The real questions is, why aren’t YOU “bitching” about someone posting pure, unadulterated lies about a well-respected journalist? Why don’t YOU seem care about the credibility of this site? Why doesn’t truth seem to be important to you? Maybe, instead of trying to keep up with my valid points with rhetoric, you could reflect, and see if you might have missed the entire point of my (and Collin’s) comments.

To 33 Fucks (since you don’t even have the balls to post your real name), I’m not “butt hurt.” I’m defending the truth, where nothing but lies had been posted. If you’d bother to read all the comments, you’d not need to ask. 🙂

The real questions is, why aren’t YOU “bitching” about someone posting pure, unadulterated lies about a well-respected journalist? Why don’t YOU seem care about the credibility of this site? Why doesn’t truth seem to be important to you? Maybe, instead of trying to keep up with my valid points with rhetoric, you could reflect, and see if you might have missed the entire point of my (and Collin’s) comments.

Chauntel actually says, “Sadly though, without media access (which I had)….” See the “which I had” section? She is clearly saying she HAD MEDIA ACCESS! The fact that you’re implying that was poorly written is laughable. In fact, you state in your last comment, “Had I read the same story Mike did…,” which implies you haven’t even read it! Maybe you should, before you defend Mike’s action so vehemently.

It’s not Chauntel’s fault you two are incapable of accurately reading. She clearly states only media can get a legitimate copy, and that she is media. NOWHERE does she imply she stole anything. You might be able to fool yourself, but the rest of us aren’t buying it.

Turns out that wasn’t the case, however on first read, it does appear that way. Get over yourself already. We get it, your little friend got her feelings hurt and you have to defend her. Good for you.

I’ll tell you a little secret in life … if you don’t want to run the risk of people attacking you, don’t put yourself out there.

Sometimes they are wrong as in the case of calling some guy a member of the mob. But that’s not really an emotional reaction. That’s a personal attack, said with malicious intent with the sole purpose to hurt the person in question.

In this case, Mike was passionate about piracy and something he read wrong in the story made him think that girl was guilty of piracy. He admitted he read the article wrong and apologized.

I think about this porn star named Bobbi Dylan. There is a blogger out there telling people (and writing about) how Bobbi Dylan is actually a tranny (she is not – she was born a female). He’s writing things like how she is going through gender transformation surgery. That’s a blatant hurtful thing that could very well hurt her career. That’s libel and as a result, the blogger should be punished.

But to say that what Mike South said, in defense of porn piracy is the same in comparison is flat out crazy. Mike South said what he did because he was defending the entire industry as a whole. His actions were based on true and genuine concern, not out of hateful malice and I think that makes the difference.

Maybe I’m wrong. But that’s my opinion on the matter.