Amanda’s Backstory Reveals Ugly Character :: Did You Know?

Oh, I’ve been told not to write this post – many times, by many people. It needs to be said, though, and it appears I’m the only one willing to say it.

So, here we go…

This flatulent Amanda character blogger that too many seem to love, isn’t what you think. Or, maybe it is – and if that’s true, you should be ashamed.

If you didn’t know about the real Amanda, that’s still not much of an excuse. You should be especially careful before crawling into bed with the fraud known as Amanda.

Let’s get to know the real Amanda. The one that slithered in the background during the 18 months of its pitiful life. Come along. Learn the truth.

Amanda in her best lightAmanda, in whatever incarnation you wish to imagine her, was and is a childish wimp. It stalked people online and off. It threatened you if you dared write anything contrary. I know. Others do, too. Oh, they can out themselves, if they wish. I won’t name them. But, they know who they are and how they were attacked behind the scenes.

Before you think something like, “Awh, tough. It couldn’t have been that bad.” – I suggest you think again. It was worse than anything you saw online.

Amanda didn’t care about righting wrongs. It didn’t care about improving the practice of PR. It cared about feeding Amanda’s addiction. That addiction? Her (their) egos. That’s all. Well, I think it also wanted to make money off the charade. That proved to be a red herring, too.

For me, the stalking and attacks happened, too. I’m tough. I can take it. The emails, the messages, the phone calls and phone messages. Really. All of that. More than you likely imagine. Vile, vulgarity-laced attacks. Even you hardened flacks and hacks would likely take a step back.

All of it took place in the back channels of Internet life. It got so bad, it became sad. Then comical. I laughed it off. Until … a line was crossed.

It went after my students. Don’t worry, they are tough, too. But the act itself confirmed what I already knew. The emails, the phone calls, the threats. Oh, yes. Threats. Lots of them.

It all confirmed that Amanda (in whatever form) is one sick twisted coward.

I confronted one of the sundry fools. You see, you never knew … was it one person? three people? more? The comments and emails could have come from any one of them. So, in my eyes, they are all guilty. They made their bed. Let them lie in it together. After all, they lied every time they posted.

Whatever. Whomever. I found one and I told it to back off of that nonsense with the students. Comment, critique … but none of the acid it had poured on me. Save the most vicious for me. I’ll take it. After all, Amanda was and is a joke. Amanda knew I wasn’t kidding. The nonsense with the students stopped.

Then … another line was crossed. If it couldn’t pick on the students, it would increase the types of attacks on me.

It called my boss. Come on, you can’t make this stuff up. Really. It threatened to go further up the ladder, too. I’m not kidding. All of the above because I wrote critiques of Amanda’s posts and quoted publicly available material. That’s all. Perhaps I touched a nerve. Please note, I did not engage in any long back and forth email fights. Everything I wrote was in this blog. You can read it for yourself. Just look around. In fact, I rarely responded to the emails and phone calls. If I did, it was with essentially the same thing. “Develop some character. Don’t be one. Stop contacting me.” That’s it. Hey, I know not to feed the troll.

So, with the heightened level of attacks and threats from Amanda, it was suggested that I no longer mention the idiot. Just ignore the child.

I agreed and stopped. The contact from the coward slowly faded away. Finally, no more emails. No more phone calls. Sweet silence.

You might ask, why write about it now? Frankly, I don’t care anymore. I really do not care anymore. I will gladly debate the fool(s) in public. But, we all know – don’t we – that it won’t step up to the challenge. It doesn’t have the character of its own fraudulent convictions. Don’t you see the hypocrisy? Even funnier since Amanda always claimed to be pointing out hypocrisy.

Why don’t I care anymore?

the most realistic view of Amanda you’ll likely ever seeLook to your right. That’s the most realistic depiction of Amanda you’ll likely ever see. I doubt it has (any of them have) the true character to finally come out in the open. We’ll see.

Here it is. I know the real Amanda. I know the Amanda that never showed its face in public. Funny, isn’t it? If you know how ugly it could be in its blog and comments in the blogs of others, well … you know what I mean. What I’m talking about here is the back channel ugliness that is Amanda. Perhaps even Amanda knew that this level of crude, rude and insane behavior wouldn’t play well with even her most ardent fans. Again, a coward.

Today, I look around the PR / Marcom blog world and see so many fawning expressions of true sadness due to Amanda’s departure. It gives me that sensation … you know it. Wait, here it comes again … yes, that taste of vomit in the back of your throat. Yep, that’s it. And all of it happens because I see so many fawning over a cowardly fraud.

Sure, there have been some good, thoughtful and insightful posts about the fool’s departure. I won’t link, though. I know what that does to Amanda. It sets it off and sends it off to attack others. It isn’t gone. It is out there lurking and in many forms. So, let it/them stick with me. I was, after all, their hobby (it seemed) for months – behind the scenes.

But, that’s the real world of social media, isn’t it. The good and the bad. If you step out here, you have to realize that there are freaky people out there … and you can’t predict what they’ll do.

Still, I have a right to my opinion, too, right? So, here it is.

Amanda, you are frauds. You are cowards. You are punks.

the sheep that followedI can only think of those that did follow Amanda with such glee as one thing. Sheep.

One thing Amanda never learned. You’ve really gotta’ have character, not try to adopt it as a persona.

Unlike Amanda, I own my opinions. Unlike Amanda, I’m not afraid. I sign my name. I’m Robert French.

So, you punks, what are your names? If you’re going to walk off the stage, at least try to do it like a grown woman or man. Not like the childish fools you’ve been for all these months … and, perhaps, all of your lives.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Amanda’s Backstory Reveals Ugly Character :: Did You Know?

  1. Todd Defren

    I was also the subject of “Amanda’s” wrath, both via vicious private emails and, in public, on the Strumpette blog.

    After telling “her” I’d be doing so, I ascribed “her” email address to the Junk folder so I wouldn’t even know when/if she had written me. I also formulated a Blog Policy that forbade comments from anonymous people. She soon faded out of my line of sight.

    Didn’t care then, don’t care now, won’t miss “her.”

  2. Pingback: Mike’s Points » Blog Archive » Other great points . . . .

  3. vaspers aka steven e. streight

    Robert, I bashed the living F out of Amanda Chapel, five failure guys hiding behind an Asian woman’s avatar.

    They, the Amanda Chapel Team, trolled and F bombed me on Twitter for about 2 months or more. They argued for Oligarchy, not Democracy, and I called them on it. They love hierarchy, old media, and corporate command and control.

    First, I debated. Then, when it got insane and ugly, I ignored them, sort of. I mean I quit doing @AmandaChapel on Twitter, instead I would deconstruct their attacks, with “Trolls tend to ….”

    I Twittered the link to The Matrix Online Guide to Trolls.

    People got tired of me defining and deconstructing trolls, so I chilled a bit.

    Eventually, the Amanda Chapel Hoax died away. I have not seen a Twitter message from these fat losers in Chicago for over 2 months now. I’ve even nudged them to tweet again. I kind of miss their juvenile attacks.

    Amanda Chapel Team, who I called the Libelous Troll Brigade on Twitter (@Libelous Troll Brigade), seems to be an unofficial sponsor or supporter of idiot Andrew Keen and his silly book The Cult of the Amateur.

    I think they tried to use blogs for PR for a client, it failed, so now they’re Anti Cluetrainers.

    Pathetic.

    A prominent marketing blogger says she knows the PR firm where one of the Amanda Chapel Troll Team was fired from. He lives in Chicago, in his mom’s basement, unemployed, with nothing better to do than malicious F bomb trolling. Psychopathic.

    They issued a death threat to me, so I told them they’d hear from my lawyers.

    They bashed me, Steve Rubel, and Robert Scoble in particular on Twitter.

  4. Luke Armour

    Robert. Thank you.
    While I have always agreed with the concept of holding a mirror to our actions for a little introspective satire and self-deprecating humor, what the strump team was doing was not that. Always bitter and angry, it left a bad taste and rarely got the point across, so steeped in rancor. Thanks for standing up for what you believe in.

  5. vaspers the grate aka steven e. streight

    I Googled “amanda chapel” and am appalled at how many idiot PR wankers actually were fooled by this hoax. They even talk about “her” “beautiful language”! I posted a comment that they should look at the Amanda Chapel Twitter page to see “beautiful language”…F bombs and filthy, hateful speech directed against me, Scoble, and Rubel.

    Any PR person who was deceived by the Amanda Chapel Hoax is an idiot.

    PR with filthy, hateful speech is not effective, ethical, or democratic. Trolling is not PR. You know how combative and controversial I am, Robert. But there’s a huge difference between blogocombat and trolling.

    Some stupid PR pundits actually thought Amanda Chapel was really an attractive Asian woman, even sexy. But it’s five fat loser dudes hiding behind her photo, probably from iStock or Morgue File.

    Anonymous trolling is not PR. Only a sleazy, uneducated PR pundit would consider anonymous team trolling and hate speech to be a good PR idea.

    http://twitter.com/vaspers

    LOL

  6. Susan Getgood

    Well said. You know my feelings on the matter. “It” took a few jabs at me in the beginning, but I ignored it and it left me alone. Why? Don’t know. Don’t care.

    But I am sorry so many of you found yourselves the targets of its juvenile attacks.

    And proud to know you, Robert, for having the courage to lay it all on the line.

  7. Kristie Wells

    Having felt the bite of AC through attacks made on my husband (Chris Heuer), as well as several close friends, I was happy to see the doors were being closed on their chop shop. However, it would be foolish of us to believe it was for good. I know AC (or others like AC) will arise again as the temptation is too great to remain silent on their part.

    My wish is that we, as a community of people wishing to promote best practices, be willing to put our own arse on the line and call them out specifically (by name if/when known) when they do surface. They have supposed ‘power’ in anonymity. The only way to quell these attacks is to put a real face to them…immediately.

  8. Robert

    Thank you, to all that have commented. Just got in from lab / class.

    Chris Clarke: Thanks. I know about those. It seemed to have a healthy appetite for attacks.

    Todd Defren: Thanks for commenting. I remember those instances, too. Sorry it came after you in private, as well. Glad you filtered it out.

    Mike Driehorst: Thank you for the link and the Twitter comment.

    Alice Marshall: Wow. I’m flattered to even be mentioned in the same breath with Johnson. I’m certain I’m not really in that league. Johnson is a beloved icon down here. I do appreciate the comment and the post at your blog, too. Thank you very much.

    steven e. streight: Thank you, Steven. I appreciate the kind words and offer of support. I’ll deal with it myself if any backlash comes down. Not worried about it, but thanks.

    Luke Armour: Thank you, Luke. I too will readily stand before the mirror and be critiqued. It is important to be open to it, I agree. Stumpy never got that.

    Kami Huyse: Thank you, Kami. Your support has meant a lot to me and the students all these years. You are appreciated.

    Donna Papacosta: Thanks, Donna. Yep, it didn’t make sense, did it. The throng blindly following anything is always a bad sign.

    Susan Getgood: Thank you, Susan. Proud to know and work together with you, too. The students also appreciate you and all you’ve done for them, as well. Thank you.

    Neville Hobson: Thank you. I hope others will speak out.

    Karine Joly: Thanks, Karine. Not so bad that it couldn’t be dealt with, but felt the need to tell most of it here. Looking forward to the upcoming conference. Thanks for all you’re doing.

    Kristie Wells: I agree, Kristie. Thanks for commenting. There are those that do know (or claim to know) all the true names of the pack. In my eyes, they bear responsibility in this, too. They could speak out now, but seem to lack the character to do so.

  9. Mark Rose

    This sounds like a support group for poor battered little souls who are finally able to speak their inner feelings after being relentlessly terrorized by a big bad anonymous blogger. Boo hoo. No mention here of how Strumpette confronted the industry and attracted top PR agency CEOs and other execs to write for the blog, and the top academics who expended time and really stretched themselves to become real ‘thought leaders.’ Come on, you’re descending into pathos and revealing petty jealousy because Amanda and crew had the insight and courage to really confront the industry and take us all to a higher level. Yes, there was some collateral damage. But that always happens in a real battle.

  10. Another stalkee

    If you knew the truth of it, Mark, I promise you that you wouldn’t be saying such things. When Robert says “online and off,” “off” is the key word. If you criticize it, it will come after you — not just through online attacks, but by repeatedly contacting your employer, clients, family members — anything it needs to do to make you shut up. There are no limits.

    If this kind of “offline” campaign were ever directed at you, Mark, I promise you would be singing a different tune. You would do what you needed to do to protect your family and your business relationships. That is, you would shut up.

    You are an ally of Strumpette because you have only seen the smart, erudite side of the person behind the Amanda character. He has only allowed you to see this side.

    What you don’t know about is the other side — the side that dishes it out but can’t take it — to the point of being mentally unbalanced. Its most vicious attacks have been reserved for those who have drawn the obvious link between the Amanda character and its male creator.

    You may find this all too incredible to believe, Mark. I might if I were you. But if you do a little digging and research, and ask around a bit, you can find out the truth if that matters to you, which I hope it does.

  11. Geoff Livingston

    Robert: All I can say is me, too. I fact I posted on it as well http://tinyurl.com/yq7zuf.

    What’s really funny is watching a name-dropping has-been named Mark Rose — one of the Amandae (and another Edelman flunkee) — create pro-Amanda attacks on all of the posts criticizing Strumpette. In true form, these attacks cannot bear to let Strumpette’s body of work stand (or fall) on its own. Instead they must devolve into childish, pre-school rants. Just like Amanda. A fitting end to a ridiculous era in the pr blogosphere.

    I’ve added you to my reader. Thanks to Kami for adding you to her del.icio.us links.

  12. Alice Marshall

    If you criticize it, it will come after you — not just through online attacks, but by repeatedly contacting your employer, clients, family members — anything it needs to do to make you shut up.

    Aren’t there anti-cyber stalking laws to protect people from this sort of vindictiveness?

  13. Another stalkee

    In theory. I’ve looked into them. But it’s a lot of work and a lot of trouble, and there are no guarantees. It’s just not worth it, as sad as that is to say.

  14. Peter Himler

    After posting this week what I believed was a relatively balanced look at “Amanda,” I came home yesterday, drained from a media event I just managed, only to be told by my wife that someone named Brian Connolly left a rather unpleasant message on my home answering machine. It frightened her. Thankfully my #3 son wasn’t around to hear the language. Shame on you, Brian. This was my home.

  15. Robert

    Mark Rose: “Yes, there was some collateral damage. But that always happens in a real battle.” Mark, I can only derive from your comment that you are too tied to your own involvement with Amanda to be able to step back and fairly evaluate the entire history of the site and its authors. The most important evaluation being, of course, the hidden activities that actually ran contrary to all that the site claimed to be fighting for in the first place. Your whole comment is a perfect example of the blind sheep I referred to above. That “collateral damage” you refer to are real people, their spouses and children. It is a fact that many suffered from Amanda’s petty, childish games. And that did not have to happen. There is no justification for it, period.

    Regarding the “Another stalkee” commenting above, please note that this is a comment only anonymous to you. I know who it is. I remember what happened to them, both in public and in private. It was truly ugly. Their very act of commenting anonymously, I feel, is testament to the damage done by Amanda. Even today, they prefer to not be identified and once again suffer the possible pounding in the back channels.

    Geoff Livingston: I’m sorry it happened to you, too. And, I agree that the minions of Amanda are still out there. I fear that once they bought in, they haven’t the ability to step back and take account of the true broader landscape and consequences. So, they continue the fight, realizing that they are now stained by willing association. They want to try and hold on to their own imagined credibility. Mark is just one of many, who I imagine are now quite lonely, examples.

    Alice Marshall: The legal/judicial remedies are limited and not well defined. Plus, as was pointed out, they are costly and time-consuming with no promise of justice at the end. More importantly, there are those that do know who the real instigators are, yet they lack the true character to now identify them publicly. Instead, they now bear the stains of association and seem bent on trying to preserve their own public personas.

    Peter Himler: Thanks for commenting, Peter. If that doesn’t say it all, I don’t know what will. If any more come to defend the tactics of Amanda and her ilk, and have read that, well … there really isn’t any hope for them is there.

  16. Mark Rose

    I’ll agree with Geoff and let the Strumpette body of work stand or fall on its own. Jealousy, the green monster, prevails here. I appreciate all the great work that so many PR leaders contributed to Strumpette because they felt they finally had a forum where excellence prevails and creativity was supported.

  17. Pingback: Bring me the head of Amanda Chapel | PR Blog News

  18. captain flummox

    Even without being plugged into this Amanda thing (I only read one linked post about it in the beginning,) I have to say this post made my day for calling out bad behavior, though the story is so odd I briefly wondered if it were real until I realized I’d never seen anything short of honesty here. I am so glad I completely missed whatever Amanda wrought, but even with my lack of familiarity with the history, it reinforces a nagging suspicion — that sometimes I’m not sure I want the internet to make the world a smaller place.

  19. Another stalkee

    Mark, that’s completely non-responsive to the issue of offline harassment. This is about fear and intimidation, not jealously.

    Robert’s post resonated becaused it echoed the experience of those who challenged “Amanda” but were long ago silenced. You’d like to think they were silenced by the force of “Amanda’s” mighty pen — but the reality is much, much uglier. Do a Google search if you care to know the truth.

    Shame on you if you’ll stand by “Amanda” without doing your own research on what’s occurred. It’s beyond hypocritical.

  20. Pingback:   Social Media Top 10 - Week 5 by The Bryper Blog

  21. Pingback: Cheers, Brian (Connolly) « Krempasky.com

  22. Pingback: Is This the Real Reason for Amanda Chapel’s Departure from Strumpette? » The Buzz Bin

  23. Robert

    Thanks, to captain, Bryan, Mike and Geoff for the comments and links.

    Now, I’m going to suggest that people not comment anymore. The reason why?

    Amanda has attempted to post a comment. It has, of course, long been banned from this site.

    So, unable to lash out at me here … it resorted to taking the names of all those that posted here and sent yet another profane email to all of us. Yes, the email did contain the Amanda obligatory threat (it always remembers to threaten).

    So, I suggest we let it drop here. The point was made. That’s what matters and I don’t want anyone else to have to put up with the nonsense this troll doles out.

    Have a good weekend. I’m going to.

    Comments are turned off on this post, due to spam, er – threats … well, both.

  24. Pingback: b2bspecialist (Chris Herbert)