[...] 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 [...]

[...] Oeming, of course, is best-known for his art on Powers; he also created Mice Templar. I didn’t know Taki Soma was also an artist; I recalled her from the harassment fiasco that tarnished both the CBLDF and Friends of Lulu. [...]

[...] 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 [...]

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.