Okay I can understand this but then I have a question. If this was genuinely an issue, how did the offending text make it into print in the first place? There’s only two real options.

One, the text slipped past unnoticed, in which case the fault is entirely the fault of the organisers for not checking and discussing what was being published.

Two, the text was originally considered acceptable and went to print but it was only subsequently that someone was pressured into removing it.

Personally my money is still on LL trying to cover up the fact in official literature that all is not sweetness and light in eUtopia. Pix’s wording was slightly inflammatory but factual. A simple edit pre-publication would have cleared up any inflammatory tone while still allowing the facts to stand. Even a post-publication rewrite to remove any inflammatory tone could have left the facts intact. Which means it was the facts themselves that people didn’t want published (and they were skated over in the panel too of course). And as those facts *were* initially published, we’re forced to return to the two options above. Either the organisation’s editors/proof readers need a poke with a stick or the organisation came under pressure (internal or external or potentially both) to remove the facts.

Now, let’s go further. The video itself which should have been broadcast live was recorded and broadcast later. Why? Well given the above discussion I’d actually say it’s pretty obvious. If something goes out live, there is no chance for edit or review. It’s pretty clear that the video was handled the way it was so as to make sure that no comments went out that weren’t “on message”.

All that aside though, the panel was very enjoyable and thought-provoking, good job. I found Pix’s comment about if you want privacy on the internet the only way forward is to lie your ass off to be particularly relevant because as I was saying last night on Skype, any information I reveal online is a managed misinformation screen. That way, it’s impossible to judge me on my identity and only possible to judge me on the merits of my arguments and I think that’s the real value of anonymity/pseudonymity. In fact to quote a certain popular film:

“It’s not who you are underneath. It’s what you do that defines you”
Rachel Dawes

Isn’t it strange how as a culture we can accept this concept through mythology and literature and yet we struggle with it in application?

And to forestall your next question, I cheerfully accept your invitation to appear on next year’s panel

Actually, no, it’s because Pixeleen is extremely intelligent, well versed in the matters, and can express herself very well. If anything, perhaps Pixeleen’s experience with JLU was one motivation to choose to be on the panel. However, I chose panelists who had compelling thoughts to share.

Explaining it in the bio was indeed relevant, however, it needn’t've been done in a manner that specifically mentions someone. It could have just as easily been written in a manner that described the background without mentioning anyone specifically.

TL/DR – Chatlog from August 14, 2008 SLCC http://goo.gl/SPjSG

Yes, as a matter of fact I’m quite lazy. (._.)

…thanks for sharing!..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrjMkeXGfGM&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMxH7JLVdhc&NR=1

So the woodbury crowd should get some of the JLU members who were there following them around all over the place in trouble? Sounds like a good call to me!