I was recently contacted by Rose DesRochers to visit and join Today’s Woman. I was then asked if I would contribute an article. Being an internet publisher myself, I said sure. I’m happy to help out a fellow internet rag. Before I knew it, I was being badgered about when it would be ready for publication, as if it were an emergency. As I have a family, full-time employment, attend college full-time and am in the middle of remodeling both of my internet publications, my free time is limited. Unfortunately, I was not able to write the piece in as timely a manner as I wished, taking a week to find the time to finish the requested article. I submitted said article, which I wrote as a favor to her, this afternoon. A few hours later, Rose wants to chat with me by IM. At the same time, I’m talking on the phone with a reporter in Florida and have little attention-span left to devote to her IM message. While I’m talking with the highly professional and pleasant reporter, she proceeds to go off on a rant via instant messenger, insulting my manhood, informing me that my word is no good and cancels my membership (I joined at her request) in Today’s Woman.
Ummm, okay. Nice.
In true cowardly fashion, she ends her rant by telling me I don’t need to respond. Being a glutton for punishment and apparently not too bright, I responded anyway and informed her that I had already submitted an article for her review. At this point in the IM beat-down I was receiving, I was no longer interested in participating in her website. However, I was interested in observing where this meltdown would end up. So, she apologized. I then informed her that what she did was insulting and unsatisfactory behavior. She then told me that I insulted her by not emailing to inform her I couldn’t finish the piece by the date I set for myself.
Well, a few things to consider with regard to her perceived “insult.”
1 - I am not getting paid by Today’s Woman. Anything I would have contributed to her website was for her benefit. I’m not in need of additional clips of that type for my portfolio.
2 - Rose approached me to join.
3 - Immediately after joining, she began pitching me hard to write an article for the website.
4 - Rose attached a false urgency to the request. Unlike me, she doesn’t publish issues on a set calendar. Further, the website had constant new content during the week between her request for an article and my submission of said article.
5 - When I was unable to meet the request in less than a week’s time from introduction to submission, Rose chose to insult my manhood, basically called me a liar, and then cancelled the membership I obtained at her request. Then she apologized and cried victim.
Now, I’m no Rupert Murdoch, but I have been publishing online since early 1997 and have learned a few things along the way. Among the authors included in my internet magazines are Ph.D. scientists, anthropologists, sociologists, international civil liberties activists, published novelists and nonfiction authors. In fact, many of these individuals, or their representatives, initially contacted me with content submissions. As my publications pay in exposure and furtherance of one’s viewpoint or message rather than financially, I greatly appreciate every submission and deal with each author as if they are my saving grace for that particular issue. I see no reason to insult authors who are contributing to my publications without financial gain. Whether they complete a project in the timeframe I wish, or not, is irrelevant to the fact that they are volunteering their time without significant compensation. So, in exchange for their free content, I am sometimes at the mercy of their hectic schedules. The trade-off for such flexibility is cost-free, high quality submissions. Insulting someone holds no gain for me and it certainly does nothing to build goodwill in the industry. Further, its just plain rude.
Rose asked me to write for her, badgered me about a submission date when it was not necessary to do so, and has now alienated yet another individual involved in online publishing. In spite of all the typos and poor grammar that plague her website, I was still willing to contribute an occasional article or commentary. That was shot to pieces in a few short moments, as she unloaded both barrels on me via instant messenger.
And what was her gain? The Hell if I know, but I certainly wish I’d ignored that first email.
UPDATE: A sample of the clouded thinking that is Rose DesRochers is reprinted below from our last instant messenger conversation.
Rose says: How good is a man's word when he falls short on it?
Hmm, that's a nice start, given she had begged me for a submission then badgered me repeatedly for a submission date that I told her would have to be flexible due to my other commitments.
Rose says: You can not really take a man seriously when he has said one thing yet done another. His professionism and intrgity soons to loose all affect. Respect is a two way street and when one gives there word they should hold true to it.
I'm not sure what it means to "done another." Nor do I follow her illiterate rambling about "professionism and intrgity soons to loose all affect." It is extremely hard to take someone seriously when they misspell or misuse five out of eight words in a string. Further, one does not give "there word."
Rose says: Thank you for the offer to use your articles but I won't be using them and no need to reply. Take care
Strangely enough, Rose begged me for content the first day I joined. Further, I joined todays-woman.net AT HER REQUEST. She then badgered me for a solid week to hurry up and make a submission. After I submitted the requested article, she promptly cancelled my membership and insulted me. Then she tops it off by condescendingly thanking me for an "offer" I didn't make. This is all very weird, given that I had only agreed to write for todays-woman.net at her request. I never offered her the use of any article. What she did was completely unprofessional and quite rude.
She goes on to claim I insulted her by referring to her as "Miss Rose," instead of "Mrs. Rose." How is "Miss Rose" an insult, given I used it in an informal, familiar manner and did not include her last name? I did not refer to her as "Miss Rose DesRochers," as that would have been incorrect. Instead, I referred to her informally by her first name and "Miss," in a manner common in some parts of the Southern United States. It is meant as a sign of familiarity and friendliness, not an insult. I find this whole issue of the "insult" fascinating, given that she referred to me as James and Jim from the very start, assuming such a level of familiarity without pause. I merely reciprocated. Not once was I referred to as "Mr. Landrith." Perhaps I should be the one feeling insulted.
The woman clearly has issues - or as my wife would say, "subscriptions." I advise other poets and internet publishers to save themselves some time and unnecessary drama by steering clear of Rose DesRochers and todays-woman.net. Rose responds below and I dissect it:
Rose said: "Thank you for the glorious review. May I ask what do I owe this honor?
Your behaviour. See above. Its quite easy to comprehend.
Rose said: "I think you forgot to inform your readers how you made advantages to me and how you said that you could be persuaded to submit articles.
No one made "advantages" to anyone. Whatever that illiterate spewing is supposed to mean. Again, with the misspelled words. Further, no one said they could be "persuaded" to submit articles. You clearly asked.
Rose said: " You also said you like clumsy, cuteness and brainless women."
No stupid. You asked if batting your eyes at me would get me to send you a submission. Jokingly I responded that it would also take a hairflip. Its called humour, look into it.
Rose said: " And to think that you are married."
Yes, I am married and to a professional editor who can spell.
Rose said: "Might I also point out that I offered you to join and submit your reprint articles. Never were you requested or asked to write for Today's Woman."
Again, you asked me. Then clumsily attempted to flirt with me. I was kind and left that out of my initial posting here. Since you want it public, you get your way.
Rose said: " However thank you for all the unwanted attention and next time you ramble, please see that you don't leave out important facts."
No one left out important facts. You, however, need to find your dictionary.
Rose said: " Your wife might just like to know that you are a dog."
I was born in the Year of the Dog, but I'm not an actual dog. Silly, silly Rose. Further, I tend to like my women with more visible melanin content. I'm not interested in an affair with you, nor are you "my type." Is that easy enough for you to comprehend?
Rose said: "Also thank you once again for this glorious post; it makes you look even more unprofessional."
Umm, okay. If that's what helps you sleep at night.
There is even more here, in response to her false accusations and online spewings with regard to this incident.
UPDATE: Apparently, Rose attempted (under false pretenses) to have my website deleted from Google's index on the basis that I, um, um, um, - get this - allow readers to comment on blog entries. I shit you not.
James Landrith keeps the comments open on his blog, just to drive traffic to his website. Last month my name was searched 68 times. If you wish to increase traffic to your website, just use my name on your blog or webpage. I’ve reported James offending blog to Google in an attempt to have it removed from Google’s search results, but I doubt they will remove it.
Sorry to disappoint, but Google doesn't delete websites simply because Ms. Desrochers has ordered the website owner to close said websites to comments. Rose, you don't own my domain, nor do you have a case with Google for having me deleted, which is further indicated by your total failure to have my website blacklisted. Further, I keep the comments open on all my blog entries - not just those dealing with your nasty, childish, slanderous attacks with regard to me. This is the case, whether you, in arrogant defiance of the harm you've caused others, demand said comments be closed or not.
Comments (30)
