More Friends of Lulu Response

Continuing coverage of the Friends of Lulu Empowerment Fund controversy, this time with more catfighting (at the end):

Board member Leigh Dragoon has additional comments, including a statement that all fund contributions are being returned.

…what we’ve decided to do is give all fund contributors full refunds. We contacted PayPal and, according to the customer service representative we spoke with, these refunds should go through over the next couple of days. If you contributed to the fund, and you do not receive your refund after about a week, please contact either myself … or the board at: board [AT] friends-lulu [DOT] org. I will be following up with PayPal either way to make sure things are progressing the way they told me things would.

I think that’s the best response possible, and I congratulate the organization on taking such direct action, a gesture incapable of misinterpretation.

Leigh goes on to firmly place blame:

Ronee has victimized a lot of people, something which is becoming very apparent to me now as I uncover more and more information, and I would like to point out that, at the end of the day, I and the other board members were her victims, too. Ronee misrepresented everything relating to the Empowerment Fund to us from the first step onward, announced the Fund without our permission and, as soon as she had achieved the notoriety she felt she deserved, dumped the whole thing in our laps and took off, leaving us to poke through everything and try to piece together shards of disparate information.

Leigh makes reference to my one attempt to contact Ronee; I wasn’t surprised that she didn’t respond directly to me (if it even went through her contact form, which threw an odd error at one point).

Also unsurprisingly, Ronee’s public response (link no longer available) is in keeping with her actions to date: she says nothing’s her fault and insults anyone who disagrees with her. Leigh says Ronee acted on her own. Ronee claims that she had then-President Katie Merritt’s permission. Ronee goes on to agree with Leigh’s statements about the aftermath, albeit in a foul-mouthed, backhanded way:

yes, I left FOL and I dumped it in their laps because I was tired of doing EVERYTHING for the organization that was not about the anthology or the awards. That’s all they cared about. I thought Friends Of Lulu stood for more and it took me a while, but it was very apparent that I was wrong. [...] As for what they are doing now… I have no doubt they are dumping it. Because it would take a lot of work and courage to keep it! Either way, I assure you that my bleeding heart will no longer rule my decisions. Everyone can rot for all I care. FOL and snarky blogging bitches cured me of that.

It’s a shame that Ronee’s good intentions are always taken advantage of by others! I can totally understand why that would make you want to call other women names, even while proclaiming your feminism. How dare they ask “what’s really going on” or want to know what happened to hundreds? thousands? of dollars collected in the name of a good cause?

Even more charming is the title of Ronee’s earlier post (link no longer available), “Some People Just Need to Get Laid I guess…” How nice that such a strong voice for women has succumbed to using one of the most sexist putdowns typically seen online.


45 Responses to “More Friends of Lulu Response”

  1. Ronée Says:

    I recieved no such message from you.. but now I wish I would have so as not to be bombarded as I was.

    I make no apologies for my reaction, I just know that this was started to help and I could not do it alone. When my marriage fell apart I could not keep my volunteer activities and still maintain my family and real life. So, I walked away from FOL.

    NONE of the current members have come to me and asked me anything, the last email I recieved from Leigh dealt with the forum and I gladly gave her that information. Not one person has brought up the fund or its status until Lisa asked me and I directed her to the current executive board.

    ill tell you what happened to the money,. it was given to Taki and her witness two seperate times as voted on BY THE BOARD, the rest is still in there as far as I know. I have not had any access to the records in almost a year now, if the fund was so unwanted by the organization, why did they take a year to announce it? Things could have been changed the second I left yet no one did anything or said a word about it. But now, now that valid questions are being asked.. now they want to point at me and play victims. what has happened with that money in the last year?

  2. Paul O'Brien Says:

    I don’t understand. Leigh and Ronee have both said that money from the Fund was spent on defraying Taki Soma’s legal fees. So how are FoL paying for this “full refund”?

  3. Don MacPherson Says:

    I find it interestin that Ronee Bourgeois — best known these days for her participation in a public-information campaign against crooked comics publisher and con organizer Rick Olney — resorts to the same crude tactics to answer critics. There’s name-calling and excuses revolving around personal tragedies/challenges.

    Mind you, I don’t think FoL has handled professionally either (although it can certainly claim the high road as compared to Bourgeois). The smart thing to do would be for the organization to simply take responsibility with the finger-pointing.

    What’s really puzzling about this latest controversy and Bourgeois’s deification in the Olney debacle is how quickly people seem to have forgotten how Bourgeois mishandled her reporting of the Taki Soma/Charles Brownstein situation in the first place.

  4. Lea Says:

    What Don said, and far better than my ham-fisted attempt to do so.

    Signed,
    “Snarky Blogger Bitch”

  5. Tim O'Shea Says:

    I don’t see anyone coming out a winner on this one.

  6. Gail Says:

    Don, I love you, but…what the fuck?

    Are they not two different issues? Funny, because it sure seems like it to me. And in the Rick case, Ronee is clearly a victim. Does that change somehow because you don’t like her previous actions?

    Nice, very nice.

    Gail

  7. Don MacPherson Says:

    Gail, you’re right… It does appear as though Ronee was one of many people to fall victim to Rick Olney’s various comic-related schemes.

    However, I’ve always been uncomfortable with her prominent role in the Olney/Unscrewed campaign, as I feel she has a serious credibility problem herself, and her reaction to these latest criticisms reinforced that feeling.

    Bourgeois, like many others, has been highly critical of how Olney has handled himself publicly, but she seems to think similar behaviour on her part is acceptable.

    By the way, apologies for the typo in my earlier post. I should have written, “I don’t think FoL has handled professionally the matter either.” And I dropped a “G” off interesting, for some reason. My face is red.

  8. Gail Says:

    Don, I said I love ya and I mean it. I think you regularly manage to be reasonable and high-minded.

    I’ll also add the LAST thing in the world I’m interested in is more of the net back-and-forth stuff, and that I am merely an observer, not anyone particularly well-versed in all the details here.

    I have a couple thoughts, then I’m back to being a pain in the ass on my OWN board.

    First, in what way is Ronee supposed to be like Rick? The original notes from FOL said that not only did she not cheat the fund, she actually donated to it, correct? That is a massive difference, the one between crooked and well-intentioned at the very least. If you want to say the fund was mishandled, then I think it’s fair to ask the accused for their side of that story. And I would hope that that story would be given a fair hearing.

    Second, Ronee’s story differs significantly from Ms. Dragoon’s, and I find that at the very least, Ronee made a couple strong points that need to be looked at regarding the timeline…it’s hard to blame her for what happens after she left the organization for one thing, and her complaints about communication at FOL are not exactly new material. For one thing, she claims not to have gotten this parade of emails, and the fact that Joanna, whom I also respect tremendously, appears not to have been able to get through might validate that, yes? In addition, how hard is it to get ahold of a woman with a regular column complete with the ability to post comments? If I couldn’t get you by email, for some reason, Don, could I not leave comments for you on your review posts ridiculously easily?

    I mean this with absolutely no disrespect to Ms. Dragoon, whose writing I enjoy and who was clearly left in a tough position. I just think it’s unfair to imply that Ronee should have no role in trying to get back money from someone who has genuinely cheated her.

    But it APPEARS as if quite a lot of this falls under the umbrella of regime change and the resultant confusion, particularly as the stories do not match, and I have no reason to doubt either woman.

    I think it’s more than fair to ask questions, by the way. But it does appear that Ronee has NOT been dodging, as has been implied more than once, since she answered the posts the moment she was informed. Not really the actions of someone trying to hide.

    Lastly, I don’t know that it’s accurate to say that Ronee has a prominent role in the Unscrewed stuff. Even I don’t have a prominent role in that effort…she posts rarely and tends to stay very much on point, but I don’t think she’s affiliated herself with the auction or fundraising book. I may be mistaken, but that’s my understanding.

    That’s about it, let the shelling commence. And I think refunding the money seems the honorable thing, as a last little driveby comment, so good on those making that effort.

    Gail

  9. Chris Williams Says:

    Ronée has a MySpace page and you couldn’t figure out how to reach her?

    http://comicsworthreading.com/2006/07/22/snark-ronee-returns/

  10. Barry Says:

    I just did a search for Ronée on myspace and came up empty.

  11. Tom Stillwell Says:

    >

    That is correct, Gail. Ronée isn’t involved with either the Unscrewed organization or the auction I’m running.

    That’s no slight on her. She’s just not involved.

    If anything, as Gail has said, she’s hasn’t been posting much about any of this and when she does it is very direct.

    It is important that the facts about the FOL fund are discussed. However, I really don’t see how dragging Ronée through the mud accomplishes anything useful.

  12. Ragnell Says:

    I’m trying to stay out of the main issue, but please watch the use of terms like “catfight” when describing a disagreement among women at the beginning of the post and shaming someone for the use of sexist put-downs at the end of your post.

    Its untidy.

    Also, I’m getting pretty damned sick of seeing this whole mess described in such abominably sexist language. I am absolutely certain that this same sort of situation has happened with a male-run charity without it being put up to stereotypically male behavior. Can’t we at least try to give a female-run charity the same dignity?

  13. Johanna Says:

    Ragnell: “catfight” was on purpose, trust me. It’s preemptive fireworks.

    Gail: When confronted with accusations of wrongdoing, Rick immediately started calling names at those asking questions. Ronee did the same thing (“bitches”, for example). That’s the comparison Don’s making; he’s not saying she’s not been wronged by Rick, just that she behaves oddly similarly.

  14. Johanna Says:

    Paul: They’re presumably covering any difference out of their other funds.

  15. Johanna Says:

    Ragnell: now to address your more substantial point.

    No similar questions about potential misuse/disappearance of funds when it comes to other comic-related organizations comes to mind (although I can think of a couple of convention-related cons), so I don’t know about comparisons. If you have problems with the sexist language, well, take it up with the person, Ronee, spewing it — she seems willing to throw most people, regardless of gender, under the bus when it comes to defending herself. I don’t think this is “women turning on each other” so much as a very bad apple spoiling any bushel she’s involved in, whether it’s attempting to bring to light unwanted sexual attentions or irresponsible “journalism” or fundraising without having all the right bases covered.

  16. Journalista - the news weblog of The Comics Journal » Blog Archive » Mar. 7, 2007: Nature is resilient Says:

    [...] Johanna Draper Carlson continues to document the increasingly ugly recriminations surrounding the bungling of the Friends of Lulu Empowerment Fund. [...]

  17. Michael Netzer Says:

    “What’s really puzzling about this latest controversy and Bourgeois’s deification in the Olney debacle is how quickly people seem to have forgotten how Bourgeois mishandled her reporting of the Taki Soma/Charles Brownstein situation in the first place.”

    Ronee uncovered a very grave assault on an innocent woman because it was the right thing to do. The people who mishandled the incident are the , reproters who jumped to conclusions and later blamed her in order to protect their assailant friend.

    Ronee has been courageous and straightforward. She can hardly be blamed for striking back when mud like this is being slung at her.

    And keep telling yourselves that she mishandled the reporting a million times, because that’s what all the reporters say. It doesn’t change the truth about the cowardly and hypocritical ways that the comics media has adopted.

  18. Paul O'Brien Says:

    “Paul: They’re presumably covering any difference out of their other funds.”

    Well, yes, but why? I don’t see how that can be justified. As I understand it, insofar as the Empowerment Fund has been spent, it was spent on its stated purpose. Why should donors get their money back? Why should those costs be defrayed out of the general Friends of Lulu funds, presumably donated for other purposes?

    If I’m right in my understanding that donors to the Empowerment Fund always knew (or at least had every reason to believe) that it would be used to pay these legal bills, I cannot even begin to grasp why anyone thinks they have a moral or legal claim to a full refund.

  19. Michael Netzer Says:

    When confronted with accusations of wrongdoing, Rick immediately started calling names at those asking questions. Ronee did the same thing (“bitches”, for example). That’s the comparison Don’s making; he’s not saying she’s not been wronged by Rick, just that she behaves oddly similarly.

    Johanna: You’re right that Ronee behaves oddly by common standards. People aren’t all alike and shouldn’t be expected not to act oddly. She has a sharp tounge but she doesn’t unjustly accuse and defame others, as has been done to her.

    What do you think is a more important value to hold to?

    And why don’t we hear anyone saying that maybe Leigh jumped the gun and slung her coy mud unjustly… and that she should at least retract her statements, if not outright apologize to Ronee?

  20. Johanna Says:

    Netzer, as we’ve all learned through all this, simply repeating things doesn’t make them true. Ronee did not do the right things back then (to the extent of reporting falsehoods; Soma didn’t originally press charges, when Ronee claimed the opposite). She was anything but “straightforward”, leading to the wrong man being identified, not clarifying the confusion, and then never apologizing for the trauma caused to him and his career.

    Even if her anger at FOL might be justified, that in no way excuses her calling names at me and those like me who just want to know what’s going on. If “ALL the reporters” say this was done badly, just maybe, you think, they might have a point? I mean, goodness knows we don’t agree on anything else.

    You’ve seized on the word “oddly” and completely ignored the word “similarly”, which is the point. And of course she’s unjustly defaming others — that’s what her “they need to get laid” comment is, not to mention blaming the “bitches”. Check the log in your eye before trying to point out others’ splinters.

    I don’t believe Leigh has anything to apologize for, myself. I welcome her candor, even if it might be better for the organization in the long run if they’d taken a higher road.

  21. Johanna Says:

    Paul: I think attempting to reclaim goodwill for the organization is a valid purpose (although I suspect everyone wishes it had never been necessary).

    Also, as I understand it, part of the fund (we don’t know how much or what percentage) was spent on related costs (the description given sounds like travel, not legal, expenses to me, but maybe that’s not a significant distinction). The fund has been closed, and the supporting organization no longer wishes to maintain it. So the extra remaining funds have to be disposed of. I think giving it back to the donors is the best choice, given the effort’s checkered history. And since they can’t be accused of playing favorites or picking and choosing, they have to give back to everyone. (It makes sense to me, anyway.)

    Either way you want to go, some donated funds get used for something other than intended purpose — if they didn’t give back the money and folded it into their general funds, then that would be the same thing in the opposite direction. If donors want their money to go to FOL in general, they can turn around and redonate.

    What do you think they should do with the Fund money, if not return it?

  22. tekanji Says:

    Johanna: How, exactly, does Ronée’s use of sexist language excuse yours? What I see in your response to Ragnell is deflecting a very valid criticism she lobbed at you.

    If you want to criticize people for using sexist language, you can’t engage in it yourself. Full stop.

  23. Johanna Says:

    Tekanji, the key difference is, I didn’t mean it seriously. The “catfight” is me and Ronee — but I don’t see her calling herself a “bitch”, do you? As for valid criticism, sorry, I don’t think “they need to get laid” falls in that category. I must be missing her serious and meaningful suggestions for improvement somewhere.

  24. Don MacPherson Says:

    Michael Netzer wrote:
    Ronee uncovered a very grave assault on an innocent woman because it was the right thing to do. The people who mishandled the incident are the reproters who jumped to conclusions and later blamed her in order to protect their assailant friend.

    You’re misunderstanding the substance of what Bourgeois was accused of doing wrong. I don’t take issue with her motives; I have no doubt she sought to correct an injustice. But her vague approach to the initial report of the Soma incident led, as Johanna as noted, to a wholly innocent party — namely, Jim McLaughlin — being brought under suspicion.

    And keep telling yourselves that she mishandled the reporting a million times, because that’s what all the reporters say. It doesn’t change the truth about the cowardly and hypocritical ways that the comics media has adopted.

    Again, you misunderstand. I’m not defending Brownstein; neither am I championing Soma’s cause. As a responsible journalist, I choose to remain impartial until a court of law sounds off on the case (which I doubt will ever happen at this point). I took issue with Bourgeois’s clear lack of appreciation of responsible practices in journalism.

    And as Johanna has pointed out, I do not claim Bourgeois has cheated anyone of any money (although I’m sure Mr. McLaughlin felt cheated of his good name for a short time). My comparison of Bourgeois and Olney was only in regard to how they publicly handle criticism.

    What’s most puzzling is why Bourgeios has opted to react in such a way when she clearly seeks to participate in the world of comics (either through publication or peripherally). People see this attitude, and they remember. Olney’s learning that lesson now, as industry figures are lining up to announce they will not participate in his newly announced comics con. I suspect Bourgeois may learn the same lesson soon.

  25. Paul O'Brien Says:

    “And since they can’t be accused of playing favorites or picking and choosing, they have to give back to everyone.”

    The usual solution in this situation would be to return the money pro rata. Spend 80% of the money? Got 20% of it left? Then everyone gets back 20% of their donation.

    Fairer than raiding the general account to give undeserved refunds, I would have said.

  26. Lisa Jonte Says:

    “I don’t believe Leigh has anything to apologize for, myself.”

    No, she doesn’t. Not even remotely.

  27. Don MacPherson Says:

    Whereas I must apologize for my poor attempt html coding. :(

  28. Johanna Says:

    Paul: ok, I hadn’t thought of that, good point. But I have to wonder if PayPal will cooperate with something like that. (I don’t have a very good opinion of their organization.)

  29. Michael Netzer Says:

    “You’ve seized on the word “oddly” and completely ignored the word “similarly”, which is the point. And of course she’s unjustly defaming others — that’s what her “they need to get laid” comment is, not to mention blaming the “bitches”. Check the log in your eye before trying to point out others’ splinters.

    The difference is that Ronee is defending herself from vile charges leveled at her unjustly. She didn’t start this. It’s not the same. You’re only looking at one side. I’m looking at both and I can clearly see that she’s been wronged on the fund charges. You yourself hint to as much. I think you can be a little more forthright and say it clearly. But then, you’d also have to check the stuff in the eyes.

  30. Johanna Says:

    Mmmm… the benefits of an open comment policy.

    Netzer: I can see that you’re the type that has to have the last word, and I see no further use in attempting to reconcile our very different realities. I’m confident that readers can come to their own conclusions about who’s tossing around the “vile charges” and who started what.

  31. Ginger Mayerson Says:

    I don’t understand. Leigh and Ronee have both said that money from the Fund was spent on defraying Taki Soma’s legal fees. So how are FoL paying for this “full refund”?

    According to the Center for Nonprofit Management in Los Angeles, a California 501(c)3 nonprofit organization cannot raise money for an individual’s use, only for groups, events, other organizations, and stuff like that. I can’t find FoL’s mission statement, but their FAQ says nothing about raising money for use by an individual for anything. So, FoL is doing the right thing in refunding all the money they raised. Good on them. If FoL wants to become a legal defense fund, they only have to change a few things in their filing at most, or just change their mission statement at least. A fund for sexual harassment in comics would be unique, at the very least. I don’t know how much they gave Taki Soma and how much of hit this is for FoL financially. FoL might not survive this.

    Leigh Dragoon has nothing to apologize for. These are trying circumstances, she’s taking a lot of heat, and she’s handling the situation very well.

    There’s a lot of blame flying around. Just for the record, I blame Ronnee. Her handling of the announcement of the Fund, as a direct or indirect result of her handling of the Soma/Brownstein mess has impacted my perception FoL and, to some extent, CBLDF. It almost seems that FoL was used by Ronnee, and used hard, to bash CBLDF. And why? Does anyone know? And why did the FoL board allow it? Those are my questions and if you don’t like them, I have others.

  32. Michael Netzer Says:

    Johanna: Open comment policy? Open as long as you delete comments that disagree with you? Is this how you’d like people are to come to an informed opinion?

  33. Johanna Says:

    Sometimes, when the same person is posting so often as appearing to be flooding, my spam filter gets a little overzealous. I’m trying to recover what I can.

    Since you’re trying to lecture on giving people the benefit of the doubt, though, you might try the same in my case, instead of jumping to such negative conclusions.

  34. Michael Netzer Says:

    Don: Maybe you also misunderstand what I said (some of which has been removed from the comments). WHO NAMED McGLAUGHLIN? WHY ARE THEY NOT CRITICIZED? I’m not speaking about motives. The description based on the information she had was vague enough that it could have been any number of people. Ronee is being taken to task for what others did by naming him. SHE DIDN’T DO IT. The question also isn’t Ronee’s manner or the language she uses. That’s irrelevant. People can be slandered with pretty words also.

  35. Johanna Says:

    Netzer: The problem is that Ronee tried to play coy instead of naming names. Her description could not have “been any number of people”, but only a couple. The other problem is that she didn’t correct the misapprehensions until forced to.

    And of course the language one chooses to use is relevant. It always is.

    And now I am stopping you from further posting, because you are adding nothing to this venue and I have other things I need to do besides babysitting.

  36. Katherine Keller Says:

    Quoth Michael NetzerThe description based on the information she had was vague enough that it could have been any number of people.

    No, Sir, it was not.

    Ronnee’s reporting on the matter clearly said: Male. President. Organization that helps Creators.

    That’s not the CBLDF and it’s NOT the FOL. (Hint: The CBLDF does not have a position of “president”, nor is it a charity that exists to help creators. It’s a First Amendment organization.)

    Based on that, many people looked at the ONE Comics Charity organization that had a male president and helps Creators and quickly said, “Jim McLauchlin.”

    Ronee is very lucky she didn’t get her ass sued over that bit of incredibly sloppy reporting.

  37. Kevin Huxford Says:

    What this looks like from the sidelines:

    1. Everyone jumping to believe Ronee has screwed everyone because of resentments leftover from the sexual assault reporting.
    2. Everyone giving Leigh the benefit of the doubt…because she’s not Ronee.

    Ronee is a polarizing personality that many seem to dislike. I’m more neutral on her, so it becomes easier to see some of the accidental hypocrisy here.

    1. Ronee called some other women names and employed certain language…and that makes her not a feminist? But others using the same language (for…you know…nicer reasons) are OK? Don’t both have the potential to “hurt the cause”, even if to varying degrees?
    2. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for Leigh to either air the whole damned thing (i.e. specifically say how everyone was actually victimized) or keep it all in the family?

    Honestly…aren’t we in danger of the same thing happening to Ronee (on a smaller scale) that happened to McLaughlin, in a sense? The language being used by Leigh can imply any number of possible “inappropriate” actions by Ronee…from mistakes/small stuff to having tried to use the empowerment fun for personal gain (and not just by getting her name out there in press releases). I know people can see some karma to that, but the old adage is “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

    Don’t get me wrong…I think Ronee has been one of those people who gets addicted to seeing their name out there. I think everyone can experience a bit of a high from having people know your name and talk about you, to some extent. Its only when you get addicted to it (which I think she at least was for a time) that it becomes a problem.

    In regards to some statements about charity law as it might apply to the fund: If the only cause the short-lived fund had the chance to help was the Taki case, how does that necessarily make it a fund for just one individual? It had its cause, was serving its cause, and was aborted before anyone else was able to use it.

  38. Johanna Says:

    Kevin, people create reputations for themselves through their actions and reactions, and others use those reputations in judging their later choices. Leigh has been vouched for to me by someone I trust. Ronee, well, we’ve all seen what her ideas of appropriate behavior are, and as you point out, she seems to be a certain personality type that tends to attract drama.

    For every old adage, there’s a contradictory one, like “you made your bed, you lie in it”. Or something about chickens coming home to roost. But after a certain point, that all just becomes word games. I’d be happy to never have to hear her name again, myself.

  39. Trying to Make Lemonade » Comics Worth Reading Says:

    [...] (Hey, at least the controversy I helped uncover doesn’t involve actual lawyers [...]

  40. tekanji Says:

    Johanna: Usually scare-quotes around a term are a good idea to let people know it’s ironic rather than used because you think it’s a good term. In Ragnell’s reading, as well as my own, your use of catfight came across as completely serious, hence the problem.

    The rest of your comment towards me is addressing something I wasn’t saying. Ragnell’s criticism was what I was referring to, not Ronée’s. If Ronée had some valid points they were lost in her specious logic and sexist language, at least for me.

  41. Johanna Says:

    You’ll have to forgive me, Tekanji — after over a decade of this kind of crap, it seems much simpler to me to go ahead and use the term before someone else does. I’m sorry it became such a distraction to you and Ragnell.

  42. J. Kevin Carrier Says:

    Leaving aside personalities and such, Ronée did make one statement in her response that probably ought to be followed up on: That her allegedly premature announcement of the Fund was in fact approved by FoL president Katie Merrit. Can anyone in FoL (or ideally, Katie herself) confirm or deny that was the case?

  43. Don MacPherson Says:

    Kevin Carrier wrote:
    Ronée did make one statement in her response that probably ought to be followed up on: That her allegedly premature announcement of the Fund was in fact approved by FoL president Katie Merrit. Can anyone in FoL (or ideally, Katie herself) confirm or deny that was the case?

    FoL’s statement indicated there was no approval from the board. That’s a direct statement. And yes, one could argue we’re in a “she said, she said” situation, but it’s not hard to see that it’s Bourgeois who has a credibility problem.

    There were concerns from the start about the kneejerk nature of the empowerment fund’s establishment, and those expressing such concerns were lambasted publicly. Now it turns out those concerns were valid, and Bourgeois — the driving force behind the fund — has abdicated all responsibility. The FoL board has stepped up to clean up the mess and take responsibility (though it only came in the wake of Johanna’s public prodding for answers).

  44. News Item Commentary LinkBlogging » Comics Worth Reading Says:

    [...] figure out how to do that. I can’t imagine making printouts of my most impressive examples of journalism this year, and just sending a URL likely means being overlooked. Oh, well, maybe one day I’ll [...]

  45. Do You Have a Vision for Women in Comics? Friends of Lulu Needs Help » Comics Worth Reading Says:

    [...] announced a money-raising effort that ended in refunds, didn’t accomplish its goals, and made everyone look bad. The situation led to me questioning the need for the group in February 2007 and starting a [...]

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to comment feed.




Categories:

Pages:



Meta:

Most Recent Posts: