Duh, you missed the point obviously.

“”"”And as I stated already, Nimrod Yaffle’s stories played out and turned out to be true. He’s widely viewed as unreliable because he doesn’t always say what he knows; he reverses himself; he seems to know more and play people; he seems to have an agenda, etc. But what he said turned out later to be true, on a number of points. So again, while not trustworthy in the sense of decent, he’s reliable in the sense of having his claims pan out.”"”"

On a number of points, not all.. and here you are talking in circles again, saying how unreliably reliable he is….

“”"”You all have a very odd notion of what journalism is. How do you think something like the Watergate tapes or the Pentagon Papers gets told? Journalists have often to make use of very unreputable types. They can be criminals and government officials with very corrupt records — untrustworthy in the sense of character. But they can still be reliable sources simply because what they say turns out to be the case. That’s all. That’s why you strive to get a variety of independent sources to corroborate the same story.”"”"

Firstly, you are nowhere near worthy to compare yourself to Watergate. And as far as reputable, I’d suggest you read the histories of these things. The information DID come from reputable sources as. The journalists refused to reveal, that was the big dip. In fact, the main whistleblower on Watergate, was a security guard. I gather that your information about the issue came from ‘All the President’s Men’ or some other sensationalized Hollywood movie. In fact, Deep Throat (Felt) didn’t tell what the government didn’t already know and was in the process of investigating, he just let it leak to the media to get the Americans in on it. And he was VERY trustworthy, as it could be confirmed he held several high ranking jobs within the government and at one time was next to the top of the FBI. Anyways, enough on history.

“”"”So once again, I am not twisting anything, and you are merely tap-dancing and smokescreening and word-salading all around. These sources are no sterling characters. That’s all. They told a story — about CW in the chat cynically whooping it up with Baba — that provoked reactions of dismay, disgust, and condemnation by people at sluniverse.com but more importantly, even people within libsecondlife.”"”"

Ironically, my points have never been clearer, I’m just not telling you what you want to hear. You still haven’t answered a single question of me, and sidestep it all with allegations, accusations and implications.

“”"”So what is your interest in all this that you can’t see that and can’t condemn it?”"”"

Hmm… how can I say this in self righteous idiot terms. I have ZERO interest in this. I CARE about this e-pub. I DO NOT LIKE you being dumb and turning arguments onto people with misworded quotes and sensationalist idiocy. Frankly, I take NO stance, with my ZERO interest because I have NOT done enough research into it to form my OWN opinion. Is that clear enough for you? I’m not sure I can make it any simpler, even my 3 year old would understand that.

“”"”If you are “one of the loudest critics of CopyBot” — from which stance did you make your loudness known? Inside the group? outside it?”"”"

A critic is a critic is it not? Wouldn’t it mean the same thing regardless of where I came from? But why ask? I’ve already said it over and over I have nothing to do with ANY of it all, which is pretty clear to the rest of the world without having to spell it out in small letters. But either way, according to you, since I won’t reveal an SL name tied to an account more than a few days old (by the way, I do have several older accounts, that were created the same time as my main), then my opinion, affiliation statements and arguments are moot right?

“”"”I didn’t do shoddy reporting, as I’ve outlined ad nauseum. I *sat on* an original story that implicated the Sheep to try to catch it, etc. I’ve been over that.”"”"

So you sat on a story and that makes it reliable? What, a story becomes true when it ages? Not exactly. But I’ve already seen quite a few things in this post and beyond of others about this story, where you’ve implicated based on a far-fetched reasoning of quotations. If a journalist can’t get the quotes right, then the story becomes false because how do we know who told you what and what they said, and then if those quotes are correct versus what we’ve already seen publicly.

“”"”I haven’t side-stepped a thing — what I do know is that trying to debate people with alts is a fool’s errand. They can always smugly hide behind what they know, and you don’t. “”"”

LMAO! Haven’t side-stepped a thing huh? You’ve avoided all the questions and reiterated the same things over and over in different words…

That you don’t know who I am.
That you didn’t do anything wrong regardless of what the very people you quoted say.
That you are the journalist of the year.
That you imply that I’m with an organization which has skewed my interests.
That you are a hypocrite.

Each and every post to me says these things over and over.

Now, I will word this in small little words:

Why does it matter who I am? If you can’t reveal your names to prove your point, why do I have to show mine to make my point? What makes you special?

Where have I even said a WORD about any of the companies in on it?

Why are you so much better than everyone you work with, that thier stories are your words, you can trash your EIC and trash opponents of you and then complain about it?

If you have a sense of history of ANY type of journalism, why are you so critical of Walker taking away rights, when almost every editor in history has had to fire a journalist off the bat for false information and accusations that can damage the publications reputation? Frankly, while you sit and compare yourself to real journalists and talk about facts this and that and waa waa… you do realize that on normal publications, all articles have to go through editors anyways right?

And as I stated already, Nimrod Yaffle’s stories played out and turned out to be true. He’s widely viewed as unreliable because he doesn’t always say what he knows; he reverses himself; he seems to know more and play people; he seems to have an agenda, etc. But what he said turned out later to be true, on a number of points. So again, while not trustworthy in the sense of decent, he’s reliable in the sense of having his claims pan out.

You all have a very odd notion of what journalism is. How do you think something like the Watergate tapes or the Pentagon Papers gets told? Journalists have often to make use of very unreputable types. They can be criminals and government officials with very corrupt records — untrustworthy in the sense of character. But they can still be reliable sources simply because what they say turns out to be the case. That’s all. That’s why you strive to get a variety of independent sources to corroborate the same story.

So once again, I am not twisting anything, and you are merely tap-dancing and smokescreening and word-salading all around. These sources are no sterling characters. That’s all. They told a story — about CW in the chat cynically whooping it up with Baba — that provoked reactions of dismay, disgust, and condemnation by people at sluniverse.com but more importantly, even people within libsecondlife.

So what is your interest in all this that you can’t see that and can’t condemn it?

If you are “one of the loudest critics of CopyBot” — from which stance did you make your loudness known? Inside the group? outside it?

I didn’t do shoddy reporting, as I’ve outlined ad nauseum. I *sat on* an original story that implicated the Sheep to try to catch it, etc. I’ve been over that.

I haven’t side-stepped a thing — what I do know is that trying to debate people with alts is a fool’s errand. They can always smugly hide behind what they know, and you don’t.

Just as the Herald overall is “always fairly unbalanced” you can count on its sources to be “always fairly unreliable”.”"”"

Okay, so by that statement, since you wrote this piece for them, you can count on your very own sources being fairly unreliable?

“”"”When I deal with sources, they often are highly-placed and very well known people in SL with long track records of behaviour and statements, and no, journalists are not required to reveal their sources, and no, avatars are not required to reveal their real-life names, and no, you aren’t required to reveal your main SL character, but nice fancy footwork distracting from the main point here:

o that you could be someone known with a track record of interests in SL
o these could be business or reputational interests that you obviously fear jeopardizing
o if we saw those interests, we could understand your biases better : )

I know because I know : )”"”"

Does it matter? I mean really? Why is my point any less valid because I do or do not own a business? Why is my point less valuable depending on how many people know me or have an opinion on me? If that were the case, than you my dear, based on your reputation would be considerably discredited. Talk about fancy footwork, you’ve completely ignored other points… what about my point that while you demand others identities, you so protectively hold your identities when we ask them of you? Come on, lemme hear your 10 page reply on why your argument keeps up that you need to know who I am, yet to make YOUR argument, we don’t need to know who gave this info to you? Why are you holding a different set of standards for others, but when it comes to you, you can play martyr?

“”"”">I’ve never taken any favorable stance in Copybot (in fact I was one of the loudest opponents) and I’ve been against LibSL in it’s current state.

So you knew about it, and did nothing?

I haven’t done any of those things you claim. I haven’t twisted quotes or taken them out of context.”"”"

Wow, you haven’t twisted quotes or taken them out of context? You just did. I never said I had previous knowledge about Copybot, yet here you are saying I knew about it. I said I was against it, and that I was one of the loudest against it… how does that translate?

“”"”The context is one that you and other apologists refuse to admit.”"”"

I have made nothing clear in this on the stance, I made clear on YOU that you did shoddy reporting. You’ve taken everything I’ve said about YOUR reporting and made this into a battle of what the article was about. Look up at what I’ve said, you’ve obviously not even read what’s in front of your own face.

You’ve said someone wasn’t reliable, then said they were (which you carefully avoided addressing after I pointed it out), you’ve demanded others reveal themselves and say they have no merit to an argument without thier SL identity, yet you are profoundly against revealing identities, you have argued with others who don’t agree with you, we have seen literal quotes from which you derived a meaning that isn’t there.

Anyways, I’m off to ghost hunt in the Stanley tonight.

Enjoy writing up a long report sidestepping anything I’ve mentioned and continue to make demands that you yourself cannot meet.

Just as the Herald overall is “always fairly unbalanced” you can count on its sources to be “always fairly unreliable”.

When I deal with sources, they often are highly-placed and very well known people in SL with long track records of behaviour and statements, and no, journalists are not required to reveal their sources, and no, avatars are not required to reveal their real-life names, and no, you aren’t required to reveal your main SL character, but nice fancy footwork distracting from the main point here:

o that you could be someone known with a track record of interests in SL
o these could be business or reputational interests that you obviously fear jeopardizing
o if we saw those interests, we could understand your biases better : )

I know because I know : )

>I’ve never taken any favorable stance in Copybot (in fact I was one of the loudest opponents) and I’ve been against LibSL in it’s current state.

So you knew about it, and did nothing?

I haven’t done any of those things you claim. I haven’t twisted quotes or taken them out of context.

The context is one that you and other apologists refuse to admit.

I think if you want to be a journalist in the respected sense, you need to look up reliable, dearie. Not trustworthy and changing stories is not ‘reliable’.

“”"”And the sources are unequivocable about the presence of Sheep employees at the debut of CopyBot

If we knew your main avatar’s name, we could tell what sort of vested interest YOU have in trying to keep spinning this story. Since we can’t know your main name, and you offer only fake new alts, it’s not a fair and just conversation. You’re in a position to go on endlessly second-guessing and bashing. But I can’t see what your inworld vested interests, groups, history is. Pretty stacked deck.”"”"

Ironically, we are supposed to just trust you and your sources, while you sit and demand on others to reveal themselves. Hypocrite much? Tell me, what’s YOUR interest in all this, since we can’t verify anything from YOU, and the things that have come out have been wrong….

Don’t tell me about fair and just when you sit here and say, I know, because I know. Don’t you think you are in the same position to endlessly bash? Yet again, we have to just take YOUR word for it, then you demand of us what you cannot offer. What makes you so special?

There are a few select people that know who I am on this board. I personally like the anonymity of posting like this. Means less spam in world. But I can tell you this, I am not part of ANY of this. I’ve never taken any favorable stance in Copybot (in fact I was one of the loudest opponents) and I’ve been against LibSL in it’s current state. I have no idea about scripting, and frankly, I could care less about gossip.

But I do like this paper and several writers in it and I don’t like seeing you trash it’s reputation because you’ve twisted up what people have said to fit your argument, taken quotes out of context and reworded it maliciously, did shoddy checking, then attacked those that don’t agree with you or expect you to have some sort of standard of professionalism rather than gossip columnist since that’s what you proport.

I sure do stand by the elements of the story that are confirmed, and I sure do stand by the essential truth of my story: that libsecondlife and Sheep members within libsecondlife were cynical at worst, and indifferent and negligent at best, about the dangers of CopyBot to the economy.

It’s because it never threated THEIR OWN economies, as they work for clients who pay them for originality of content ONCE, and then IP after that doesn’t matter.

We haven’t gotten all the answers to the questions raised by this drama.

The Sheep have adequately and persuasively explained that they did not have any big business client that commissioned them to take advantage of Libsecondlife.

But they’ve been vague and those directly involved less than forthcoming about what they knew and when they know it on Copybot, and on all things related to libsecondlife.

The source of Nimrod can be described as “reliable” simply because the other things he said did in fact pan out and were in fact confirmed. He’s not trustworthy, as he occasionally reverses himself, or doesn’t tell the full story, but he was reliable.

He wasn’t the only source.

And the sources are unequivocable about the presence of Sheep employees at the debut of CopyBot

If we knew your main avatar’s name, we could tell what sort of vested interest YOU have in trying to keep spinning this story. Since we can’t know your main name, and you offer only fake new alts, it’s not a fair and just conversation. You’re in a position to go on endlessly second-guessing and bashing. But I can’t see what your inworld vested interests, groups, history is. Pretty stacked deck.

First, I see right through your little tap-dance claiming there are these evil stalkers out there after you — this is one of the ways you would commonly try to rattle me and accuse me “without fingerprints” so to speak — everyone would know your little impish and vindictive reference was to me, because you had already built up a track record with all these cunning little posts on the forums like the “Dear Jake” one claiming there was a boy stalking you, or your wondering out loud how the FBI can get involved in stalkers, etc. — this was all part of your drumbeat of constantly indirect claims to try to create public sentiment around me as “stalker”.

You indeed did tacitly approve, and quietly — without fingerprints — get the “shunning” to work on the forums. That’s clear to all those following it at the time.

But let’s just stick to this reporter’s story.

If you tell a reporter that sure, I’ll give you my name and you can use it, but gosh, there are all these evil boys out there stalking me and leaving me fearful, yikes, then what self-respecting reporter *after that* will be able to use your name? They’ll feel it is a violation of good faith then. They will CLEARLY understand that as NON-CONSENT.

So to say you “gave your name to the reporter to use” is utter bullshit — you didn’t. You made a mere formalistic and manipulative claim to give it, but then clawed it back in the next line intended to worry that reporter, and guilt-trip them, if they used your name — and ugh, got stalked by the evil Prok.

This is such emotional blackmailing and manipulation, Aimee, and I’m not alone in *seeing right through it*.

One wonders why you are trying to get the credit for giving your name, when nobody is asking for it? The press seems content to give you as pass about your RL name, even when they make heavy demands on others to provide them.

Giving your name to the press means giving your name. Like I do. Give my RL name. And suffer the consequences by having a legion of fucktards do crap like take my RL picture and deface it, and even do infantile malicious stuff like FlipperPA Peregrine did, taking some clip out of a panel discussion I did in RL and mocking it and putting it up on the evil Second Citizen to be pawed over and ridiculed. That’s SICK.

I know what REAL stalking is like. You don’t. All you have from me is CRITICISM and EXPOSURE of these malicious deeds of yours — like the one you’re engaging in *right now* by trumping up this ridiculous literalist word-salad tap-dance that says you really did give your name.

You did not. Because…it’s not in the press. Even your little friend Hammie didn’t put it in, but merely coquettishly described you as being “like Natalie Portman” or whatever.

It’s bullshit. If you don’t want to give your name for whatever reason, then don’t. But eat the reality of your decision — you don’t want it used, and didn’t give it REALLY. Giving it with a big heaping claim of being stalked — unverifiable as far as any of us can tell — is really more then disingenuous.

If you have some actual evidence of stalking, let’s hear it.

There…I’m a freakin’ journalist.

You stand by your story which one was given to you in the form of someone obviously not trusted (reporters use trustworthy sources, not the sources of outbreaks of Copybot) then get borked up and do a retraction. K, it happens.

But a journalist wouldn’t continue to go on to rip everyone who got miffed by the incorrection, single out people to pick on, then complain about being griefed.

You brought it on yourself and that’s fine, but don’t pretend you are higher than anyone else, then ‘go to thier level’ to make some ridiculous point, then say ‘oh, but I’m better than that’. No, you haven’t said those words specifically, I’m summarizing as opposed to writing a 4 page letter blasting everyone else, then whine about taking flak for it.