From my biggest fan, the lying Rose DesRochers (the bolded text in the indented sections below are her words, the non-bolded text in the same indented sections below are quotes of mine she is referencing):
Rose said: " Forgive me for going off on a rant here. James Landrith Editor & Publisher of the Multiracial Activis recently wrote a glorious review of me. Well truth is, he degraded me and at the same time made himself look like an unprofessional asshole. "
Actually, I responded to your angry instant messenger insults about what kind of man could I be since I didn't send you a submission within a week of being asked to join and write an article for Todays-Woman. You seem to have a hyper-inflated sense of entitlement. I don't owe you anything, least of all my own writing.
Rose said: " James claims that I flirted with him and anyone who is a member of Todays-Woman knows very well that I'm happily married and am quick to point that out to anyone who flirts with me."
Uh, no I didn't. You said I flirted with you. I then pointed out what you said and my response. Now you are presenting yet another version of this conversation. Get it straight and stop lying. It is unbecoming of an adult.
Rose said: " He states in his post that I asked him to write for Todays-Woman. I never did no such thing. I read one of James articles on an ezine. I contacted him to reprint his article but instead of posting it myself, I requested that he join and submit it and other reprint articles."
Wrong. I broke it all down in detail for those interested here.
Rose said: "We ask all Todays-Woman members to submit content within one week of joining, so there account is not removed by the system. He kept telling me that he would submit an article. When he didn't submit any articles, his account was removed.
No, I said I would try my best and apologized for not being able to pull it off in the time I had initially hoped. Also, I said I had school, a full-time job, internet publishing and family considerations to juggle as well. And if it is your publication, you can alter the database requirements to keep members longer than a week of inactivity. Also, I did make a posting that week. I commented on a poet's biography. That's just a fact, you wouldn't be interested in that sort of stuff.
Rose said: " He makes statements in his blog that ƒ€œInsulting someone holds no gain for me and it certainly does nothing to build goodwill in the industry.ƒ€
I was referencing insulting one's own pool of WRITERS, not insulting arrogant individuals who send you insulting instant messages while you are at work.
Rose said: "Well damn, he insulted me all over his blog."
Rose said: " In spite of all the typos and poor grammar that plague her website, I was still willing to contribute an occasional article or commentary. “ Oh my thank you for the honor. Just who the hell do you think you are? Please get over yourself James"
I think I am me, the person you asked to join and write for you. Does that narrow it down for you?
Rose said: "Rose attached a false urgency to the request. Unlike me, she doesn't publish issues on a set calendar.- He knows this how? "I am very successful. I've worked hard to get to where I am today, and nothing has been for free."
Who said anything about success? Who said anything about getting something for "free"? Try using logic when responding instead of adding nonsensical and irrelevant declarations of your own. My publications put out issues of specific commentaries bi-monthly. Your articles are posted daily as they come, in an entirely different format.
Rose said: " 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." - - Wait a moment you are married. Who said anything about an affair. Don't flatter yourself there James. "I'm a Goddess; you're a loser. Any questions?"
You still don't get it, yet you are the one who brought it up in this posting. I'm not interested in you. Re-read the part of my quote above that begins "I tend to like..." Only an idiot would have thought that meant I was interested in you. Go look in the mirror. Something is missing from that equation.
Rose said: " "Miss," in a manner common in some parts of the Southern United States.- Funny I thought it was Ms.
Funny, you would be wrong. No, "Ms." is for formal correspondence or formal speech. The use of "Miss" and a person's first name is quite popular in some parts of the Southern United States. Try actually reading what I wrote instead of making it up as you go along.
Rose said: " The woman clearly has issues - or as my wife would say, "subscriptions."- Funny I didnƒ€™t subscribe to your blog post about me but I got a full page. Thank you!"
I assume that's what passes for an example of your "wit."
Rose said: "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.- How nice of you. I'm sure that they will all take your advice because you are James Landrith. Your Puffed Sleeves are starting to over-inflate James."
No puffed sleeves here. I prefer polo shirts myself, especially given that until earlier this year I'd been wearing more formal business attire to my downtown DC job.
Rose said: " Rose chose to insult my manhood- I never insulted your manhood. Insulting your manhood would be telling you that I bet your wife fakes orgasms."
Rose said: "Then why did you agree to join my site and submit your reprint articles? "Don't take yourself so seriously. Nobody else does."
There you go - I AGREED to join - at your request. Finally, a snippet of truth escapes your mouth. Remember, you asked me to join and asked if would WRITE for you, not submit a prior article. It is not about taking myself seriously or not.
Rose said: "Anyway type jameslandrith into a google search. You might be shocked to see just who is linking to him. Thanks for coming out James and for the laugh."
Yes, Rose a lot of people link to me and my websites - civil liberties organizations, activists, journalists, everyday joes. Further, no porn sites link to me, contrary to your publicly posted lie. However, one website that discusses Christianity and sex in a fairly academic manner does link to my publication referencing a non-sex related topic. Of course, before she deleted her weblog entries about me, Rose claimed that teen porn sites linked to me extensively. A 10 second search via Google completely exposes Rose DesRochers to be a liar on this count. At my last check, no teen porn website linked to jameslandrith.com. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Rose's claim on this count is absolute libel and quite disgusting on her part.
Of course, there a lot of people who hate me - white supremacists and you. Oh wait, that's not a big list, but cheer up, you are in good company!
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
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 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 (33)
