I don’t think I said anything that inflammatory . . .
Where I lose the plot is that these posts (and comments referencing them?) disappeared a year ago and only now does anyone notice. And in that time, no one thought of a way to communicate that to the teeming millions? Or that it needed to be presented in a favorable way? Does that seem believable?
And who will be embarrassed by the facts of the matter coming out? Violet Blue? One of the BB crew? It looks to me like the only ones to feel embarrassed are the boingers, for doing something that seems counter to their public personae and for failing to defend their decision convincingly. Like it or not, you have an audience and they have some expectations. As noted elsewhere, it will be hard to take you all seriously on issues of transparency after this, trivial as it may seem now. I realize BB is not the anyone’s government of public utility and has no legal obligations to be open, but I suspect a lot of BB’s readers have expectations beyond the merely legal.
[From That Violet Blue thing - Boing Boing: with over
8001100 comments in 24 hours? Impressive. I think people are just trying to get it up to 1984. ]
And the possible reason for all this? Looks embarrassing for the BB crowd if it was something like this.
Man, that whole thing is such a fustercluck. I did have one early comment not make it through the moderation queue, presumably because it included links to wayback machine versions of disappeared articles. I love how TNH is characterizing those early comments as coming from Violet Blue’s buddies, trying to stir up trouble. And for “love”, read “refute”, seeing as how I’ve heard of Violet Blue, and recall Xeni posting about her a lot at some point, but am hardly buddies with her.
I stopped reading BB a while back (it stopped being wonderful for me) as part of a detox program to kick the blog-reading habit. Now it looks so insular and silly, very inside baseball. I still have no idea what allegedly happened, but if this is the best response they could come up with (given a year!!111) it may prove the old adage that the IQ of a group is the lowest IQ in the group, divided by the number of members. That and some fearsome egos (is that the real reason they’re never in the same room?). Thank, I’ll be here all week . . .