@jambo @rotalumis @adam @dhimmel
J.Ambo,
The turning point to my kindness occurred when you said "They [LTB] won't publish the truth." As I told you weeks ago, "You are welcome to go where they will."
I won't reward your condescension by publishing your work. Either you respect LTB, or you don't. This most resent post is just another indication that you don't.
@cherapple @jambo @rotalumis @adam @dhimmel
J.Ambo,
The turning point to my kindness occurred when you said "They [LTB] won't publish the truth." As I told you weeks ago, "You are welcome to go where they will."
I won't reward your condescension by publishing your work. Either you respect LTB, or you don't. This most resent post is just another indication that you don't. I just thought is was a very related experience.
My comment you allude to was said in FULL jest, and was absolutely zero percent directed at you or ltb. I truly hope you understand that, because I do feel bad that you felt it was a negative insult. I'm not like that at all. If anything I was just making a little crack while trying to remain patient with the process. I had zero experience with LTB to ACTUALLY suggest they are not interested in "truth". And its yet to be seen whether or not my articles are in fact "truthful".
Nonetheless it just seemed harsh to go from the excitement of getting an article printed to not hearing from my editor, to being expressed by a different editor its likely NO editors will be willing to work with me in the future.
I was blown away and had no idea. And in the end the article that was ready for publishing after the weekend is just gone and actually DIDN'T end up getting published anyways.
Also about my attitude towards LTB, I think this place is amazing, my only complaint is exactly this, so I wouldn't think it fair to double jeopardize me. What I pointed to in this thread is not another issue I have. I just see that the world would be a better place if we all understood what "ideal money" is, and discussed it, and no other site is talking about it. Is it suppression or ignorance? I don't know...but it NEEDS to be discussed, and when it finally comes to light and across the eyes of the general public...people are going to wonder why nobody was addressing the obvious.
Please understand, I truly believe this is the most important topic of our time. You expressed dissension about putting the spotlight on the author of Ideal Money, yet the greatest economic thinker of all time has been lecturing about this economic revolution for 20 years in every major country in the world. Surely its worth an article.
Release it under someone else name then or i'll donate 50% of the profits to you and 50% to the community. I feel sad we are ignoring this. 20 years of giving possibly the most incredible manifest mankind has ever seen, and no one cared or cares. I hope I'm not right...if I am, we are so mean.
@jambo (cc @cherapple @adam @dhimmel )
I'm not usually so blunt, but I want to put an end to this crap once and for all. People like you are the reason why editing gets bogged down, editors get burnt out and progress is not as fast as we all would like. Thank goodness the vast majority of contributors to LTB are professional and respectful.
We have already discussed everything you brought up here in this thread: letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/significant-finding-about-bitcoins-creation-schedule that you have just deleted so you can come back and kick up a shitstorm once again. That sort of behavior speaks volumes about your honesty and integrity.
So what now? Am I expected to waste more time with you, responding to your misrepresentation of the facts and outright lies? I can be brief this time as you have already torn your credibility to shreds.
What you don't say here is that your original article was a series of weak and circumstantial arguments claiming that the mathematician John Nash is Satoshi Nakamoto. We didn't think it was responsible to publish that, especially after the whole Newsweek thing but, instead of dismissing you, editor @cherapple worked with you to help you turn your article into something acceptable and worthwhile. @dhimmel and I were also very involved in behind-the-scenes discussions that ate up precious time.
After two full rewrites and tons of back-and forth feedback in between (think of how many other writers had their work delayed just so we wouldn't turn you away) your article was close to ready for publishing when you suddenly blurt out that you didn't think LTB would publish the truth. What truth? That Nash = Satoshi? A comment like that is an insult, not a joke as you are now trying to claim, and I don't blame Cheryl for losing her patience. She tells me it wasn't your first time being disrespectful either.
And now you have the cheek to come back and lie and say that another editor (who was me) told you:
its likely NO editors will be willing to work with me in the future.
What I really told you if you remember that thread you deleted was that I won't force people to work with you if they don't want to do so, but that you could start afresh when new editors come along.
I'm all for second chances when they are earned and deserved, but no amount of sucking up and praising LTB will endear you to anyone if you continue to act in such a disingenuous manner.
For the general record, we current editors are the first people pushing for decentralized editing and the new editorial system ASAP because it will distribute the workload better and relieve a ton of pressure. I am also very keen to see a portion of LTB (maybe not the homepage - that's Adam's prerogative) have Reddit-style user curation where people can post pretty much whatever they like and have it voted upon. All that takes time to build and there are lots of other things that need doing besides.
I have nothing to add except please, for your own sake, chill out a little, let this blow over and don't continue to dig yourself into a hole.
@rotalumis @jambo (cc @cherapple @adam @dhimmel )
I'm not usually so blunt, but I want to put an end to this crap once and for all. People like you are the reason why editing gets bogged down, editors get burnt out and progress is not as fast as we all would like. Thank goodness the vast majority of contributors to LTB are professional and respectful.
No I am not a reason the editing gets bogged down. I wrote an article, I very quickly re wrote it twice with very little input from my editor. The process was finished, in the hands of the editor, and then a little crack at the process while waiting to be publish completing severed my relationship with whole editing team.
Let's get real, I didn't bog down anything. I write and respond fast. What I did was say something that offended my editor, which wasn't meant to offend.
We have already discussed everything you brought up here in this thread: letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/significant-finding-about-bitcoins-creation-schedule that you have just deleted so you can come back and kick up a shitstorm once again. That sort of behavior speaks volumes about your honesty and integrity.
No. I deleted it because I thought, maybe I just somehow rubbed cher the wrong way and that perhaps its a one time thing that the rest of the community doesn't need to see. But now I read what seems to be a professional writer/editor posting a very seemingly similar complaint. In the spirit of decentralization, I would think its perfectly fine to discuss and compare such things.
So what now? Am I expected to waste more time with you, responding to your misrepresentation of the facts and outright lies? I can be brief this time as you have already torn your credibility to shreds.
I think you and cher have torn my credibility to shreds, clearly, I have just given a relating story to the OP. But regardless I am still very credible, yet the editorial process remains questionable, and it seems clear its not just my opinion.
What you don't say here is that your original article was a series of weak and circumstantial arguments claiming that the mathematician John Nash is Satoshi Nakamoto. We didn't think it was responsible to publish that, especially after the whole Newsweek thing but, instead of dismissing you, editor @cherapple worked with you to help you turn your article into something acceptable and worthwhile. @dhimmel and I were also very involved in behind-the-scenes discussions that ate up precious time.
This is not accurate. I put up an article explaining "ideal money", without such claims at all. I was told it has nothing to do with bitcoin and to use my opinion and actual state the claim. Then I re wrote in a very relating manner without actual claiming nash is satoshi, and I was asked to go back to the first perceived format (which again was strange because I figured it would happen so I adjusted for it already).
After two full rewrites and tons of back-and forth feedback in between (think of how many other writers had their work delayed just so we wouldn't turn you away) your article was close to ready for publishing when you suddenly blurt out that you didn't think LTB would publish the truth. What truth? That Nash = Satoshi? A comment like that is an insult, not a joke as you are now trying to claim, and I don't blame Cheryl for losing her patience. She tells me it wasn't your first time being disrespectful either.
Its not an insult at all, was never meant to be one, and I'm starting to feel we all know that. What are you accusing me of? After having a successful relationship with an editor who obviously put cheerful time and effort into my work, and was going to print my piece, I decided I don't like her and so set attack her and ltbcoin with words?
It doesn't make sense, I would go through all that time, just to be malicious does it?
And now you have the cheek to come back and lie and say that another editor (who was me) told you:
its likely NO editors will be willing to work with me in the future.
What I really told you if you remember that thread you deleted was that I won't force people to work with you if they don't want to do so, but that you could start afresh when new editors come along.
I don't know where the lie is. I definitely have the impression (from your expressing) no editors will work with me especially considering there is seemingly an editor discussion forum the writers aren't privy to.
I'm all for second chances when they are earned and deserved, but no amount of sucking up and praising LTB will endear you to anyone if you continue to act in such a disingenuous manner.
Sucking up and praising? This is terrible. This place imo is leading the world in the next evolution of social communities and networks, its a truth not a suck up. And I can't place the word "disingenuous" with its definition in any of this context. I think I have been sincere the entire time.
For the general record, we current editors are the first people pushing for decentralized editing and the new editorial system ASAP because it will distribute the workload better and relieve a ton of pressure. I am also very keen to see a portion of LTB (maybe not the homepage - that's Adam's prerogative) have Reddit-style user curation where people can post pretty much whatever they like and have it voted upon. All that takes time to build and there are lots of other things that need doing besides.
I am keen on that too as I'm pretty confident I could become a regular contributor. There are so many significant topics that are being missed by EVERY bitcoin media site. Not just "who is satoshi" topics.
I have nothing to add except please, for your own sake, chill out a little, let this blow over and don't continue to dig yourself into a hole.
I am not digging myself into any hole. It is way overboard to put me on this side of the fence. I felt I went from a part of the community to someone not in the group, because of a small comment I obviously would not have said if I had ANY clue that it would have been taken in such a way. I came across someone with a similar experience, who asked for input from likewise experiences, and so I added it.
I can't help but think that is the purpose of discussion. Same with editors working with writers, I wouldn't call it a waste of time, it seems like the process...regardless if the content is fit to print or not.
I'll never understand though, how we can claim to understand the economics of bitcoin at all, without referencing and discussing the 20 years of lectures predicting and explaining this revolution. It's simply a matter of when, not if, ltb and other media sites begin to discuss "ideal money". This man spent many years in and out of confinement and fleeing the government while people ignored his economic discovery in 1955. 40 years it took too get recognition from the peoples.
For 20 years now, he has been talking about a new kind of money technology that is going to take the power out of the keynsian based money printing government banking systems. No one takes even a first glance. Now the world is under this reform, every aspect of our society is improving at a rate we never thought possible. All following a perfect description of the change from "ideal money". Perhaps some credit and discussion is due?
btc and ltb media is only discussing a very small portion of "bitcoin" and what it is. There is SO much more to discuss that we are seemingly collectively unaware of. Its not an insult, its perfectly valid observation, and it is only going to get more obvious and clear as time goes by.
All because a simply comment made in jest, it just doesn't seem appropriate. Seems way overboard, I should think a simple apology would suffice. Especially considering Cher CLEARY took what I said in the wrong context.
@cherapple @jambo @rotalumis @adam @dhimmel
J.Ambo,
The turning point to my kindness occurred when you said "They [LTB] won't publish the truth." As I told you weeks ago, "You are welcome to go where they will."
I won't reward your condescension by publishing your work. Either you respect LTB, or you don't. This most resent post is just another indication that you don't.
This reminded me of the feeling I had when I wrote it. I meant the very top owners might already know who satoshi is, (IF it were in fact related to Nash) and be adverse to talking about ideal money. In that light, I already felt cher was on my side, which is obvious because she had been so helpful and had clear intent on publishing my piece.
It doesn't stand to reason I meant any harm to cher.
Since I had no previous workings with LTB it also doesn't stand to reason that had such preconceived notions either.
None of it stands to reason it seems.
Please Login to post a reply to this thread.
