hoveringsombrero | EMAIL FROM "SKY"/"FOXFIRE"/whomever he is

you can see my original email following his:

From: "N.R.K." criticalmass@belltown.net
To: "eris ciccone" eris@eriscam.com
Subject: Re: curiosity killed the chaos goddess...
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:15:56 -0800

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm attempting to answer as many of these e-mails as possible. Therefore,
the delay in my response to yours.

You are essentially correct to believe Charity, and to accept what she's
thus far posted in her journal as the thrust of our correspondence today.
However, some key elements which she prefers to focus on have been somewhat
overstated. She clearly states that we've had interaction for a year, but I
only first met her in her chat room in late May. She further infers that he
relationship with "Camille" covered a year's time, but they've only known
each other since about a month or so ago, if that long. The woman you know
as "Camille" did not sign up for LiveJournal until then, and had never been
to Charity's site prior to signing up.

Charity has decided to regard herself as a victim here and, in some sense,
that may be appropriate. However, as you've mentioned, there was never a
plan on our part to directly involve anyone else in this effort to flesh out
a proposed novel-- based, yes, upon the lives of each of us, the authors,
but different in a number of details. Nothing of an physical value was
extracted from Charity, and in no way, shape, or form was her security or
safety threatened. Basically, she has simply learned that a woman she'd come
to appreciate, and for whom she developed some affection, is not strictly
who she appeared to be. This has aggravated her to the extreme, but I can't
say I blame her.

Several mistakes were made in our efforts to create these characterizations.
First and foremost among them, a number of photos were posted which were not
of our authorship. Many were of our creation, but they were sprinkled
through with some that were not. This was done in an effort to further
evolve the storyline, which assisted us in our continuing efforts to outline
the novel and establish narratives, but was an egregious mistake. All of the
photos have been removed, and will never again be used by myself or my
companion.

Another mistake was in allowing the characters, particularly "Camille", to
become involved in one-on-one interaction with others through chat clients.
This was also viewed as a way to explore the characters, determine their
"voices", and establish how they would interact with people under varying
circumstances. This should not have been done, and we did not anticipate
that some people would become quite emotionally involved with these
characters... to the point that "Sky" and "Camille" were regarded as dear
friends, and were many times told they were "loved".

This idea of using LiveJournal to test out various scenarios may have been
ill-advised from the outset but, regardless of this, we should've set much
tighter parameters on our interaction with other people. There was never any
need for it to come to all of this.

Charity is right to take offense at what has happened, but the pitch of her
reaction has led her to somewhat distort the facts. She insists we've known
each other a year, and it's been substantially less than half-a-year in
point of fact. I first discovered her chat area in May, chatted with her
perhaps five times before taking the summer off and not returning to her
chat room until a little over a month ago. Furthermore, Charity has made
vague threats of lawsuits and what have you, and is getting a fair amount of
support from her constituents, and I'm quite simply not certain of what law
I've broken. I've made a separate peace with the photographer who's work was
appropriated, and so I can only assume that Charity is attempting to convert
her rage into something more meaningful. In other words, I believe that
threatening a lawsuit is comforting to her.

In point of fact, I've not engaged-- now or at any other time in my life--
in an act of legal fraud against her, compromised her security or safety, or
liberated her of any rightfully-owned goods. In fact, I was a member of her
"fan club" on her web site, and paid in full for a year's membership up
front. What I have done, for all intents and purposes, is tell her a lie.
That's not grounds, in and of itself, for a lawsuit.

I have apologized to Charity and to another person close to her for this
entire matter. I have assured her that I will not attempt contact her in any
way, shape, or form again, and that this matter is effectively over. Both of
our journals have been taken down, and we will not return to LiveJournal.
This is pretty much all I can do, at the moment.

So, one doesn't have to doubt the veracity of what Charity is claiming; one
merely needs to see it from the perspective of an extremely indignant
individual, wishing to be pitied for her victimhood, who is skewing the
facts just enough to lend more drama to her story. But, this doesn't really
matter to me. One, my companion and I engaged in a fair amount of dram
ourselves and, two, it's over as far as we're concerned. We made a mistake.
Now it's time to move on.

I would, however, encourage you to watch the posts for the next couple of
days. I understand why you say this concept is fascinating. I suspect it
will get a bit more fascinating as it unfolds further. I don't think a
certain cadre of LiveJournal users has had the last word, yet.

Sincerely,
N.

----- Original Message -----
From: "eris ciccone"
To: fever@speakeasy.net
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 6:10 PM
Subject: curiosity killed the chaos goddess...

>
>
> TWIMC;
>
> I could not resist, I'm sure you've got too much mail at the moment if
this is all true, this is not hate mail I'm curious.
>
> Charity has been known to tell rather unbelievable storys and while I'm
fairly certain I believe her this time I'd like to hear it from the horse's
mouth.
>
> Are the emails she's posting in her livejournal entirely accurate?
>
> The whole concept is facinating, I however do not belive the drawing other
people in was altogether not intended, it would seem to me that that would
be part of the whole study, seeing reactions.
>
> Simply curious, reply if you wish.
> (eris)
>