Red Sox Hen has characterized a recent run in on my site as a little old lady getting mugged by a overwrought bully who needs anger management classes. I must confess I am rougher than I would wish to be. Seven years working with cons will harden a man. I would genuinely like to be nicer to people. Unfortunately I have little patience for the cunning, artifice and subterfuge I’ve too often found here on MLBlogs. Noni’s protestations are, at best, disingenuous, and a perfect example.
Noni (or Camille, or whatever her name is) has a history of playing innocent. In one of the conflicts of the Red Sox Schtick era, she showed up on the site defending Cyn after I posted what has been called a classic here on MLBlogs, The Boston Smiter. Even back then these people had a problem with hate. When I attempted to express my disgust with the incessant hate baiting on Red Sox Chick’s site, my comment was promptly deleted (and this from the person that abandoned MLBlogs complaining of censorship). Frustrated as well as disgusted, I posted the parody.
Noni also has a problem, again even back then, with not quite telling the whole truth. She portrayed herself as an innocent who had stumbled into the fray. In lines eerily similar to her latest line of malarkey:
I scurry thru the blogs every morning, trying to catch a few different ones every day.
The fact that I landed on yours yesterday was just by chance. And actually I am sorry I did.
Noni neglected to mention she was Red Sox Chick’s mother. Thinking an innocent bystander had gotten caught in the crossfire, I, of course, apologized:
I’m sincerely sorry you got caught in the middle of this. I have no problem with you being a Red Sox Chick fan at all. Thanks for dropping in, and, again, my humblest apologies.
It is obvious I had no idea who she was; nor did she bother to set the record straight. I didn’t realize until Red Sox Hen started a blog who the **** “Noni” even was. Even still, I tried to bury the hatchet and have tried to find common ground, like our mutual disdain for the Alyssa Milano fiasco on Jackie Robinson Day. Then she showed up on SBY and posted this:
I understand that Curt talks much too much about everything, but, Barry Bonds is a cheat and does not deserve to beat any record. When he admitted to using, his record should have been wiped and started over.
Do you also think he belongs in the Hall of Fame?
Ironically, Cyn’s comment that launched the whole Red Sox Schtick ruckus was this:
As they say, personality goes a long way. If Bonds wanted people to be nice to him, he should have thought of that before he started cheating and before he decided to hone the persona he has for his tenure in MLB.
Now I have no problem with people not liking Bonds. ****, I don’t like him, although after what I’ve been through at the hands of Bonds bashers I’m definitely developing some appreciation for the man and what he has to put up with. It is the blind, irrational hatred that I find so offensive, a malignance so powerful the hater is unable to control themselves. Noni knew where she was, and what would be the consequences. She had been there when I castigated her daughter for pulling the same rancorous nonsense. All she had to do was keep her mouth shut, click on the next link…
But she couldn’t. What does that tell you?
Forgive me if I’m not buying the innocent act. A second time. In regards to her daughter being innocent–that’s laughable. Red Sox Chick’s entire schtick consists of stirring up the cess pool to draw flies. And Mark Newman? If the head of MLBlogs had acted impartially and fairly in the promotion of bloggers, and not doled out favors to those who fawned on him…well, I have no problem with a man who acts professionally. But did you notice who was the featured blogger on Mother’s Day, all day long? Red Sox Hen. None of the other blogger’s Mother’s Day tributes were so honored. Ironically, Red Sox Hen didn’t even have a Mother’s Day tribute posted when I clicked on the feature link after posting my own Mother’s Day well wishes. Of course, she could have been planning to post one and they could have been colluding…but wait, that’s kind of my point, isn’t it? When I have attempted to discuss the issue rationally with Newman, he dismisses it as some kind of personal problem I have with what he calls “that family”. He cannot perceive the real issue because his judgment is impaired by his personal attachments. Professionals behave more circumspectly.
Around here we get…”that family”. Or am I just being dramatic?
— Michael Norton