EA Forums

Sent an email but no reply...

was over 24 hours ago...

AdamKovac (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:07 am

AdamKovac (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:58 am My question is, what is the major objection to talking to me? I want to

Paolo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:35 am write about the community because I feel there is

n't a lot of accurate information out there. Wouldn't a story that is accurate be beneficial? I'm working under the assumption that being better understood by the vast majority of people would be a

good thing?

The major objection to talking to you is that your a reporter. In the past reporters who have said the same things you are saying have duped us, taken things out of context and hurt is in ways I can't even began to tell you.

Yes our stories would be beneficial however your name is not Tom Brokaw, we don't know you.

It comes down to this, your an independent writer per your opening statement, that in its self set off RED flags to most of us who have been around for a while. You have no creditability with us or the press at large. You are a total unknown and that raises even more flags. We know Tom J. and Richard W. personally, we know there stories have visited there homes, we have a personal relationship with them. We don't have this with you and its unlikely that you will spend the time required and needed to win our trust to make this story you want to tell worth it.

River

I'm willing to talk on background. Forum ate the last two attempts at a real post. If this will work, I've sent you an email and you can contact me by PM here once you have privileges. PM will be checked more often, but email allows longer posts and may be more reliable. :p

Autosave recovered part of my first post, but not the whole thing. :shakemitk

[snip]

AdamKovac (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:07 am For those of you who would like to get in touch with me, you can reach me via email: [email protected]

If it's ok with you, I'm going to stick around and keep reading. This is your place, and I don't want to violate it, so I'm not sure if I am allowed to post in other threads to ask questions. Please tell me to piss off if I make anyone uncomfortable.

-Adam

I don't think it would be out of line to ask questions, on the assumption that everything we say, unless otherwise specified, is "on background". I shouldn't have to do this for your benefit, but for other EA members: "Speaking terms" for journalistic sources. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_(jo ... g_terms.22) I am comfortable with anything I say being used "on background" unless otherwise specified, and I think I would be wiling to answer questions under such conditions of attribution. I'm too junior to provide broad background on the community, but I can provide one of the many varied perspectives I'm sure you'll want, if you can deal with a pseudonymous source who practices ruthless infosec and data hygiene, and who respects others' secrets.

Let us consider for a moment that you are a really good guy and write the best, honest account possible.

If life was that simple, I suspect that few would object at all.

Unfortunately the world also has plenty of people less honorable, and would you believe, able to misuse and misrepresent even the best material -such as yours.

So, folks here have learned to be cautious, with good reason from experience.

-It isn't just you that make folks afraid.

kristoff wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:50 am There was/is a Philadelphia Weekly (don't remember the name) that did an article on us in about 2006 (if my memory serves at all). They did a fair job of accurate reporting. Look them/it up, get an idea of the only half way decent article ever done.

Using the word "eunuch" on the Philadelphia Weekly 's search engine turned up 8 articles with one each from '05 & '06. None of the 8 appeared to be what Kristoff might have been referring to. Maybe someone else will have better luck.

Just a statement: a few years ago, a friend was asked to write a paper about a known spiritual organisation, and accepted under the strict condition that his paper should be published as submitted and in no way edited or altered. They accepted, he wrote and sent his paper and, wham! it got edited so as to depict the organisation as malevolent, whereas he had in no way done that.

So you may be a sincere, dedicated and ethical journalist, but once your paper is in the hands of your publishers, if those are not sincere, dedicated and ethical, or simply subject to outside pressures, your paper shall be altered and in a way you won't like.

The zeitgeist is clearly in favor of the GLBT movement at the moment. We aren't going to have many moments more favorable than now.