Forgive me for writing presumptively, but no. I wasn't just speaking for myself. I thought I was gathering a feeling of "mistrust of ab irato" from the beginning. Which I ignored, I don't know if you noticed, and I went to be recorded with you there. I wanted to promote my project on KFAI. Feel out the environment there. Why is it not okay for me to say, now, "Okay, I've tried it out. It's not comfortable. He did not create a safe-enough environment for this particular level of deep/extreme hard-line skepticism of online personalities."?
If I am wrong, then I wrote presumptively. And I apologize to
anyone who thinks I was trying to speak for them. (I don't like when people do that!) Since I just have only noticed you, me and OneBornFree on there, I assumed most others don't get interviewed there or post comments or get sucked into the Fakeologist universe. You are right that I could be entirely wrong about that! I also noticed you were not on there as frequently, and I considered that "distance", so if I am wrong about that, too, sorry again.
But I do feel pretty strongly it is against my principles to be involved any more. I expressed my concerns about Brian S Staveley, only to be told, "Don't worry."
Yet has anything changed? I am just supposed to "not worry" about boastful simulations investigating simulations; am I to clap my hands and go to sleep now? The simulation will investigate itself?
No, sorry, while we have similar problems, we are both plagued by sims, I don't think they have the
exact same problems as us. It seems to be a little more loosey goosey with the reality-social media-simulated personality crossover. Now, I am just speaking for myself. I admit that. While I don't fully mistrust ab's motivations (though I probably should not trust anybody at all since we know the perps read our forum and seem to adjust their propaganda/simulation strategy accordingly) I don't think they crack down on the sim well enough.
You could say the same for us. Well, then, let's just give up? Naw.
As for "our line of work" referring to pure volunteerism in the interest of investigating the media including
anyone who
seems to be investigating, I think you'd agree that's a bit broad if you include in the "line of work" people like ... well, you know. No need to bring up the same old big name radio personalities. So I am sorry if you don't persuade me in this instance. I don't think copying and pasting our articles, being a "fan", or having an interest in getting nearer to us constitute trustworthiness. Especially if the past is to be taken as any indication of what we should expect in the future. I don't need to go into the numerous examples. You know that.
To me it's not just about being targeted, but making people
clearly aware of what's happening online rather than a clusterfuck of information. Otherwise, what's the point? You get enveloped and consumed by the sim and you don't care because you have a bunch of fans? No thanks.