Rips off Jay Maisel and gets caught but doesn't think he did anything wrong....

[Mike Anderson]

That's exactly where this line of "argument" leads and it was an obvious allusion to that Russian Photos Blog guy and his hit piece against Thomas Hawk (see post #255). It even got gushing praise from none other than Mike Johnston!

So, when someone from the same type of crowd keeps insulting you instead of arguing your point and then starts dredging out information that you chose not to publish on this venue, what DO you expect as the next step?

"hit squad" "type of crowd" "hit piece". Despite your language here Marko I don't think anyone's coming after your family as a result of this thread. And you suggesting so sounds kind of crazy.

...Mike

[Marko]

Mike,

What could, in your opinion, be a legitimate purpose of publishing someone's employer's name and address if not to get the target of such writing fired or at the very least reprimanded? And for what? For daring to have an opinion and to express it? Or is it simply because the author of the piece didn't like what Thomas Hawk had to say?

Either way, if there is a better term than "hit piece" to describe that kind of blogging, then I don't know it. And I would like to hear real arguments to the contrary.

All of those terms you mention are fairly accurate if harsh descriptions of the type of action expressly aimed at harming someone's physical and economic well-being. There is a big difference between an action and a description, agree with it or not, don't you think?

And I wasn't suggesting anything - when somebody publishes something I try to keep private in order to undermine my argument in a discussion, it is the first step in the same direction as that "hit piece". It is only logical to ask what could be the next step.

[Mike Anderson]

Mike,

What could, in your opinion, be a legitimate purpose of publishing someone's employer's name and address if not to get the target of such writing fired or at the very least reprimanded? And for what? For daring to have an opinion and to express it? Or is it simply because the author of the piece didn't like what Thomas Hawk had to say?

Either way, if there is a better term than "hit piece" to describe that kind of blogging, then I don't know it. And I would like to hear real arguments to the contrary.

All of those terms you mention are fairly accurate if harsh descriptions of the type of action expressly aimed at harming someone's physical and economic well-being. There is a big difference between an action and a description, agree with it or not, don't you think?

I think exposing the B.S of a person that uses a fake name and posts lies on his blog is simply good journalism, and I'm not alone in thinking that. (BTW I just looked for "Thomas Hawk's" comments on the subject in question to freshen up - I have read it before - and it seems to be removed from his blog. Read into that what you will.)

And I wasn't suggesting anything - when somebody publishes something I try to keep private in order to undermine my argument in a discussion, it is the first step in the same direction as that "hit piece". It is only logical to ask what could be the next step.

This goes to the heart of the matter: you want to publish some things, but you want to have some control over how it's shared. I think that's simply human nature.

...Mike

p.s. I admit I've been somewhat mean spirited in this thread and I apologize. This topic has got me worked up.

[Marko]

I think exposing the B.S of a person that uses a fake name and posts lies on his blog is simply good journalism, and I'm not alone in thinking that. (BTW I just looked for "Thomas Hawk's" comments on the subject in question to freshen up - I have read it before - and it seems to be removed from his blog. Read into that what you will.)

If it were about exposing B.S. that would be good journalism. Exposing a person who chose to use a pseudonym in order to separate his work from his hobby (and that's a perfectly legitimate use of the pseudonym, btw) and attempting to deprive him of earning a living is nothing more than a good, old-fashioned lynch mob.

Please note that I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with his opinions here. This is much more fundamental than that. This is about something that was at some point deemed worthy to become the First Amendment of the supreme law of this land and about readiness of some people to inflict real physical (as in existential) damage to others simply because they don't like what they have to say. It is also, and even more, about the readiness of many more to accept that as a normal, deserved course of action.

If he chose to remove the post after all this craziness, I can't really blame him. It's a sad comment on the state of our society.

This goes to the heart of the matter: you want to publish some things, but you want to have some control over how it's shared. I think that's simply human nature.

What? Desire to hurt someone because you disagree with his opinion? I'm sorry but I strongly disagree.

You want to say what you think? You should be able to, without fear of repercussions or physical harm. At least in this country.

Whatever happened with "attack the argument, not the man"?

p.s. I admit I've been somewhat mean spirited in this thread and I apologize. This topic has got me worked up.

I don't think you have much to apologize for - you were actually arguing the opinion you disagreed with without getting personal. I wish more participants were doing just that!

Marko

P.S.

Re: good journalism - how good is it really if the author complains about being called "fucktard" by those who disagree with him immediately after calling those HE disagrees with "freetards"?

[kpphoto]

Not to be confused with Steve Maisel....much younger and therefore could not have taken it.

[D. Bryant]

Even the folks at Kelby Training have gotten into the fray as a segue to the topic of using Digimark for tracking stolen files on the net. Needless to stay they (the talking heads at Kelby TV) were on the [copy] right side of the issue.

[PViapiano]

No, it doesn't make sense, and history is full of counterexamples. It's not compensation that's important, it's unstructured time, and we have more of that this year alone than in all of history up to the 20th century, combined.

This thread is proof of that...