June 18, 2005

Brian Conley Part II

Brian Conley has forwarded me the a few of the emails that led up to South Knox Bubba posting what he did (discussed very early this morning here).

I like to provide all sides of an issue, so you can read what led up to and what context that email was sent. To me, the context seems to be..."Are you threatening me?" "No, if I were actually threatening you I'd do this, this and this."

Due to its length I'm posting this as an extended entry, so click on "there's more" to read it all.

Mr. Wylie:

> From: Brian Conley
> Date: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:14:36 PM US/Eastern
> To: southknoxbubba@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Molly and Ellen
>
> It's not a threat. I just have a low tolerance for anonymous shit
> slinging. You've been pretty straight with me, but what really pissed
> me off was acting like my reference to the "girls" gave you some kind
> of insight into my psyche. It didn't. You don't know me. And, short of
> making the effort to know me, I'd appreciate it if you didn't act like
> you do.
> On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 01:04 PM, SK Bubba wrote:
>
>> Mr. Conley:
>>
>> I have a police record? Do tell.
>>
>> Anyway, I guess that's a veiled threat. OK, then. I'm
>> sorry you feel this way. I really don't understand it.
>> I never heard of you until people started talking
>> about you on the blog and the blab. I've tried to be
>> respectful of you and to see both sides of the few
>> controversies that have come up involving you or your
>> associates and to promote meaningful discussion about
>> some of them. I'm surprised that a mild criticism of
>> an MP entertainment article would provoke such a
>> response. Wish we could be on better terms.
>>
>> Regards,
>> SKB
>>
>> --- Brian Conley wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. Neal:
>>>
>>> If I wanted to manipulate you, I'd threaten to run a
>>> cover story on
>>> bank software designers and the blogs they create,
>>> complete with names,
>>> photographs, personal credit histories, police
>>> records, addresses,
>>> excerpts of their political rantings, etc.. But I
>>> wouldn't do that, now
>>> would I? Anonymity really shouldn't be abused.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 11:59 AM, SK Bubba
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mr. Conley:
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised by this e-mail. I responded to this
>>> on
>>>> the blab, but to reiterate, I don't see the
>>> "personal
>>>> attacks" you are talking about. I see some people
>>> who
>>>> didn't like the article voicing their criticism of
>>> the
>>>> article and the writers, who sort of asked for it
>>> in
>>>> the view of some readers. Actually, it seems the
>>>> opinion is running more in favor of the article
>>> than
>>>> not, so I guess you hit your target demographic
>>> with
>>>> it pretty effectively. And I'd think you'd be
>>> pleased
>>>> that people care enought about the MP and what is
>>>> written in it to even bother to debate it.
>>>>
>>>> As for MP being "very good" to me, that's the
>>> second
>>>> time someone from MP has made that remark. I guess
>>> I
>>>> thought it sort of went both ways. I have linked
>>> to MP
>>>> and MP articles hundreds of times, I have MP
>>>> prominently featured in my blogroll and other
>>> links. I
>>>> have helped promote MP books and events on the
>>> blog
>>>> and elsewhere. I have always been a big supporter
>>> of
>>>> MP. As for "very good", I recall once when MP
>>> lifted
>>>> an entire post off my blog and ran it without
>>> asking.
>>>> If you are referring to the few times MP has
>>> mentioned
>>>> my website, that's appreciated, but really it
>>> doesn't
>>>> do anything to drive traffic that I can tell. The
>>>> Street Talk thing was nice, but it also provided
>>> some
>>>> free and easy filler for MP.
>>>>
>>>> The KNS has also been "very good" to me. With
>>>> permanent, prominent links from the online blogs
>>> to my
>>>> site, frequent mentions in articles, inviting me
>>> to
>>>> participate in rather heated debate on their
>>> website
>>>> during the elections, and even recently inviting
>>> me to
>>>> guest post on their blog. Despite them being "very
>>>> good" to me, I still frequently and harshly slam
>>> their
>>>> editorial decisions and content. Sometimes even
>>>> articles by writers I "like" and respect.
>>> Commenters
>>>> frequently bash them, too. But not once has anyone
>>> at
>>>> KNS ever written to ask that I delete something or
>>>> censor somebody. They just laugh and go on to the
>>> next
>>>> story. Maybe that's just maturity, or
>>> professionalism,
>>>> experience, I guess. I know it's pretty tough to
>>> take,
>>>> and I take a lot of it and I don't even get paid
>>> for
>>>> it. At least you guys do.
>>>>
>>>> So I guess I don't get how I'm being disrespectful
>>>> just becuase someone posts criticisms of MP
>>> article on
>>>> a forum that I happen to host. On the other hand,
>>> it
>>>> would seem that you have been trying to maniuplate
>>> me,
>>>> successfully to a certain extent. I don't think
>>> it's
>>>> appropriate to expand that into censoring valid
>>>> criticism of local media because you don't like
>>> it.
>>>> Unless, of course, you want to buy me out or
>>>> something. Heh.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, this is getting really silly, and spinning
>>>> totally off center. Sorry we seem to disagree, I'm
>>>> sure we can work out some kind of common ground.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> SKB
>>>>
>>>> --- Brian Conley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bubba:
>>>>>
>>>>> It was good to meet you last night. I do hope we
>>> can
>>>>> get together some
>>>>> time. On another note, I'd like to say that I'm
>>>>> pretty surprised you've
>>>>> let a lot of the personal attacks of Molly and
>>> Ellen
>>>>> stand. All in all,
>>>>> Metro Pulse has been very good to you and I'm not
>>>>> asking for anything
>>>>> in return, save a little respect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian
>>>>>
>>>>>

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

Admittedly, the stuff about the personal history is crude and I can see how it came off as threatening. But I don't believe that people have the inherent right to anonymity, particularly when they are personally attacking real people. That is the context and, for the record, I didn't out bubba, nor was I planning to do an article regarding his identity.

Posted by: Brian Conley at June 18, 2005 02:55 PM

"Admittedly, the stuff about the personal history is crude and I can see how it came off as threatening. But I don't believe that people have the inherent right to anonymity, particularly when they are personally attacking real people. That is the context and, for the record, I didn't out bubba, nor was I planning to do an article regarding his identity."

Well, there you go again. You just gave his real name to your two employees to do with as they choose. Doesn't that mean that you did out SKB? What part of that do you not see as a lie Brian?

Posted by: Will Kane at June 18, 2005 08:05 PM

If he insulted these girls, then he doesn't have the right to remain anonymous.

Posted by: Jennifer at June 18, 2005 08:22 PM

The catch is, don't columnists make themselves part of the story when they write an entire column about their own, first-person adventures? They made themselves part of the story.

Posted by: Mr. Roboto at June 18, 2005 10:35 PM

Admittedly my taxes were crude and I can see how it came off as threatening. Thomas Paine did not deserve anonymity when he attacked me personally and anonymously in Common Sense. But I don't believe that people have the inherent right to anonymity, particularly when they are personally attacking real people. I didn't out Paine, nor was I planning on having my Redcoats do a special on him.

Brian, you're my kind of guy!

Posted by: King George at June 18, 2005 10:52 PM

Definitely weird to see a newpaper owner or publisher decry the right to anonymity.

Power of the press! As long as it's your press.

You're a brilliant PR piece for Knoxville!

Posted by: jerry at June 18, 2005 10:54 PM

I'm not familiar with the publication Brian Conley works for, but "masquerading as a journalist" is a heavily populated occupational pursuit at American newspapers these days, and it sounds as if Conley meets the qualifications for the job: unprofessional behavior, unvalued (and quickly absent) credibility, etc.

I have no problem with anonymously written blogs. In fact, the anonymity is often a requirement because of the situation above and because "regular folks" who are not journalists are finding it necessary or simply appealing to step into the breach and counter the failure and even abject refusal of our news media to fulfill their entrusted responsibility in our republic.

I wish South Knox Bubba the best. I've made it a point during the past couple of months to post comments on a few blogs in order to support the rising "we media," because these outlets are so desperately needed for an informed public at this juncture.

Posted by: Donna Locke at June 18, 2005 11:39 PM

SKB posted all of these emails and a few more to provide even more context. They don't make Conley look good at all.

Posted by: Manish at June 19, 2005 02:43 AM

I'm not sure that I really care, but shouldn't a newspaper publisher be above this stuff? And does it matter if SKB is no longer anonymous? Was that a part of his "legend"? I'm new to blogging, so this is curious to me.

Tempest in a teapot is where I see it.

Posted by: Ronj at June 19, 2005 07:04 AM

"And does it matter if SKB is no longer anonymous?"

It mattered to SKB. His business apparently caters to a clientele -- bankers -- who are not generally suspected of being as liberal as he is. The business seems to be local in scope, so that any loss of business due to this incident could hurt a lot. Something like this *shouldn't* matter, of course, but the incident suggests the Knoxville area already has too many surprisingly thin skinned people who don't exercise good business sense or ethical judgment.

Conley acted like a jerk in this. He was thin-skinned about criticism of a sophomoric piece his two-bit paper published. He then pulled 'gratitude rank' on SKB and was surprised SKB didn't roll over. This "no, if I were really threatening you..." business doesn't fly: he then addressed SKB by name, leveled a very thinly veiled threat -- and followed that with an assurance it was in fact not a threat, which in context of that e-mail made it sound very much like a promise instead.

As for Conley's "low tolerance for anonymous shit slinging": the rest of us have a low tolerance for a two-bit newspaper"man" throwing his weight around. He's a pathetic little fish in a little pond who seems to think he's the king of the ocean. "Metro Pulse has been very good to you" -- so follow its publisher's bizarre code of honor or else.

Posted by: Thomas Nephew at June 19, 2005 09:54 PM

"If he insulted these girls, then he doesn't have the right to remain anonymous."
He didn't insult anyone.
Seems the girls did a good job of damaging their reputations in a very public manner. Now just what happened to that "sleeve of coconut scented rolling papers" they would need later? I read the whole article and that point, so prominent in the beginning, was never revisited.
What Mr. Conley did by threatening to reveal SKBs credit information was commit a crime. It was a terroristic threat and is a class two misdemeanor in most jurisdictions punishable buy both jail time and hefty fine. Veiled threat or not is up to the DA to decide.

Posted by: Lincolns Ghost at June 20, 2005 06:13 AM

Veiled threat or not is up to the DA to decide.

And a jury. But Conley's statement above ("Admittedly, the stuff about the personal history is crude and I can see how it came off as threatening.") sure helps. It's a slam dunk civil case.

Posted by: Mithras at June 20, 2005 06:47 AM

"I responded with an anecdote about
manipulation and the statement that I wouldn't do that."
I don't see a statement to that effect. I see this rhetorical question:
"But I wouldn't do that, now would I?"
which, to me, definitely suggests that maybe the writer WOULD do what he just suggested.
All in all the email in question definitely reads like a threat. I can't imagine it being interpreted otherwise.

Posted by: tom clements at June 20, 2005 01:06 PM

I would have moved to take control of the situation as SK Bubba did. Sounded like a threat. You just never know what other people will do. Most of us prefer having some control over our own fate.

Posted by: Donna Locke at June 20, 2005 04:10 PM

South Knox Bubba has revealed the identity of anonymous posters to his own blog when he disagreed with their politics, or otherwise felt they were behaving badly. He even gave their place of business and referenced their IP numbers. Yet, he is outraged at the prospect that someone might reveal his own identity?

Posted by: PH at June 21, 2005 04:04 AM

Here's hoping Bubba sues Conley's ass off...

Posted by: E. Nonee Moose at June 21, 2005 03:04 PM

Now that the apologies are over by Conley, and SKB's identity has been revealed, I can't help but laugh!!

In SKB's email he accuses Conley of manipulating him. And what are the results? Conley manipulates Bubba into outing himself!

It doesn't get much funnier than this! I have to agree with Hobbs on this one. SKB freaked out--now we see why he doesn't understand war.

When faced by the threat of enemy--he'd shoot his own self. The Art of War is definitely not a book on his shelf.

A calm, cool professional would have posted Conley's email, but still not revealed his identity--the effect then being to make Conley look harsh, yet still maintain the upper hand by protecting his identity.

There is no lawsuit here, despite the hysteric rantings. I'm so amused by all these Bubba groupies--what would the suit be?

And lastly, the true irony of all of this, is that Bubba liked the anonymity, yet his ego got the best of him---he just haaaaadddd to tell the important folk who he was. If you're going to be anonymous, you must be completely anonymous.

Posted by: Still Laughing Anonymously at June 22, 2005 07:50 AM

The anonymity of SKB is not the issue for me. The issue for me is that Conley "threw" what little weight he has around in the threat that wasn't a threat. His psuedo-alt weekly is supposed to be the choice of people tired with the limited nonsense of mainstream news, instead Conley bullies after SKB makes a mild comment about a sophomoric story about a couple of dense party girls. He didn't say "I am threatening you." He did the next best thing, by telling SKB what he "could" do. For pete's sake, that was an intimidation move if I've ever seen one.
Did SKB panic, no, I don't think so Mr. anonymous laughing man, I think SKB was pissed and stood up for himself.
Damn cool move. As for the Metro Pulse, the "cool" weekly has proven its not so cool after all.

Posted by: Tracy Sharp at June 22, 2005 08:17 AM

It's Miss Still Laughing Anonymously.

And I'm still laughing.

Posted by: Still Laughing Anonymously at June 22, 2005 08:21 AM

Wow, and you are still laughing, Miss Anonymous. Good for you, glad you are having fun. I'm glad you are so knowledgeable about things like "The Art of War." It's people like SKB to give up their anonymity so you can keep yours. And anomymity in times of war are always heroic.
Keep up the good work. For some reason, I'm laughing, but not at South Knox Bubba.

Posted by: Tracy Sharp at June 22, 2005 06:23 PM

Brian:

We knew you were a jerk before, but this takes the cake. Given false names to any cops lately?

Scott Robbins

Posted by: Scott Robbins at July 19, 2005 02:51 PM