heartedly and add my thanks and congratulations to Admin for their forebearance, wisdom and good judgment.

And for anyone who doubts it, there are MANY people and MANY organizations who are working very hard on this issue -- it's NOT owned by Bev Harris at all. All of the others I'm familiar with also have much better credibility at this point anyway, tho may be somewhat less visible.