Comments on: The nastiest divorce/custody/dead baby stories you're ever likely to run across

The nastiest divorce/custody/dead baby stories you're ever likely to run across

thanotopsis — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:15:29 -0800

Alan Rodgers is a horror writer. This is his wikipedia entry, and this is his blog/forum at sff.net. He was originally married to Amy Stout, and together they had three children, two girls and a boy. After he tried to kill Amy Stout, she left him and married -- Me, Dan Moran. I'm the handsome dude in the eyepatch, if you click through to my profile. Together Alan and Amy #2 had a baby: Anthony Rodgers. Who died under interesting circumstances. A tragedy, I believe Alan Rodgers has called it, and by "tragedy" I suspect he means, "Thank God I wasn't prosecuted for negligent homicide." Or worse.

By: zeoslap

zeoslap — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:30:40 -0800

What is the point of this?

By: sneakin

sneakin — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:32:03 -0800

One creepy part is how flippant Dan Moran is about it. I would think he'd opt for a bit more decorum out of respect for his wife. Only because it might be kind of weird when your ex-husband probably killed his baby. Just saying. And, btw, is it just me or do his first and last names rhyme?

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:33:15 -0800

Okay, I just clicked the lead link, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say a post like this needs WAY MORE than the blog of this woman's current squeeze to warrant its existence. Like, for real. This is other people's squicky (and one-sided) dirty laundry, and I at least can say with confidence DO NOT WANT.

By: ubiquity

ubiquity — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:33:56 -0800

Interesting, but the poster's shocking violation of (or ignorance of) mefi rules makes me question the credibility of his account.

By: M.C. Lo-Carb!

M.C. Lo-Carb! — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:34:16 -0800

Uhh, I'm not sure what to make about all the Amys and babies, dead or alive, but I'm pretty confident that Dan Keys Moran wrote his own Wikipedia entry.

By: M.C. Lo-Carb!

M.C. Lo-Carb! — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:36:14 -0800

Oh, and eye patches? never, ever cool.

By: zeoslap

zeoslap — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:36:38 -0800

The died under interesting circumstances bit is just silly. Dad puts sleeping baby on the bed, baby rolls off and manages to roll in such a way that he suffocates. Tragic sure, but that's about it (on preview well put kfb, but why does ubiquity think this is a self link?)

By: sneakin

sneakin — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:36:47 -0800

ubiquity, Dan Moran isn't the MeFi poster. The MeFi poster is quoting Dan Moran's blog.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:37:34 -0800

Anybody named Stout-Moran has two strikes against them right there.

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:39:19 -0800

OMG - a HORROR writer!

By: sneakin

sneakin — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:40:23 -0800

zeoslap, I think ubiquity thinks it's a self link because he doesn't realize that the italics indicate that the OP is quoting Dan Moran's blog where he talks about himself in the first person. I think he thinks the OP is talking about himself in the first person.

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:41:38 -0800

I'm in the "this is a bit strange" camp as well. And I concur that Dan probably wrote his own wiki entry, reads like a press release. Why are we reading this?

By: thanotopsis

thanotopsis — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:42:22 -0800

ubiquity: Yea, flattered and all, but I'm not a writer by trade in anyone's wildest imagination.

By: adamgreenfield

adamgreenfield — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:54:14 -0800

If you didn't know that this DKM was utterly bereft of taste before reading his Wikipedia entry, doing so would leave you with no doubt whatsoever. ("Crystal Wind"? "data-starve"?? Eugh and feh.)

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:55:49 -0800

Oh, and eye patches? never, ever cool. Eye patches are cooler than this unfortunate mess. I wish the Stouts, the Morans, the Stout-Morans, the Rodgers, etc. all the best in life, may justice roll down like a river, yadda yadda, but I'm pretty uninterested in their laundry, dirty or clean.

By: adamgreenfield

adamgreenfield — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:55:57 -0800

Oooh, also: if that blog doesn't constitute actionable libel then I wasn't raised a lawyer's son.

By: misha

misha — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:00:39 -0800

Maybe the horror writer was negligent, but Dan Moran is obsessed.

By: athenian

athenian — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:02:22 -0800

If this is libel day on Metafilter, I'd like to add that Julia Roberts stabs nurses.

By: uncleozzy

uncleozzy — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:16:05 -0800

Get a brain, Moran!

By: otherwordlyglow

otherwordlyglow — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:17:05 -0800

Hey, I wore an eyepatch when I was 5 to correct a lazy eye, and it was totally cool! But yeah, dirty laundry, why?

By: Flashman

Flashman — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:33:38 -0800

uncleozzy just made this all worthwhile

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:35:53 -0800

Oh, and eye patches? never, ever cool. Don't tell that to this crewmate of mine. We pirates take eyepatches very seriously. Here's a Washington Post article that describes how he ended up with it.

By: bshort

bshort — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:36:18 -0800

Ugh. I don't like anything about this.

By: miss lynnster

miss lynnster — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:44:05 -0800

Court will be interesting. I'll try counting how many lies Alan gets out while we're there. It's a fun game and my daughters are now old enough to play along. We kept the girls away from the legal papers over the years in an attempt (vain, mostly) to protect them and give them as normal an upbringing as possible. This time they're seeing the paperwork as it passes around -- possibly the most interesting part of letting them read the legal documents we've collected over the years has been the frequency with which they've burst out, "Oh, that's such a lie." I don't think "protected" and "normal" mean what he thinks they mean.

By: jenfullmoon

jenfullmoon — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:47:10 -0800

What the heck...? Yeah, this is way obsessive to go on and on and on about your wife's ex.

By: tyllwin

tyllwin — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:06:34 -0800

It could be an interesting train wreck to watch, but it's really not possible to form much of a rational conclusion based on the one-sided vitriol spewed here. Alan Rodgers mnay be everything that Moran claims, but we can't tell when all we have is Moran's assertions. In particular the tired old trick of "extracting a very short exchange from a deposition, acting like every spoken word was uttered with deliberation, mathematical precision and reference to a dictionary, then wrapping it up with hysterical adjectives," grates on me. You know the only people who give practiced, invulnerable, eight hour depositions without casual constructions? Polished and accomplished liars. On a more general note, have you noticed how difficult stories like this can be to decipher when they're put out there as a blog vs an old-school website where there was some organization other than "newest posts at the top?" Note to self: if you're going to go to this much trouble to put up a site site dedicated to hatred of _X_, make sure that the readers don't have to work at decoding it...

By: thanotopsis

thanotopsis — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:17:16 -0800

but it's really not possible to form much of a rational conclusion based on the one-sided vitriol spewed here. To be fair, I tried to replicate Dan's link where Alan has responded to the blog posts many times on his own blog. My favorite posts are where he harps on Dan for looking like a pirate.

By: bruce

bruce — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:17:44 -0800

there's eight million stories in the naked city, and this is one i regret reading. fuck these clowns, every single one of them.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:18:02 -0800

Hey, I love me some Daniel Keys Moran but this site is creepy. One more reason never to learn anything about the personal lives of authors! adamgreenfield: Actually, The Long Run is one of the most rip-roaring action SF novels ever written. It's quite well regarded among the dozen or so people that ever read it. (Ok I exaggerate, but not by too much)

By: bigskyguy

bigskyguy — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:31:54 -0800

If his point is to get slapped with a libel suit, he's on his way to a roaring success. If his attorney (if he has one) is aware of this, he's exercising the worst kind of client control. Judges get pronouncedly pissed by this kind of thing. But the question still begs: Why was this posted ? It has no value, even as voyeurism. p.s. Only Nick Fury looked good in an eye patch. And he only wore it so you wouldn't confuse him with Reed Richards.

By: spock

spock — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:36:28 -0800

I sure hope I die under interesting circumstances.

By: tyllwin

tyllwin — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:45:01 -0800

I didn't mean you were spewing, thanatopsis. I meant Moran. Hope it didn't come across the other way. I saw the link the Rodgers' (blog? forum?) but Rodgers isn't really doing much to argue it. I don't think I blame him -- I assume he's keeping his mouth mostly shut on advice of counsel -- nothing you say in blog can ever help ongoing litigation, I expect. It can only hurt and I assume he knows that.

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:45:32 -0800

Only Nick Fury looked good in an eye patch. It's for medical ... oh. I thought you said Nick Currie.

By: thanotopsis

thanotopsis — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:46:09 -0800

But the question still begs: Why was this posted ? It has no value, even as voyeurism. I posted this as it is interesting to me in light of the fact that both of the parties involved are published authors. Sure, it's not Shakespeare accosts Marley over a barmaid, but it appears to be above the level of discourse one normally encounters on the internet.

By: bigskyguy

bigskyguy — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:51:25 -0800

Nick Fury vs. Reed Richards.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:58:20 -0800

Seems about on a par with the average installment of Jerry Springer, if you ask me.

By: Samizdata

Samizdata — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:18:02 -0800

Nope. Everyone's still got their shirts on...

By: adamgreenfield

adamgreenfield — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:57:54 -0800

Only Nick Fury looked good in an eye patch. Curiously enough, I just picked up the compiled Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. this morning, and was thinking of making that self-same observation. (I also observe the Momus Exception.)

By: Joakim Ziegler

Joakim Ziegler — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:51:45 -0800

I'd have to say that Andrew Vachss looks pretty damn good with an eyepatch, too.

By: kyrademon

kyrademon — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:44:47 -0800

His books are actually quite good.

By: stenseng

stenseng — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:38:00 -0800

"Only Nick Fury looked good in an eye patch." This is wrong. Exhibit A: Christopher "General Chang" Plummer, Star Trek VI Exhibit B: Moshe Dayan Exhibit C: John "Rooster Cogburn" Wayne The defense rests.

By: FormlessOne

FormlessOne — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:56:44 -0800

Curious - if this is indeed libelious, and that particular screed is both posted & discussed here, what's MeFi's liability, if any?

By: davejay

davejay — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:07:41 -0800

Why are we reading this? We're not. Well, I'm not. I'm just here for the comments.

By: Miastar

Miastar — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:09:29 -0800

This is None of My Business.