The Daryl Eisenberg Twitter Thread- Page 2

[Craig]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 9:01pm

sorry bout that - it's all reposted and formatted correctly as to not be too wide

[kylejerel17]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 9:46pm

I want to know how anyone did not discern the cellphone or labtop (whatever posting tool she used). Did anyone notice it?
Updated On: 8/12/09 at 09:46 PM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 9:51pm

Kelly2, are you honestly going to post telling people not to throw stones and follow it up with comments like that? Aren't you doing exactly what you're criticizing people here for?

This is a message board. If you don't like what's being said, leave. You obviously find everyone here to be beneath your level of impeccable morals, so maybe you should find a place more in line with your standards.

Get off your soapbox and get a reality check.

Updated On: 8/12/09 at 09:51 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 9:54pm

^what he/she said^

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:01pm

The difference is that: A) None of us are using professional accounts to post such things and B) None of us are really related to the people we post about. I'm sure if I, say, posted something negative about my employees or prospective job applicants on a message board and I was identifiable, I could definitely get in trouble.

Also, message boards are two-sided. If I post a thread about how I dislike Orfeh, someone is probably going to step in and defend her. These actors can't defend themselves on that Twitter.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:01pm

"I have no idea how they know."

Someone mentioned earlier about a bias because of the relationship to the poster. But, whatever.

Whether this thread existed or not, I still stand by what I said about the tweets being rude and uncalled for. Yes, I don't know her personally, and she seems to have accomplished a lot for someone her age, but to see her as someone who runs a business, I believe she acted quite unprofessionally.

Well, I guess some people are right. The tweets were extremely helpful. If I ever auditioned for her, I'll remember to sing Total Eclipse of My Heart in anything but a skirt.

[Lumen2]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:03pm

"Because she's in her early 20s, runs her own company, and no bank in their right mind would give a business loan to someone who just graduated from college if moneyed co-signers (i.e. Mommy and Daddy) weren't heavily involved."

Pretty much.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:04pm

If I ever auditioned for her, I'll remember to sing Total Eclipse of My Heart in anything but a skirt.

How about some chainmail?

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:06pm

You can wear a skirt, it just can't look Wiccan! Whatever THAT means. I'm guessing long? Also, sing the Family Guy theme.

Another problem is that these aren't necessarily helpful hints. It's all her opinions and caprices. For instance, she may hate cold calls, but can she really say that everyone does? And as for song choices, some of the ones she loved so much would make me groan if I had to hear them.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:09pm

"Also, sing the Family Guy theme."

I actually don't know the Family Guy theme. I guess my audition will be a train wreck. Maybe wearing the chainmail will make up for it.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:09pm

You can wear a skirt, it just can't look Wiccan! Whatever THAT means. I'm guessing long?

I'm assuming it was a broomstick skirt. Paired with a nice blouse they can be quite appropriate for many settings.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:18pm

The difference is I'm not throwing stones at someone for doing the EXACT SAME THING that every single person on this board does, simply because they happen to be in the industry and a professional.

You can't be so ignorant to think that NO ONE on here works in the industry too, can you?

[TheatreDiva612]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:20pm

Lol. Thanks for the visual, Eris.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:20pm

Didn't bww report this? Weird. They are so afraid of burning bridges. All good journalism ends up doing that.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:21pm

"You can't be so ignorant to think that NO ONE on here works in the industry too, can you? "

yes Kelly, everyone here is more ignorant than you.

oy vey.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:23pm

Kelly, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but you just finished a tirade in which you criticized the posters on this board for saying cruel things "beyond the realm of constructive or legitimate criticism," yet you then turn around and call me ignorant? Are you serious? You certainly epitomize your own judgements of others.

You've clearly missed the entire issue here. What you say in an "official" professional position and what you say "anonymously" on a message board are two different things that are covered by two different sets of decorum.

Daryl Eisenberg opened herself up to this criticism by posting these things in a public forum like Twitter. If she didn't want both positive and negative feedback, she shouldn't have said anything at all.

The fact that she's gone stone silent in recent hours proves just how strongly she stands behind her own convictions, and your continued hypocrisy proves the legitimacy of yours.

Updated On: 8/12/09 at 10:23 PM

[Eris0303]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:24pm

You're welcome, TheatreDiva612. Now I'm going to go cast a spell...

[Kelly2]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:29pm

somethingwicked, sorry, I don't see the difference between "Anonymous2" coming home from a casting session and posting rude things on BWW about certain actresses or actors and DECasting twittering during auditions and being careful not to name the people she was referring to, except that one is more a coward and a hypocrite than the other.

What exactly are you objecting to so strongly about the twitter? The fact that she did it and attached her professional name to her comments, the fact that she made any comment at all, or what? I mean, it doesn't make sense to me that someone who spends a great deal of time essentially bitching (yes, BEYOND the realm of legitimate and constructive criticism. Sorry, I don't think debating performers' genitalia and insulting them on a personal level falls under the realm of "discussion of their performance") would take such a personal and loud exception to someone else exhibiting the exact same behaviors.

Whatever my personal feelings about DE's behavior are, I know I'm in no position to call her out for what she does, because I post on this board, under my real name, and say plenty of things that I'm sure people could take offense or exception to. It would make me a hypocrite to shout her down.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:37pm

I love that you've completely ignored the issue of your judgmental nature of others clashing with your own contradictory actions, Kelly.

First of all, get your facts straight. I hardly spend most of my time on this board "bitching," and the history of my posts proves that. My history also proves that I never said anything in the thread about the "performer genitalia" incident you're referring to, so please at least attempt to be informed before you spew your ignorance (which you seem to do quite frequently.)

Me posting "anonymously" on this board and someone like Daryl Eisenberg posting the same thoughts in an "official" setting with her company's name attached are two separate things. She's reflecting poorly on herself and her company.

She opened herself to the risk of criticism, so now she has to deal with what she's created. I'm sorry if you're going to have a hard time getting people to feel sympathy for her when this is all self-initiated.

If you object so strongly to people taking her to task on this issue, stay out of the thread. Period. Spare us your obligation to correct the wrong-doing you seem to feel is so egregiously being committed.

Updated On: 8/12/09 at 10:37 PM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:41pm

"She opened herself to the risk of criticism, so now she has to lie in what she's created."

Weird, I don't think she has a problem with that. She seems to be taking the criticism with a fairly even temper, if a somewhat sarcastic and humorous one.

And I'm not judgmental of others, I just think hypocrisy is pretty annoying. I don't really have the free time to read through your entire post history (which I assume is sizable based on the "Broadway Legend" status), but if you really have never personally attacked anyone ever on this board, then fine, who am I to tell you that you have? But you have to realize that's the exception not the rule.

And somethingwicked? If the argument "If you don't like it, leave" is in play now, then might I suggest if you object to strongly to DECasting's twitter, you don't read it? :)

Updated On: 8/12/09 at 10:41 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:42pm

I'll only add that there isn't much of a difference between someone anonymously posting inside information here vs Daryl posting on twitter. In both scenarios, when someone posts something that others consider should be private or kept "in house" they get slammed.

So there really isn't a difference. Daryl - for better or worse is getting the same treatment as any poster here who would do the same. At least what I've noticed on the boards...

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:45pm

But Craig, Daryl wasn't posting on something that would be considered "private." Those Twitter postings were meant to be a public "tool" for people to learn from, so she is getting what she wanted by her dialogue being spread. That's where it becomes something different than what's been posted here.

And Kelly, it's good to know you make assumptions in publicly criticizing people with no attempt at being aware of whether or not they're actually accurate. It proves everything I've already said.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:48pm

"And Kelly, it's good to know you make assumptions in publicly criticizing people with no attempt at being aware of whether or not they're actually accurate. It proves everything I've already said."

I'm publicly criticizing the MAJORITY of posters on this board, which I thought I made clear. Your personal history is irrelevant. If you're going to try and assert that the majority of people on here don't post personal comments and criticism beyond the realm of appropriate dialogue, then feel free to support that with any kind of evidence. A quick read of the threads on the front page will disprove you though.

And sorry, but this board is as much of a public "tool" and "platform" as twitter is.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:52pm

You directly criticized me for participating in a specific thread that I had no involvement in at all. When confronted with that, you basically said you didn't have time to look as to whether or not I actually did participate in the alleged discussion, but you said I did anyway in an allegation that was clearly unsubstantiated. That goes beyond what you've said about everyone in general, though that's equally as bad.

There is a distinct difference between the venues involved here. As her defenders have been so quick to say, Eisenberg has promoted her company Twitter page (different from her private one) as an educational "tool" to give people insight into the casting process. This board claims to be nothing more than a platform for discussion on things related to Broadway.

When you make marketing assertions like that, you set the ground rules for how you should act accordingly. Saying negative things in two differing mediums comes along with two very different rules for behavior, plain and simple.

Updated On: 8/12/09 at 10:52 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 8/12/09 at 10:53pm

I think SW was being sarcastic Kelly2 in that statement. I could be wrong.

I stand by my comment though. Any poster who has (in the past) posted information which others deem inappropriate given their unique access to that information gets slammed. Today it's Daryl - tomorrow it might be the usher at some show.