Voice123.com Censors honest and fair rebuttals

An interesting blog:


Below is my three-times attempt to reply to comments (insults really) levied at me that have been blocked by Steven Lowell of Voice123. I had a read from a sympathetic colleague with whom I discussed this offline. She decided to attempt a comment posting for me.

I guess we don’t possess the proper V123 credentials.

Or, is it that we remain anonymous WHILE adding to the discussion key, critical components of thought, fact?

Either way, the reality is my facts weren’t disputed. Heck. They weren’t even addressed. Instead, some clever fishing around to provoke me along with attempting to discern my geographical whereabouts seems the only point of value to the folks at Voice123.com

More supporting evidence to The Bloozah that perhaps what I was saying in opposition to “New Union for Voice Actors?” was of threat, repeatedly cut at in an attempt to discredit and deflect the conversation from what I believe to be reasonable opinions and are most definitely supported by FACT, dismissed as “[my] own reality,” “threats” and “[rumor mill ‘gristing’ ]”

ENJOY!! (Warning – lengthy:) -Bloozah

From John

The Bloozah’s most recent reply attempt censored by Voice123.com

Why are you censoring this blog? Why not post the reply to your most recent comments directed at someone and not give them the chance to reply ? Is it because they prefer anonymity and you want to out them? Is it their rebuttal to your points or the fact that this person called you out on your not replying to these facts while attempting to insult and discredit. Is something being said threatening to your business? 

From ‘The Bloozah,’ three times attempting to post a reply to respond to Steve Lowell.


I honestly do not understand why anyone would want to deal with you, Steve, or V123 after this thread.

“You believe your own reality”
“[Northeastern-style overly-intelligent rhetorict. . .filled with threats]”
“trolling Internet.”
“[Reading rumors on Google.]”


I have been careful to outline FACT – my direct experiences via the V123 site. I tried to state a bit clumsily I’m not trashing your companies and obviously successful business models but in my opinion you are only furthering your brands.

I am only replying to what I believe is a faulty idea presented by a corporation with too many conflicts-of-interest to have that say, let alone orchestrate this venture.

Your rebuttle twice now is to not actually address my points but to attempt to discredit me to this audience with clever asides, conjecture and insults to anyone from the northeast, anyone intelligent, anyone who uses good vocabulary, anyone who has factual experience and opinions in our Industry contrary to yours and anyone who uses Google and the Internet. And, you seem to take my points personally. Then, you sort of qualify my passion if different opinion.

You are a corporation. I assume you are incorporated, yes? A. You have a board, a CEO, a CFO and shareholders, correct?? You are a for-profit model needing to show shareholders value, no?? Actually given multiple platforms one could deem you a conglomerate. The very entities SAG-AFTRA merged to more strongly negotiate with. In my opinion.

The fact that your CEO is in Silicon Valley leads me to believe VC money is/was involved in creating V123, adds support you are a corporate entity AND that V123 is THE EXACT ENTITY all talent ought be concerned about.

Like Google and other “Hi-tech” biz models, you are involved in a blurring line of consolidating interests and intersecting industries, between production and labor. Why would and should talent not make you accountable if you are the employer/producer? And why would talent sign on under you as our new union?

What is in it for professional skilled labor to work under a new union headed/steered/influenced by V123?? Why not just dial back to the days of contract players in the studio system??

The original discussion to which I replied was regarding “forming a new union,” with which I don’t agree. We just merged two unions in the face of competing unions racing to the bottom for low-bid contracts and territories that will serving to only benefit employers

Essentially, you charge talent to audition which I do not agree with. I do not know how your talent-seeking companies pay-in if at all. You propose to be the creators of and management for a new union while also serving as agent and studio even as you’ve removing casting directors from the business model unless the employers are hiring displaced casting directors. I do not know.

All I know is you will likely utilize your position as a rep of your company’s brand to spin out another reply that will poke holes in my facts and opinions. You know my opinion regarding a new union. I don’t believe using a real name does anything to burnish (for those who Steve assumes use this site who are poorly educated sorry, I meant “support” or “further”) my points.
I’m done with this discussion. Thanks.

A concerned pro-labor union talent “

[John’s attempt to post Bloozah’s comment] is awaiting moderation.