Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tony Heaton on September 5, 2012 at 9:03am

Removing a post that is full of unsubstantiated defamation, libel, is not censorship.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zen on September 5, 2012 at 9:10am

Yea, A POST.  Not the whole thread.  Your answer doesn't apply here.

Also: 

li·bel/ˈlībəl/

Noun:

A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

I phrased my unknowns as questions for a reason.  If it was incorrect than a response stating that it was all false would have been sufficient.  Nothing was stated.  Instead, deletion and coverup. #sameoldstory

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Heaton on September 5, 2012 at 9:51am

I stand corrected.  I didn't see that the entire thread had been removed.  I can't find a reason for the removal but I won't join the conspiratorial crowd just yet.  If it was removed intentionally then it adds credibility to your arguments.  If it was deleted by accident then it is just that.  If we don't see an explanation from Chris or the actual person that deleted it then I'll have to assume there is something nefarious going on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Drone Savant on September 5, 2012 at 9:58am

Not to add fuel to the fire... I am curious though, what of Zen's opinion was consider libelous or unsubstantiated? I saw at least one request to sue those that were speaking out on these postings specifically. Really libel? Much of his complaints can be corroborated by several others. 

I think it is funny that receiving constructive criticism from disappointed users gets confused with libelous behavior. I mean come on... none of the complainers jumped the gun and asked for a class action law suit for false advertising or anything so why make the jump here and threaten to sue over libel? It is just a little criticism... listen to it and adapt. :) I can see it now. http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/236...

If I recall correctly during all of the drama that ensued over the deletion / censorship of MY posts re: PPM encoder *someone* on staff stepped up and made the commitment to provide reasoning for deletions and edits. I think it was said that future edits should be marked with reasons such as: 

Edited by Moderator for TOS violations

or

User has been asked by Moderator to correct offensive wording

Maybe sticking to that commitment would help those that feel censorship is occurring? Then again this is a public forum.. you chose to be here. As it was once put by the captain of the ship "you can go elsewhere". 

I will say that MANY MANY people have contacted me after my first ban stating that they were not fans of "the censorship". LOTS of people are afraid to speak out here, yes even some of the distributers, that is a sad sad state.

Seriously guys... lets learn to work with users that complain. Beating them down with the banhammer and silence stick hurts the project as a whole. :/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Heaton on September 5, 2012 at 1:22pm

'I will say that MANY MANY people have contacted me after my first ban stating that they were not fans of "the censorship"'

I assume the contacted you digitally?  If so, provide the their comments with names and other identifying information redacted.

'LOTS of people are afraid to speak out here, yes even some of the distributers, that is a sad sad state.'

I'm not sure what you consider "LOTS" but I consider it more than 50.  Again, provide their comments with all identifying information redacted.

I was a user that complained.  I complained very loudly.  Chris and Lorenzo worked with me to solve my concerns.  Even though I was loud and obnoxious, they were always calm in their replies to me.   Zen is not complaining.  He is making wild accusations without substantiation.  You are doing the same to a lesser degree.  Prove your claims of "false advertising."  Somebody else on the internet claiming false advertising is not proof.

• ▶ Reply

DeveloperPermalink Reply by R_Lefebvre on September 5, 2012 at 1:35pm

I assume the contacted you digitally?  If so, provide the their comments with names and other identifying information redacted.

Kevin has already demonstrated that he's completely capable of publishing private statements made to him, including identification.  So this really shouldn't be a problem at all.

And anybody contacting him should keep that in mind.  If you don't want your comments being made public, don't communicate with him.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Drone Savant on September 5, 2012 at 1:41pm

lol general rule of thumb... unless your communications include a privacy statement at the bottom, on the inter-webs you should have no expectation of privacy. It's not like we are talking over PGP here with NDA's. 

Nice jab though. 

• ▶ Reply

DeveloperPermalink Reply by R_Lefebvre on September 5, 2012 at 1:42pm

Great.  I'm assuming most of your communications from MANY MANY people don't have any privacy statements.  So let's see them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Drone Savant on September 5, 2012 at 1:48pm

don't be all pouty because I published YOUR statement about Chris that was semi negative. I am sure you didn't want him to see it. 

This does not mean that I will blanket just provide EVERYONE's communications that talks with me. However if someone says something stupid and I need to play Chess... sure things may come to light. 

I honestly have enough content to make a small website based on comments that people made *in private* after my banning. 

What is that you guys like to say? As the accuser (implying that I don't have em) it is on YOU to prove it, not me. :) 

Enjoy your day NOT thinking about all the R_... 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Heaton on September 5, 2012 at 2:06pm

No, you made the allegation that you had them and that they prove your point.  It is your duty to prove you have them.  Otherwise your just full of anger and hate.  You've made it obvious that you don't have them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Drone Savant on September 5, 2012 at 2:12pm

Here... feel better? 

"

Hi,

Sorry to send you this out of the blue, there was a link to your twitter on Reddit here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/lectures/comments/vdsjg/the_new_industrial_...

I read your twitter feed and found it both funny and gratifying, about time someone stood up to the bully that Chris Anderson is, good to see his "fan club" is still growing, it's fairly large at this time already.  

I used to work with the creep, still makes my skin crawl the way he used to act, (yuk!) and seems that nothing has changed. One thing you should know is he will set out to destroy you, your reputation and your name, a more vindictive asshole you could not meet. I already noticed that he has started on you with that, when I do a Google search for your name, his character assassination is one of the top links in Google, believe me this was not by accident, that is exactly how he operates. Fake public shaming is one of his big tools, watch for it and you will see it often, it is always wrapped in plausible dependability like a "review" that has snide jabs in it or a public announcement to "help people" see the light, yeah right. He does this so he can pass it off as just being a mistake or pretend it was an angle he did not even think about, it's all BS as his attack was planned all along and that angle was what he was really after.  

I can only guess given past form half of what he said about you is twisted badly and the other half is pure lies, seen it all before, anyone that is a threat he sets out to destroy. One thing he is not is original! If you did not notice already almost everything he takes credit for is work someone else did that he simply stole, he has a huge reputation for it. 

Anyway, good luck and watch your back, a more creepy, manipulative and Machiavellian petty little man you will not find and alas some people fall for it, happy you are another that has the intelligence and smarts to see through it. 

Bests,

"

DeveloperPermalink Reply by R_Lefebvre on September 5, 2012 at 1:50pm

And by the way, users here should have an expectation of privacy when using the Private Messaging system due to the Terms of Service of the board you are using:

You agree that you will not post, email or make available any content or use this Network:

• in a manner that is libelous or defamatory, or in a way that is otherwise threatening, abusive, violent, harassing, malicious or harmful to any person or entity, or invasive of another's privacy;
• in a manner that includes personal or identifying information about another person without that person's explicit consent;
  

 

Emphasis mine.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page