21 December, 2014

Meanwhile, over at the SLU #GamerGate circle jerk...

According to my personal stalker...
Once more, Moaner... try to read it slooooowly this time and then repeat it to yourself, and repeat it again if you need to...

Reading does not equal stalking.
... (who also supports GG), ...
Mmmm. If you weren't "stalking" me, Moaner, how ever would you arrive at that conclusion?

I will say that I don't support the tactics of some of GamerGate's supporters but I do think that GamerGate has some valid points which have been all but lost in the noise.

I also don't support the tactics of the other side, who have done absolutely everything in their power to drown out any valid points that GamerGate and its supporters have with their constant... and I do mean constant... screeching (see above RE noise) and professional victimhood.

Now tell me what a misogynist I am.

... I'm supposedly a man too...
That is my belief, yes. And I'm far from alone in that belief.

Now tell me how that makes me, and anyone else who thinks so, a misogynist.

... (of course, he'll never provide proof).
And you'll never provide proof otherwise. You'll only dodge. Like when people ask you to a Google chat or to join a podcast to discuss a topic that you've put yourself forth as an expert on.

So, public or private, the maven of all that is SL is unwilling to unveil herself.

Go figure.

19 December, 2014

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

There's a thread going on the SLF where the OP bemoans the fact that some people (women) that fail to meet his high standard of beauty (naturally, he doesn't show his own face...) have the audacity to put RL pictures of themselves in their SL profiles. One gets the impression that he thinks that all of the women in SL are there for his pleasure, or that of men like him.

The reaction in the Forum thus far has been mostly as expected. After all, what can one say to a complete moron?

The one show of support for the OP has come from another complete moron who goes by the avatar name of JamieThunder:
Others may get indignant with the OP but I get what he says. If he got you all upset thenmaybe it hit close to home. I catch flak for the RL pic I have of myself on my profile. Early 20, s though I look a few years younger. Many is the time while out clubbing I get an im from some middleaged aged daft cow resentful for the fact that I have a pic posted.95% of the time THEY don, t have one on theirs (go figure) yet they show their resentment . Its kind of obvious the type, the BARBIE avis in thigh high boots, halter tops and cut offs. WELL huns I could care less, I eat right, exercise and  take care of myself . Not everyone on here is old, just as many who like myself are youngerso don, t be butthurt over men OR women that choose not to care for their health and appearance. Just as it was suggested not to look at the pic he finds a Turnoff if someones pic makes you rentful then keep your anger to yourself because no one is going to remove their pic because someone feels inadequate .
Well, I had to see what this young, fit, trim master of spelling, grammar and punctuation that generates such feelings of inadequacy in apparently insanely jealous women from all over SL that they feel compelled to harass her looked like.

Jamie's original "RL" profile photo. Zero results in TinEye and Google Images searches but...

Besides the aspect being way off, there's just something about this photo that doesn't feel right. It's almost... commercial. Let's fix it up and run a Google Images search.

It turns out that this is from an amateur porn photo set and I link to a Google Images search results page in my three word reply:
You don't say...
[Note: Clicking links on the Google Images search results page linked above may be NSFW.]

I click around a bit and then land back at Jamie's About page (here's a screen cap of it in case she decides to change it again) where I notice that she has already switched the photo out for a different one.

A face only a mother could love.

Being the complete moron that she is, she uses a photo featuring the same model from another photo set that is on at least one of the same pages linked to in the Google Images search results I posted!

Like I said. COMPLETE moron.

At this point I reply to another poster who has responded after having obviously looked at the Google Images search results:

LOL. She's changed it. I wonder if she knows/noticed that the uncropped version of the new one is on one of the pages linked.

ETA: You might want to add this to your list of profile codes, Jamie:

14) "Oui, c'est moi" (added to her profile when she changed pics) = I found this pic on the internet, mangled the hell out of it, and hope you haven't seen the original
[Please note that any further responses from me (besides three others, quoted below) are paraphrased/guesstimated, as Jamie and/or her soon-to-appear meat puppet saw fit to RIC my post(s) after it became all too apparent to them that theirs was an epic fail (and they, my responses, were included in the warning I received). The same for any edits that these two people that share a brain made to their posts, as LL finally fixed the bug (?) that sent email notification of every single edit made to every post. Inquiries made to other posters for copies of emailed notifications of my posts have produced no results. I wish one could receive notifications of one's own posts if desired. Now that would be useful!]

I can change it again if that suits you? Or are you just another of the jealous trolls that live a life of resentment? Why is it that if a person is proud of their looks, figure, health others get bent out of shape. I for one do not FOLLOW the FAT ACCEPTANCE PC bs. My parents taught me to have repespect for my body and set guidelines that I still follow. Seems to work well for myself and my husband who is 19 years my senior. Even at 43 I bet dollars to your sack of donuts he would make you look like a toad.But then hey prove me wrong and post a RL pic that is REALLY you. HATER!
I stated that I had a RL pic of myself in my profile "(which is more than I can say for you)."


That is my profile pic, as is the few others I have used, WHICH is much more than I can say for you.....

But then YOURS is the typical loser retort
Yes, I can see that. But it's not a pic of you.

BTW... Since you seem to lack any image editing ability...

A face to be proud of!

That's much better than this, don't you think?

A face only a mother could love.

But then... It'd be easier to dig up, wouldn't it?

JamieThunder, in one of her edits that I responded to:

BTW your POSE is common azzclownish. I know you THINK it makes you look all studly and all but let me clue you MOST women would Laugh
Good thing I'm not trying to impress most women.
Jamie then flees the thread, presumably after her fingers cramped up from hitting that RIC button. But not to fear. The meat puppet cometh!


Cor Blime Lass, cut the bloke a bit of slack before he winds up in need of theraphy. But I do agree, he does look somewhat of a bloody twit in that picture:manlol:
Spoiler (Highlight to read)
I confess to being a bit confused here as to who was who, as I had done some profile perving, including that of Jamie's "sis". I said something like "Oh, look. Here comes her boyfriend to save her" (when in actuality he is her "sis's" partner in SL).

P.S. There was no spoiler. Pity.

I,m not her BF you bloody thick **bleep**, but I will fess up truthfully and say I have been a mate of her dad for some years and can attest that is her. Why is it I get the feeling you are as camp as a row of pink tents?
Oi, Before you begin to make assumptions about others bloke just let me clear something up . Its fairly easy to check the truthfullness of a picture. Lets take yours for example. I went inworld, went to your profile, pulled up ypor " RL (?) picture. printscreened, cropped for Paint then did an online search via GOOGLE.... Not being very TRUTHFUL now are you?
Oh ,least i forget mate, that picture of "You" is even on a gay porn sight
Pardon, I meant a Gay dating website.
LOL. Nice try, trying to turn it around. Your pal Jamie is caught using pics that are posted on a number of amateur porn sites and it's MY RL pic (which I took with my old phone, BTW) that's a fake? That's hilarious.

    HarryBullocks wrote:

    ...did an online search via GOOGLE.... Not being very TRUTHFUL now are you?

Go ahead and post the Google Image Search link (like I did).
I responded to Harry's claim that he found my profile pic on "a gay porn sight" (Ooops. Sorry. A "Gay dating website.") by saying that I may have used it on Grindr at one time. I was then about to add "Never mind, I'll post the (Google Images search) link for you" when I encountered the "The message you are responding to is not available" alert.

Sure enough, all of my posts from where I first responded to Jamie, as well as all replies, were gone. If all else fails, RIC 'em, eh, Jamie/Harry?

Oh, and I received a warning. I'm confused, though. Is it because I:

  • a. pointed out Jamie's incredible stupidity;
  • b. questioned Jamie's image editing abilities; or
  • c. showed Jamie and Harry to both be liars?
[I can't help but notice, reading back, that Jamie and Harry share the peculiar habits of:
  • a. dropping their apostrophes so that they become commas;
  • b. frequently adding spaces before punctuation; and
  • c. sometimes skipping punctuation altogether at the ends of paragraphs.
Also: Jamie, Jamie's partner and Jamie's "sis" HarleiQuinn all refuse to voice/Skype. Harry's profile is unavailable. It does make one wonder.]

This thread has (or rather, had) it all. Superficiality in the extreme, sexism/misogyny, ageism, and gay baiting. All it needs is a skosh of racism and maybe some Godwinning.

UPDATE. December 20. Jamie's SL partner has come to her defense in that disaster of a thread.

Oh! And look! He shares all three of the very same peculiar typing habits as Jamie and Harry!

I,m sure your reply will be to call me out as a liar or ALT but frankly I could care less . I don't frequent this SL forum due to the behavior of so many people on here , the ones being on here for some time being the WORST of examples
UPDATE II. December 20. Jamie's "sis" appears to have the same handicap as Jamie, Harry and Ritter. It must be something in the water.

From her profile:
I,m looking for a tribute band on SL that needs a Bassplayer. An ALL GIRL band would be great but hey I,m game for any band as long as its rock or heavy metal. Have a Fender Jazz Bass and animations,RL experience too!!!
HIT ME UP if yu have a band , know a band in need or a band manager
P.S. I think Jamie's "sis" needs an education in editing images (after ripping them from websites), too. Pics in her profile suffer from the same aspect ratio problems as Jamie's. (Oh, and that Ritter Classic 5 String Bass? It retailed at $9K. Ask me if I think she bought it or ever had it in her possession.)

02 November, 2014

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or something like that.

Moaner said:
The Wikipedia entry does gamergaters no favours at all. Basically, it portrays them as the misogynist, racist turds they are.

Because nobody can edit that page and it's not one-sided at all and there's no Talk. It's written in stone. A Bible for the age of the Interwebz.

Because nobody can edit Zoe's, Anita's or Brianna's pages, either, and remove any criticism of them.

Because Wikipedia is the be all and end all of... well, just about everything.

From Criticism of Wikipedia at... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia:

Wikipedia... Written by volunteers worldwide. Almost anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles.
Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals. Most academics, historians, teachers and journalists, reject Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for being a mixture of truth, half truth, and some falsehoods. Articles in the Times Higher Education magazine, The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies, concluding that the first undermines freedom of thought and the second; the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather only present the majority “weight” of viewpoints creates omissions which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information. Novelist and critic A. S. Byatt has described this consensus populism as leading to the tyranny of the majority. A New York Times article concluded that the casual reader is not aware of these controversial policies because he/she thinks Wikipedia has free expression views.
Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin Black noted how articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic. An article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin.

Scholar and author Mark Bauerlein perceives Wikipedia as a threat for being a "monolith enclosing the knowledge worlds of students". The Academic Integrity at MIT handbook for students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology states: 'Wikipedia is Not a Reliable Academic Source: The bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable – use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research."
Someone else pointed to the GamerGate page on Encyclopedia Dramatica and Moaner pronounces ED as "crap". Except when she agrees with it. (Note that Moaner doesn't seem to object to the doxxing of Prok or members of the JLU there... Again, people she doesn't like. Or at least... agree with.)

22 October, 2014

Still reading, dudebro?

Moaner said:
I must note here that, way before gamergate came to be, we had precisely this sort of idiots [sic] in SL. Some of us have seen them in action.
Oh. Ya mean idiots like Mr. Tish? Mr. Tish, who published the full name (first, middle, last), location (and we're not talking about Joe Smith who lives in... say... NYC) and other RL details of someone that you both hate and then practically invited people to go "kick [his] face in" on his blog and on his Twitter timeline and who had his idiot friends create lame-ass "wiki" style pages publishing that same info?

Or idiots like Gypsy the junkie, who spammed the SL feeds with that info (and yeah, he's blamed at least one of his feed rampages on a heroin binge)?

Or idiots like Deek, who created at least one alt for that same purpose?

Or idiots like Lillie, who "loved" those feed posts?

Idiots like that?

Cuz... Ya know... If you're going to be all up in arms about people getting doxxed and threatened with physical violence, maybe you should condemn it everywhere and not just where you see fit.

And even if you didn't know about it when it happened, maybe you should shun those people.

But they are or were your "friends" so it's ok. Right?

UPDATE: I didn't connect all the dots when I wrote this (I've just come across a screenshot hidden away in my clipboard app), but Moaner herself joined the pile-on and published Pep's RL details in a comment on Facebook (in response to a link from ThinkProgress.org, as if anyone at ThinkProgress.org would ever give a crap).

24 September, 2014

Stalkers and bullies and trolls, oh my!

Moaner said:
One of the worst kinds of stalkers in SL and RL is the vengeful stalker; this person convinces themselves that you are their enemy (even if you've never interacted with them, or had more than the misfortune of having exchanged a few words with them), simply because of your opinions.
I don't think of you as my enemy, Moaner, just as a fraud whose stupidity should be exposed for what it is. The problem is that you choose to just block everyone who has an opinion that differs from your own (disagrees with you). As I said elsewhere, that's just lazy. And now you've gone further and tried to silence me. Well, that just won't do.
And they start stalking you, both on LL's own systems and outside of them (Twitter, blogs, forums, etc).
By "stalking" you mean... reading. Is that right? Then I would say that you are guilty of the same.
  • ~9/16 - My Twitter account is suspended. [Gee, who could possibly have reported me?]
  • 9/16 - I register a Plurk account.
  • 9/21 - I'm blocked on Plurk and plurk about it.
  • 9/21 - Your Plurk profile is set to private.
  • 9/22 - I plurk about it (a plurk that you liked) and mention my presence on ASN.
  • ~9/23 - Your post on ASN (now deleted) that refers to your "personal stalker" who's "announced he's come" to ASN "to continue his harassment - but under a different name this time" (see below) appears.
So... who's "stalking" who? If you are/were not "stalking" me, you:

a) wouldn't be reading my Twitter timeline so that you could become so very offended that you had to report me; and
b) would never even see my Plurk timeline so that you could become so very offended that you would feel the need to seek out pity from your fellow ASN users.

Some of these persons organise in groups whose sole existence is to troll, stalk and bully others.
I belong to many "groups", both formal and informal, none of "whose sole existence is to troll, stalk and bully others." Perhaps you'd care to elaborate and maybe even offer some evidence instead of just flapping your gums.
They also claim that what they do is covered by "freedom of speech".
Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas to anyone who is willing to receive them.

Nobody is forcing you to read (receive) my Twitter, Plurk, blog, etc.

The following post appeared on or about 9/23 and has since been deleted (one assumes by the author). Original link: https://www.avatarsocialnetwork.com/forums/topic/658/stalking-and-griefing/view/post_id/6192

I'm with you, Lanai. I have my personal stalker, and now he's announced he's come here as well to continue his harassment - but under a different name this time.
See above RE your very own "stalking", Moaner.
He has dedicated his plurk and blog...
No. You're just the latest in a short line of complete morons who've merited such treatment (I only now just realized that most of them happen to be men who play women in SL, and I suspect that you are no exception). Just ask some of your friends about Sus.
... to posting libelous and stalker-ish stuff directed at me.
The following definitions can be found at this link (I know you're quite familiar with the site): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.

Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.

Crucial to the second definition is the word FALSE.

I challenge you to point to one single instance where I have made a false statement about you, or about anyone else for that matter.

It's been going on for two years now.
Your first appearance on my blog was in February of 2013. The Tweets in that post are from December of 2012. Prior to that, I didn't even know of your miserable existence.
In fact, yesterday I decided to remove a friend from here, because I saw that she lied when she said (in public) she had ditched a group of friends of hers whose SL was all about drama.
In other words, someone who disagreed with you.

22 August, 2014

If only...

Lucinda Bulloch said:

Why did you make most of my products including the main one adult so taking them from general view and why did you make my dresses adult, how is a dress adult, i have now closed and intend to leave sl for good once i have copied all my script to my hard drive. for 7 years i have put up with abuse but still created but this is the final straw i can not fight these anti competition practices that you see as normal any more.

So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehen, good night.


ETA: That was a comment, now gone, that Lucinda left on a KB article. Off-topic, so of course it deserved to be RICed and I was happy to comply.

03 August, 2014


I blog merely to express my own thoughts.
 'scuse me while I roll on the floor, laughing my ass off (ROFLMAO).

I feel obliged to do some homework before I write about something: Ask about it, read about it, cross-check references, try to find information that's as accurate/helpful as possible.
Yeah, we noticed.

Did the author of the Business Insider article do her homework? Did she try to find someone to help her get to grips with the viewer, optimise her graphics settings, point her to places, communities etc, that are representative of that is done *now* within SL? From what I read, it doesn't look like it. So, if a non-professional, admittedly amateur blogger like me is expected to do her homework and be as accurate and concise as possible in what she writes, why wouldn't a journalist be expected to live up to similar or higher standards?
 Here. Pass this link along to her: http://www.wikipedia.org

14 May, 2014


Mona wrote:
If you want timely, well-written and detailed coverage of Second Life and its clones, Inara’s got you covered far better than any other such blogger I know. Her blog is the closest you can get to having a well-sourced, documented and written news resource, and, unlike some other blogs I know, she neither posts half-arsed or intentionally flawed posts to stir stuff up and increase page views, nor does she repost other people’s work.
You've got that covered.

08 May, 2014

Good to see you're an equal opportunity plagiarist...

... and don't just copy shtuff that your "mistress" writes.

Wikipedia: Satan is the first major character introduced in the poem. Formerly called Lucifer, he was the most beautiful of all angels in Heaven, and is tragic figure who describes himself with the now-famous quote "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."[7] He is introduced to Hell after he leads a failed rebellion to wrestle control of Heaven from God. Satan's desire to rebel against his creator stems from his unwillingness to be subjugated by God and his Son, claiming that angels are "self-begot, self-raised",[8] and thereby denying God's authority over them as their creator.

Mona: Satan, the first major character that the poem introduces to the reader, was the most beautiful of all Heaven’s angels and is portrayed as a tragic figure who describes himself with the famous line “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” His failed rebellion against God for control of Heaven, stemming from his unwillingness to be a subordinate to God and his Son, claiming that angels are “self-begot, self-raised” and thus God is not entitled to rule over them as their creator.

Wikipedia: Satan is deeply arrogant, albeit powerful and charismatic. Satan's persuasive powers are evident throughout the book; not only is he cunning and deceptive, but he is also able to rally the angels to continue in the rebellion after their agonising defeat in the Angelic War. He argues that God rules as a tyrant and that all the angels ought to rule as gods.[9]

Mona: Milton portrays Satan as a very arrogant, but also powerful and charismatic character, with a formidable ability to persuade others to do his bidding. Besides his (true to the religious description) cunning and deceptive character, he is able to persuade the angels that followed him to continue their rebellion against God, despite their defeat in the Angelic War. According to Satan, God is a tyrannic ruler and angels ought to rule as gods.

Wikipedia: Satan is comparable in many ways to the tragic heroes of classic Greek literature, but Satan's hubris far surpasses those of previous tragedies. Though at times he plays the narrative role of an anti-hero, he is still commonly understood to be the antagonist of the epic. However, the true nature of his role in the poem has been the subject of much notoriety and scholarly debate. While some scholars, like the critic and writer C. S. Lewis, interpret the poem as a genuine Christian morality tale, other critics, like William Empson, view it as a more ambiguous work, with Milton's complex characterisation of Satan playing a large part in that perceived ambiguity.[10]

Mona: There are parallels that can be drawn between Milton’s Satan and the tragic heroes of ancient Greek drama, but Satan’s hubris makes the behaviours of Greek tragic heroes that trigger the dramatic events pale in comparison. On some occasions in the poem, he seems to play the narrative role of the anti-hero, but it is always clear, at least to me, that he is really the narration’s antagonist. Regardless of this, though, his role has been discussed quite vigorously. For instance, C.S. Lewis sees Paradise Lost as a genuine Christian morality tale, while William Empson and other critics see an ambiguity in Milton’s complex characterisation of Satan.

08 March, 2014

Even those damn monkeys aren't plagiarizing Shakespeare's works...

I: A new Twitter account appeared on Friday March 7th. “SecondLife Official” (@SLOfficialtweet) billed itself as the “new Second Life official twitter page”.

M: On Friday March 7th, a rather puzzling account appeared on Twitter. This account, under the handle of “SecondLife Official” (@SLOfficialtweet), presented itself as the “new Second Life official twitter page”.

I: This took a number of people by surprise, given there is a legitimate Second Life Official Twitter account (@SecondLife).

M: Unsurprisingly, this took more than a few people by surprise, as Linden Lab already has a legitimate Twitter presence for its flagship product (@SecondLife)...

I: The appearance of the account prompted a question on its legitimacy from Strawberry Singh (among others), which in turn prompted an immediate and unequivocal response from Linden Lab: ...

M: The fact that the Lab already had official Twitter, of course, raised questions regarding the legitimacy and authenticity of the new account. Eventually, Strawberry Singh raised this question to the Lab, resulting in a swift and clear response: ...

I: Parody accounts, unaffiliated accounts, etc., are not new on Twitter. However, many of these do carry an indication that they are not in any way official.

M: ... parody/satire accounts, as well as non-affiliated accounts are anything but new to Twitter. However, many of these accounts indicate clearly in various manners that they are not official.

Have you ever had an original thought? In your entire fucking life?

01 February, 2014


Decided to catch up on Jumpy's Twitter timeline. He was ranting and raving about the Amanda Knox verdict and harassing non-Americans who had an opinion about it. Apparently, he doesn't agree with (or understand) the judicial system of a "2nd world country" like Italy. Then I hit refresh.

ETA: That's gotta hurt. He had 3600+ followers. Guess you'll have to buy some new ones, huh, Chump?

Starved for Attention.

My Inbox yesterday:

29 January, 2014

Meh. I'm busy looking for dead people, anyway.

So, I'm banned from the SLF for a month for calling Jumpy a "knob". I only said out loud what most people think of him...

That followed a warning for, I believe, posting: "Yep, it's amazing what you can find using Google." Hard to tell since the entire thread, where Jumpy offered as "evidence" of his "fame" his "googleability", disappeared and my offense was not exactly explained in detail.

Interesting side note: I was able to at least view the Forums, not logged in, as I usually do until I followed the link to that now-gone thread from my email. Now I get this (the "reason" is a new addition; before, it was just the countdown):

Yay for TOR! I can still read the crazy if I feel like it. Suck it, LL.

Sus came back long enough to suggest that she benefited from Rodvik's direct intervention (If you recall from an old post here, she believed that Amanda Linden was fired for what Sus saw as her poor treatment of her. Amanda's offense? Why, banning Sus from the SLF, of course!) and to stick her nose so far up Jumpy's ass that he was in serious danger of perforation.

Meanwhile, Jumpy was banned again from SLU. Rather, Jumpy's alt, masquerading as a "clerk" employed at the offices of Jumpy's "shyster lawyers" to get around Jumpy's ban, was.

Too bad, Chump.