I’m sorry, I’m reading back over that message and it came off at least twice as harsh as was intended. My fury should be directed towards others and it accidentally spilled onto you. I came at you a little sideways and I regret the tone.

There is, of course, value in hearing the lies from the horse’s mouth

access journalism? where you get some jerk in a chair and lob softballs to retain “access” to them? that thing? thats whats valuable? maintaining access to the people who you know for a fact are lying to you so that you can lob softballs is the valuable thing.

access journalism a bastard child: spawn of the unholy union of the media’s profit motive and the accessed’s desire to legitimize their message (you are invited to recall the message being legitimized in this case).

the government has means of sending its own messages. uncritical ‘stenographizing’ of those messages is indistinguishable from endorsement of them. if the media is being pressed into serving as propaganda outlets for the state, that should be the story, not “the white house said…” and clearly they still have some power to say these things remaining because here is tech dirt saying it.

telling someone the weather is dry when its actually wet because you want to deceive them into not carrying an umbrella has negative truth value.

a journalist doesnt prescribe, they describe. they describe the truth (which often includes reporting who is lying about what) as best they can. thats what makes them a journalist instead of an opinion-columnist. they document, record, critically analyze, and publicly journal their findings.

the only thing carrying disinformation-water for a tyrant serves as a “launching point” for is a career in propaganda.

I tried the local credit union, same shit different name.

[citation needed]

I like this explained reasoning better.

While I tend to agree that the possibility exists (motive, means and opportunity align); are you suggesting that the absence of evidence here is a reason to believe the speculation?

Not only is this ad hominem (calling a person “too stupid to look up the moderators” is not relevant to whether the research they did is valuable, the two are independent and you’re addressing (incorrectly perceived) personal characteristics rather than flaws in an argument) but also, friend, you’re telling on yourself. Spam is a legitimate concern in this and every online community. Nicole is a known spambot. You spammed your own community as a moderator. Apparently as a joke that most people seem to have gotten. Your response is basically [I’m the mod here, I can do whatever the fuck I want]. And no, you can’t. Contrary to what you might think, this isn’t your community. You are just currently (actually, looking at the mod list for this community that seems to be formerly) one of the people responsible for facilitating the dialogue this community is, in principle at least, trying to foster.

A joke is one thing, but coming out of the gate hot like this calling people “stupid insipid cows” because they reported nicole spam is… unempathetic and tends to suggest a power trip. In other words, “Be nice :)” applies to you, too.

if so facto, …

Ipso Facto

Blackmail is coercion by using the threat of exposing evidence of wrongdoing. Extortion is coercion by the exertion of inappropriate leverage; for example a “protection racket” is a form of extortion whereby a criminal organization guarantees protection (often from itself) in return for payment.