Anyway, you're such a hanger-on.  You have the keys to my office in Bushwick, why don't you just go there and trash the place. I might suggest, however, that you go there and do some homework, or at least work on your novel, B!HOLD, a really great work that I would like to see published. But let me qualify, me wanting to see your book published is not the same as me saying I'll pay to print it. Okay?

I feel like the Martha Washington of Williamsburg, dealing with an impetuous child.

Ha!  Did you really "glue the locks of the L Cafe" in your rage? That's so ghetto. I love it. 

And I still have this shitload of emails to parse through for this Gothamist website--so bring it, brother. We shall see who lasts until this thread is closed. I'm filibustering this gentrification motherfucker.

I encourage Gothamist readers here also to read Spike Vrusho's article on the sad state of the Waterfront Week when it stopped publication: 
http://www.nypress.com/article...

Note that Spike Vrusho was columnist for WW while it was published by committee and thereafter, when Ethan selfishly wrested control for himself. 

And what really kills people like Ethan is Vrusho's observation:

"After what is guessed to be 12 years of pretty much steady publication, Waterfront Weekis washed up. The humble free weekly sat quietly in the corner of Williamsburg bars, largely ignored since the neighborhood long ago became a living museum of hipster Gen-X dotcom irony. Dennis Sinned was right.

Dennis was a local "activist’’ who back in the early 90s saw the future of Williamsburg. He saw penne vodkas and brioche on every corner, with rents adding a comma to the monthly tab. Back then he railed against Waterfront Week and its readership. He was a Latino John Brown, using fliers, leaflets and appearances on open-stage poetry nights within the very venues he decried. He allegedly even went so far as to glue the locks of the L Cafe in his effort to stop the hipster takeover of Williamsburg’s north and south sides."

I know you're relying on the ignorance of readers of this venue but it won't work--you were responsible for Minor Injury contradicting its stated mission, eventually ending in bankruptcy and the end of a critical venue not just for arts but arts funding in North Brooklyn. Of course, in fairness, the responsibility should be shared by the members of the board who you beguiled into voting in favor of Friedlander and Siegel, who made it very clear their intent to violate the gallery's mission--again, ending in its bankruptcy. The art community thanks you. And, of course, because you're a devil, you're counting on dumb kids and ignorant hipsterati to click on your link and so direct traffic from this evil spout of lies you have here. I doubt it will work, since you've done it before, and you still have only 150 members in "your metropolis." Good luck--you need it.

Now I will move onto your antics concerning Waterfront Week--firstly, your title as "publisher," as everyone familiar with the internal dynamics of Waterfront Week from Volume 2-3 [1992-1993] understood was ostensible. You thought you deserved this ostensible title because you "founded" it alongside Genia Gould, but the truth of the matter is that WW was put together and published by a committee during this period. You were a mere gossip columnist that people mostly laughed and thought were quaint if they cared at all until 30 Days rolled around and the gentrification dialogue gave you a temporary significance you continue to search for thereafter and can only find when you troll me. It was only after effort and only after you noted how well-received critically and popularly was this "publication-by-committee" that your devilish envy again overcame you and you asserted rights against that committee and handed it over to reactionary forces on the Community Board, and only because you're a racist reactionary smug bastard, and you were terrified that the publication-by-open committee was too communist for your tastes. And so you handed it over to real estate interests, and WW limped along for a good more 9 years, collecting dust in stacks that enjoyed ZERO interest from the ongoing gentrifying community you cheerlead for. I encourage people to note the difference in copy material quality, aesthetics and overall publication between what you thought was mamby-pamby:
https://www.facebook.com/media...

And the people you handed it over [in parallel to the way you want to do with Bushwick]:
https://www.facebook.com/media...

Of course, you're free to also direct to your own links on WW [I'm sure you will]. Suffice it to say, I ask that all persons involved in any historical review of that period suspend judgment pro/con gentrification until they're familiar with all the variables. Let them look at your material, then I ask them to look at ALL the material, all the discussion, all players then come to their conclusion. It won't happen today, or tomorrow. It will happen with time, but it already is happening. You can dismiss me with all my shabbiness, but your rage really is the fact that everyday a news report appears confirming every single thing you have ever said about gentrification has been either wrong or a lie.

Again, you are no artist. You are a saboteur of the arts who has hijacked the term "artist" and has pulled a Kennedy the way Kennedy did with Nixon: pumped up your definition and behavior of "artist" so much that to respond would be to "attack art." 

Such is the sad state of art in Williamsburg because of people like you.

"The reference to "current directors" is to Ethan Pettit"
Now THAT is what is called a lie:

The reference,  "I only hope that the two directors will learn something from this controversy," is to Hal Friedlander and Owen Siegel, who were the two directors of Minor Injury at this time. The director before them was Kevn Pyle. The directors before Kevin Pyle were myself, Virginia Hoge, and two others. The directors before us were Mo Bahc and Sam Binkley.

Hal Friedlander and Owen Siegel had borrowed money from NYFA (New York Foundation for the Arts) against expected forthcoming grants. (NYFA was the "umbrella" 501-C3 for Minor Injury.) When those grants did not materialize, Minor Injury was in the red and unable to pay the rent on its storefront at 273 Grand Street.

This is a letter that I published in the Waterfront Week. If it is an indictment of Ethan Pettit, then it is just as much an indictment of everyone else who ever served on Minor Injury, including your friend Virginia Hoge, and including Mo Bahc himself. But it is nothing of the kind. Mo is writing explicitly about the "two directors" at the time. The only other time Minor Injury had "two directors" was when Binkley and Bahc ran the gallery in the 1980s, and I don't think Mo is writing here about himself and Sam.

Your intellect and research on local history are a shabby mess. It is clear that you don't really have any interest in it. Again, you are flailing, desperately posting anything you can find, about things you know nothing about.

Do your homework:

http://www.facebook.com/media/...

I'll let everyone take that in, before we get into our e-mail exchanges re: Ex-Static Press, because we're going to get at the root of who is obsessed with who here.

Just to show what kind of "artist" and "advocate of the arts" Ethan is, and to contextualize some of the claims both he and I are making about each other re: outrageous unethical conduct and "hankering for assent," here is Mo Bahc, founder of Minor Injury, and influential early gallery in the gentrification of Williamsburg, on Ethan Pettit's ruination of said gallery,

Waterfront Week, Volume 2, #30 Aug 13-19, 1992

[the reference to "current directors" is to Ethan Pettit]

I was the founder of MI, first established in 1985, and used to be a director and co-director for 1985-1989 period. I was quite perplexed and more shocked than anyone upon hearing of the present controversy (only 3 weeks ago). Though my name still remains on the Board of MI (sometimes not), I do not know much about the past 3 years of operation. I never got any information about programs, never was invited to a boardmeeting. To make it short, the operation of MI did not seem to be professional enough to me in the past 3 years. But that was all right, as long as it served the north Brooklyn community and adhered to some part of original direction of organization. Considering the fact that nobody was ever paid, I appreciated that Minor Injury had still managed to survive. But, after I learned what had been going on, this was no longer the case. I was called upon to attend a board meeting last week, and I proposed that the current directors resign, even after the Board agreed that Minor Injury would have to remain in the North Brooklyn community in the form of exhibition/cultural space. I proposed their resignation for the following reasons:

1. The current directors directly/indirectly caused the present controversy, regardless of how exaggerated or slanderous it may be. It is a fact that Minor Injury lost some (little or significant) support of community artists. Nobody can deny this split and someone caused it. There can be no smoke without fire. Though it may be true that two directors are not entirely responsible for this controversy, there is no doubt that they are largely responsible for this situation. This alone is enough reason that they might consider resignation. I would understand if Minor Injury had some conflict with the existing ethnic community, but I have always taken for granted the entire support of the emerging artists’ community. This kind of rejection never happened in the past 7 years and I have no choice but to believe something must be wrong with the operating style of the current directors.

2. The current directors wanted to “move” to Manhattan. But the real story was to have free office space for only 2-3 months, eventually changing MI to an organization with a P.O. Box, but without space. Now they accept the Temporary Board’s decision of 8/4/92 that MI has to remain in North Brooklyn as a non-profit exhibition/cultural space. The contradiction in their attitude aside, I do not know how they can recover their credibility only by saying “yes” to the Board’s decision. They are naïve if they think they can go back to 1 year ago as if nothing happened after this controversy. The support of people does not come overnight, but it can go away over one night. Once it is gone, it is twice or three times harder to gain back. If they thought that MI would continue to receive public funds when MI does not have a space and has nothing to do with the Williamsburg/Greenpoint area, they are too inexperienced and ignorant to be art administrators.

3. Despite the current directors assertions that they were forced to give up the current space due to severe budget cuts from NYSCA and DCA, the fact remains that there lease was not renewed due to several problems the landlords had with their behavior as tenants. There is no doubt that it is a serious problem when Minor Injury was dependent largely on the public sector. But that does not justify forgetting the fact that MI was primarily an exhibition space based in North Brooklyn. If the current directors do not know how to raised funds to afford rent and program costs, that alone is reason to resign and let peple think about other possibilities rather than giving up space, moving, and causing controversy as if MI is their personal belonging. Why would they want to still remain with MI when they think it’s impossible to do fundraising? I do not know. But I assume it is not because they are very attached to this community. 

4. The current directors are not (or less) interested in an exhibition-oriented space that keeps regular open hours. This seems to be another reason why they thought it is OK to give up the current space, not to spend money on rent, and just do their own programs with existing funds. But the North Brooklyn artist’s community is mostly that of visual artists more than any other discipline. That is why MI was important and got so much support in the past. Rather than trying to change the nature of a community art organization, why don’t the current directors start their own organization that will serve their interests?

In the 8/4/92 meeting, a vote of confidence/no-confidence in the current directors occurred after heated discussion. A majority of 11 members expressed their confidence in the current directors continuing affiliation with MI. How narrow the margin was does not really matter right now. I accept the results of the vote, and I accept that they will still be the directors of MI and I hope that the artist’s community will give them the benefit of the doubt. At the same time I choose to resign from the board of MI because I cannot imagine how all these sets of contradictions which have been exposed in the current directors attitudes are going to be resolved only because they said “yes” to the board’s decision. I only hope that the two directors will learn something from this controversy, or at least will be more sensitive and mature enough to listen to diverse groups in the community.I do not believe that an artist’s organization has to survive and persist to exist forever, especially when it has lost its impetus, sense of direction, and community support. I don’t think a non-profit artist’s space that cannot provide regular hours, basic publicity and mailing, and program publication (if not all, at least some of these things) has no real reason to survive. One can hardly expect to see a meaningful program without such basic capabilities of organization. If this will be the case in the future, the community would be better off without it because if there is a need for a new organization, someone will start one.

More lies. Are you so shameless you don't mind if I copy-paste your emails here, concerning Ex-Static Press? So now there is no proof of Ex-Static Press? It didn't exist--you yourself didn't hanker my ass into a business partnership that committed to do a book called "Krylon-not-sharpie"? You yourself didn't send me threats of litigation when I withdrew from the partnership when I realized what you were doing in Bushwick? Now you want to put your behavior on me, "You expect other people to do things for you, and when they don't, you go ballistic...You hanker for assent, and if you don't get it, you devolve to garbled diatribe as bizarre and clamorous as it is ineffective."

Hold on, let me go check some letters from Mo Bahc about how you handled Minor Injury, and let me get my own copies of the emails together, because this bullshit is going to stop right now and even if it is just Gothamist editors who read it, they will at least know what a devil you are.

If you want to print a book, you have to call a printer. It's not an entitlement. It's not welfare. It's not like a social worker shows up one day with your printed book. But I am beginning to see a pattern here.  You expect other people to do things for you, and when they don't, you go ballistic. You howl invectives, anything you can think of. You basically have a temper tantrum. The same pattern emerges in your carping about the Latino community as if this community were owed something. You hanker for assent, and if you don't get it, you devolve to garbled diatribe as bizarre and clamorous as it is ineffective.

And, to prove that you had zero contribution to Ex-Static Press, how is it doing now that I left and you marginalized Eva? It is dead--so dead that it's not even for consideration in your lies about the ""business" you have in Bushwick.

You sabotaged Minor Injury because of your envy--very well attested and so ugly in the public eye. Want me to do some more copy-paste? You sabotaged the Waterfront Week. And then you sabotaged Ex-Static Press, KNS and the urbanum tremendum. For an artist your track record speaks for itself--historically, you have always professed to be an advocate for the arts but only to disguise your advocacy for gentrification. You have never been an artist.

You're not an artist. You're a saboteur of art, and like the way you take on my words and persona because of your hatred and envy of me, you take on this guise "artist" because of your hatred and envy of art.

And you know why I left your business, right? Because of YOUR jealousy and YOUR lies. You were making zero contribution to Ex-Static Press--it was all Eva and myself. And you hated that. You hated that we developed the urbanum tremendum, we developed KNS, we were getting together and doing all kinds of things and you were outright sabotaging because what were you doing, Mr. Claims to be an Artist? You were standing off on the side penciling some doodle and getting pissed off because we were unimpressed, hoping you could even inch in just a little in so you could be a blockage. Your concept of the Hylozoica was a cheap knock-off of the urbanum tremendum. If I'm jealous of artists, why did I torpedo the urbanum tremendum project? I could have allowed it's progression as an art-work and kept my mouth shut or do the sycophancy thing that is rampant in Williamsburg but didn't to avoid your exploitation of it for gentrification. Have we forgotten all this? 

And let's not forget your lying: how B!HOLD was to be published but then, suddenly, it wasn't going to be, how KNS was supposed to have an original print run of a thousand copies, that became 100 copies, then 50 copies, then a pdf--each time your stipulations on publication shrank as your jealousy grew.

I don't even know why I do this since the people who really count know what the truth is, and no one is reading this thread except for Gothamist's editors. And you? You count less and less every day.

I have never claimed to be a housing activist. If you say this is no "real work" to advance the Latino community--I can live with that. I'm not like you, harmed if someone recognizes I'm masquerading as Atlas holding up the world in some Randian fantasy. And my obsession is "gentrification," not "artists." That is, I'm obsessed with the displacement of Puerto Ricans in Williamsburg--you only know about my writings on artists because you're a narcissist and scour the world for them. I target multiple sources on gentrification and believe me, this is me at my worst because your ugly lying brings me down to your level when I have to engage you. You are obsessed with me, not the other way around--you troll for me on the Internet whereas I care less about you [except when it comes to the issue of gentrification]. The only reason I have to consider anything you ever do or any art by any "artist" in Williamsburg is because I am forced to contextualize them against my true obsession, the displacement of the Puerto Ricans in Williamsburg. If we go to L Magazine, here on Gothamist, on Brooklyn Paper, in the NY Times and look for you we will find you right after my posts because you say I'm inconsequential but yet you follow me around. I only respond to you to clarify your constant lying. You tried to start a business with me and who left? Me. You threatened to even sue me for leaving, so that's some serious projection you got going on there about obsession. But let me tell you something, I guarantee you that more minds are shaped by my writings on gentrification than any piece of art you've ever done. Your audience on gentrification was given to you by me. Now, go fetch. 

Duh ... I mean Gothamist. I have a few of these things going.

Dude, I don't need "tactics" for you. I'll run this thread 'till they close it, with or without you. This is Brooklyn Paper, I'm using it to thump my opinions on Brooklyn, it's not facebook. You are resentful. Your beef is with white bohemians, with privileged white kids. It's visceral. You are definitely no housing activist or anyone doing real work to advance the Latino community. Your whole thing has always been an obsession with artists. You are absolutely at your pissed-off best whenever you engage the matter of artists or hipsters in Williamsburg.

Until then call me Master Dennis, and I'll pet you on the head and roll up your latest works to play fetch with you.

It is not true. Save face? I have the Chronicle B!HOLD, and you have this entire thread as proof of your lying. I know this silly tactic of yours, to demand someone repeat themself until they tire of repeating and then you think it's some proof of victory on your part. How pathetic. You act like people can't simply scroll upwards and read what you have already written.

Now, go make a business, create some jobs, make some art. Come back with a financial report and a canvas that isn't some lazy penciling--until then, you are Achan.

Tell me one lie I have said. Is it not true that you are trying to save face in view of your failure and our success in Williamsburg?