I kinda feel like I just got told that that twinge in my knee that I thought was just a thing that happened when a storm was coming is actually a tumor. How could I not have noticed?

Except I know many habits and characteristics I have that would let me not notice. I'm so sorry.

I feel this way too. I'm upset that I never saw it, that I didn't let myself accept the seriousness of what I did see. I'm really sorry, both that we've lost people over this, and that my silence might have in any way contributed to their leaving.

I would vote for Dana's proposal. I feel he's had enough warnings and chances already, and more importantly, if he should return to the board, it would only cause more harm.

I concur with Debet's proposed language.

There's just no part of this that isn't upsetting.

This.

I looked at the Smugglers link and I'm hopping someone can provide some clarification for me. The term "grooming" is used. To my understanding, this is a behavior engaged in by an adult abuser towards a child.

Is this term being used differently than my understanding or is there minor involvement in this long, sad, sordid, saga?

I haven't heard anything about any kids being involved. It seems like people are expanding the definition of the word.

I haven't heard anything like that either.

I was assuming the use of "grooming" was in the context of "prepping the next target." I still assume that's its only meaning.

In psychological terms, 'grooming' indicates manipulative behavior on the part of any abuser intent on engaging victim focus. It is most often used in child abuse cases, but is by no means specific to those cases.

Gaslighting, isolating, intimidation, sexualizing...are all part and parcel to grooming, stalking and other abusive behaviors.

The only thing I can figure is that the term "grooming" is being used with respect to the promises he was alleged to have made to young writers—of promising to add them to a list of people he "might" follow on Twitter.

Mind you, that's one of the most flabbergasting things I've heard because seriously, who CARES if he follows them on Twitter, but then, I put it down to the fact that I've known him far longer than these people and initially within a far different context.

Man, even typing it out, it looks ridiculous, but it's something I've heard from multiple sources.

I agree. Who gives a good goddamn? But I guess he's not an undergrad pipsqueak anymore...he's a *published* pipsqueak. I guess I never thought of a follow as a commitment much, though, either...there might be a subtext for "the kids" that I have not been aware of, but my twitter is just a grab-bag of writers, politics junkies, and attempting to get John Cusack's attention... I can't imagine seriously using it for Capital-N Networking, but maybe that's why I could read that saga on a Thursday, right?ETA: No Cusacks were stalked or threatened, or even confronted with my inspiring status. Pinky swear.

Mind you, that's one of the most flabbergasting things I've heard because seriously, who CARES if he follows them on Twitter, but then, I put it down to the fact that I've known him far longer than these people and initially within a far different context.

But it's in the context of their careers in SFF publishing and his power as an editor and reviewer. (Because it sounds silly as hell to me, too, but only because I'm not at all in that sphere.)