Pretzel logic - if the "Real" Susan P is not associated with the anonymous twitter accounts, then someone impersonating Susan is running them - all because he wants to project that his ramblings are somehow "factual". Reblogging someone's article is not "stealing from" or "impersonating" the original author. Can Steven's fans really be this obtuse?
Yes, I agree completely, of course reblogging is not stealing, in contrary. I would assume that Susan would like and encourage reblogging her travel articles. Steven and his "fans" just want to make up any excuse why Susan is evil.
exactly. steven keeps saying that "liking" and "retweeting" is platform manipulation. it's kind of the whole point of the platform is to create, like and share thoughts. he's just pissed that he was kicked off for actual platform manipulation in the form of repeatedly spamming his imbecilic book in the replies of large accounts. TOS violations 101.
This is a good article that does an enviable job of breaking down how Jarvis' is a bad faith liar/bullshitter/shitposter trying to hide his toxic bullying & abuse behind a fake persona of reasonableness.
But I would be careful in presuming that was actually Susan posting those comments on his Substack. She has so far stayed completely out of this & ignored him.
As long as Jarvis believes, or appears to believe, it's actually her then the identity of the poster shouldn't really matter here.
But that just makes taking a stance on the poster's identity (which you seem to do in this article) even more unnecessary.
Lot of tomfoolery going on. Probably pays to be extra skeptical.
Yes, you are right, of course I don't have proof that the poster really is this Susan from New York. When writing the article I thought about adding a qualifying remark, but decided against it, because I didn't want to start insinuate faking without reason for that. But more importantly: All this is not relevant for the points I make in the article.
Pretzel logic - if the "Real" Susan P is not associated with the anonymous twitter accounts, then someone impersonating Susan is running them - all because he wants to project that his ramblings are somehow "factual". Reblogging someone's article is not "stealing from" or "impersonating" the original author. Can Steven's fans really be this obtuse?
Yes, I agree completely, of course reblogging is not stealing, in contrary. I would assume that Susan would like and encourage reblogging her travel articles. Steven and his "fans" just want to make up any excuse why Susan is evil.
exactly. steven keeps saying that "liking" and "retweeting" is platform manipulation. it's kind of the whole point of the platform is to create, like and share thoughts. he's just pissed that he was kicked off for actual platform manipulation in the form of repeatedly spamming his imbecilic book in the replies of large accounts. TOS violations 101.
This is a good article that does an enviable job of breaking down how Jarvis' is a bad faith liar/bullshitter/shitposter trying to hide his toxic bullying & abuse behind a fake persona of reasonableness.
But I would be careful in presuming that was actually Susan posting those comments on his Substack. She has so far stayed completely out of this & ignored him.
As long as Jarvis believes, or appears to believe, it's actually her then the identity of the poster shouldn't really matter here.
But that just makes taking a stance on the poster's identity (which you seem to do in this article) even more unnecessary.
Lot of tomfoolery going on. Probably pays to be extra skeptical.
-Tyler
Yes, you are right, of course I don't have proof that the poster really is this Susan from New York. When writing the article I thought about adding a qualifying remark, but decided against it, because I didn't want to start insinuate faking without reason for that. But more importantly: All this is not relevant for the points I make in the article.