I have mentioned this in a few other places around the web, it received a few upvotes but no responses. I searched this subverse to see if you all had already discussed this or not. I found one thread about her, and it discussed the other details but not these couple details in particular. So I decided I would just toss it out there to add for the ever-growing pile of reasons for suspicion about CPP.

So as many of you already know, she abruptly left CPP and the likely fake reason given was family emergency, and we know that it was likely a fake reason because the articles and comments about the event are loaded with snide animosity towards her and other hints that something happened between her and James, apparently something that was significant enough for Carole to just up and leave everything behind over it, even though the articles and comments make it clear that for years Carole never had a problem dealing with criticism over her rigid dedication to being true to her culinary art/creations. She gave no fucks. But something happened that made her give so many fucks that she up and left everything behind. What was it? And why were people eluding to it, yet nobody willing to come right out and say what it was?

One of the sources listed on the wikipedia page about CPP is this: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/food/article/13037971/how-are-bucks-fishing-camping-and-comet-ping-pong-faring which the other thread here shows that you all have already seen. But have you all noticed the comments? Specifically the 10th comment from a "Carole Fan" posted in 2009.

The whole comment is:

"Working with artists is always an intense experience and there is always two sides to every story. I happen to know Carole's side and it would make those dining on the new food choke and feel nauseous. I will only say that if they knew what really happened, they like me would no longer dine at either establishment.

Carole is the real deal. A real artist with moods and feelings just like all of you. She is a real talent and we were fortunate enough to have her cook for us for a long while in DC.

Continue the rabid dialogue and we will continue to lose our deep talent to the superficial, rabid, uninformed fodder.

Good job City Paper for lowering the bar a little more on DC culture."

Of course the part that stands out to me the most is, "I happen to know Carole's side and it would make those dining on the new food choke and feel nauseous. I will only say that if they knew what really happened, they like me would no longer dine at either establishment."

What the hell "really happened"? Why would people choke on the food and then feel nauseous? Why was there an effort to smear Carole with such snide ad hominem attacks? Why were people eluding to what happened, but not willing to say it outright?

I looked at Tim Carman's (the author of the WashingtonCityPaper article) profile page on the website, but it was completely blank. But I did find him over on Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/tim-carman/?utm_term=.3ad08b63dece "Food writer and $20 Diner — Washington, D.C."

He was also praised as "Best Food Writer" and has had a successful career in doing so, his opinion seems to be held in high regard by many people in that sphere, so for him to write a piece like that on Carole was likely a powerful attack on her career in general. Why did he do that? Write a piece just to take jabs at her and also explain how the place is better of without her and doesn't miss her. Why go out of his way to do that? Just because he didn't like her gruff personality and that she was firm on the stance that she considered her food an art, not a tailored service? Yeah right.

And I guess it's just ironic that he's now a Washington Post employee. Where he also wrote this piece:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/why-bens-chili-bowl-hasnt-rushed-to-remove-traces-of-cosby/2015/07/08/04d62d1e-2569-11e5-aae2-6c4f59b050aa_story.html?utm_term=.172c5d8b7159

In which he tries to white knight for a restaurant who won't take down Bill Cosby's photo or stop showing support for Bill Cosby after it broke into mainstream that that Bill Cosby has a history of drugging and sexually abusing people, with the author saying that, "Our moral compass may prefer to see things in black and white, but the Ali family seems to embrace the murky shades of gray in between. After all, they have known Cosby as a saint for longer than they’ve known him as a monster. Some have argued that the family could just remove his images from public spaces while maintaining a private relationship with him away from the limelight. But I’m not sure what such a move would say about the family’s fine-tuned sense of morality: Would they whitewash their history and jettison a family friend to ensure the health of the business?"

And, "What’s more interesting to me, though, is what the Ali family thinks," after describing how Cosby was a good friend to them for decades and even helped them in their "darkest hour".

So a guy who is supposed to write about food, and for the most part does, took it upon himself to explain that standing by someone who drugs and sexually abuses people is essentially a matter of embracing the grey rather than succumbing to "black and white" thinking (which is a term for what is considered dysfunctional in psychology) and imply that it would be morally wrong to turn their back on Cosby. So we know this guy will go out of his way to cover for sympathizers or culprits when it comes to heinous sexual predation, even if it's barely relevant to what he normally writes about.

And we know that in 2009 he went out of his way to smear Carole Greenwood after she apparently took qualms with something about CPP and up and left.

I want to know her side of the story. If anyone digs and finds it, I would be appreciative if they share what they find.