Durova Threatens Brandt, Republishes his Bio + Claims "Someone" Sends her Slash/Threa Options

Gawd. Get out the meds, please.
Durova republishes Brandt's page on her blog, threatens to have his Wikipedia bio republished, and mentions all of this in the same breath as another "unnamed user" who has been threatening to throw acid in her face.

Please.

Durova. Call the friggin FBI if that happened (the acid throwing, rapist threat). Since you don't work there, and have no idea how anyone got that idea, call the damned place, report the threat, and get the guy arrested, and stop whining about it online. But wait - you can't.

Because I bet you made it up.

Just like the threat to whoever, what his bone-name is, anytime you don't want to face reality, you scream "terrorist" (no, on Wikipedia it's) "violent threat" or "stalker". Stop that. Grow up.

Any sane person would have reported that to the FBI, ASAP. Do it, stop whining, and get the sob arrested. Full stop.

And stop picking Brandt fights. Because you should.

And stop making sxxx up. Because ... well, just because.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 11th June 2008, 9:17pm

Durova found me in a so-called "dead-tree encyclopedia," which is an encyclopedia about conspiracies. I've never heard of this book. Based on the snippet shown by Google Books, she figures I qualify for a bio on Wikipedia under her "dead tree standard."

The snippet reads, "Page 187
DANIEL BRANDT b.1948 Researcher and webmaster Brandt has been at the forefront
of conspiracy research for decades and for the last 30 years has been ..."

I can't access any more than this on Google Books or Amazon.com, but I already know that this book is based on an unreliable source. The only source that has ever stated that I was born in 1948 is my old Wikipedia bio.

I was not born in 1948. This dead-tree source is corrupted. We've come full circle, people.

Durova's example of a dead-tree encyclopedia is based on my now-deleted Wikipedia bio, and Durova is claiming that this dead-tree encyclopedia justifies restoring my bio under her own recommendations.

Instead, what she has accidentally demonstrated is that the dead-tree standard is hopelessly inadequate, because human knowledge has already been irrevocably corrupted by Wikipediots.

A no-questions-asked opt-out by the subject of the bio is the only solution for the BLP problem. I used to think that the dead-tree standard was reasonable, in conjunction with an opt-out. Not any more. The dead-tree standard does not cut it for me anymore.

A no-questions-asked opt-out by the subject of the bio is the only solution for the BLP problem. I used to think that the dead-tree standard was reasonable, in conjunction with an opt-out. Not any more. The dead-tree standard does not cut it for me anymore.

In other words, you're once again moving the goalposts in order to finagle the desired result regardless of what principles need to be rejiggered to accomplish this.