From a nightmarish experience with a certain blogger, who contends that QUOTE “Reyna Elena is a humor blog. Or at least, a trying hard one.” UNQUOTE

Attempts at such humour being by way of sharpening the knives, the Internet skills learned in such cold and mercenary pursuits as, for example “The Busby SEO Contest,” the technical prowess absorbed, the social contacts developed from years of “pro-blogging” – putting them in to practice – against one solitary human target.

Thank heaven that people like him have not got their finger on a button of more serious consequence than those found on a mouse.

With transparent and undisguised contempt, this tragi-comedic figure finds it fun to instigate and perpetuate an SEO campaign designed to bury, to swamp with sheer quantity, an obviously sensitive and personally emotive human story.

To acheive this end, the lowest end of the barrel of bad taste is plumbed and scraped, the long decayed bodies of ethical behaviour that once walked this earth during the Spanish Inquisition, are exhumed from their timely demise – and resurrected for his despicable intentions.

Pseudo-psychological analysis and torture, exaggeration & distortion of facts in order to trump up a charge, character assassination of a particularly vindictive style, incitement to hatred by false accusations of racism, open mockery, posting of insulting (funny) photographs – and most strangely, an attempt to insult me by insinuating that I was gay.
(See the many photo-shopped images that he himself laboured over – portaying me in “drag” – completely inexplicable – but surely a token of a severe derangement.)

And all of this – for an extremely dubious motive.
The covering up of one act of deception – an attempted emotional extortion, being no less devious for the fact that it did not succeed – with an even bigger deception – in order to protect the reputation of a powerful business concern.

I hear my detractors talk about ethics. Do ethics have a sliding scale?
Are those in opposition to me more or less ethical than myself, in the actions I took?

I have deliberated long and hard over my honesty regarding how I have evaluated everything that has transpired – being forced into that position by my rigid determination to honour my highest ideal.
Love – the intense emotional attachment I felt for a certain Filipina and her country – which encompassed all the hopes and desires for a personal relationship, including my emigration, our marriage, starting a family and business together.
I do not have to prove my credentials in this regard – but proof is there to see – least wise in my determination to find a satisfactory closure.
A closure that is needed because above and beyond anything else in this life, love represents my highest ideal, and I am not content to live with that ideal falling under a shadow.
I would never willfully partake of any action to injure the object of my love – nor would I willfully intend distress upon another human being without sufficient cause or reason.

The reasons for my actions are as follows:
a) To act as a lever to give me some purchase on the hope of discovering a truth, in a situation where and when I saw no other alternative.
b) Reaching out from the perspective of my highest ideal to ensure what that truth was.
c) To deter and warn – I could not remain silent for the sake of discretion, when perhaps another’s pain might be averted.
d) To inform – to educate. Crime can be unique – there need be no recorded, searchable precedent to support the validity of one’s judgement.
e) To record and demonstrate how deceit and corruption can influence perception – especially with regard to behaviour online.

If my resolve and my determination are interpreted as aggression, then so be it.
The truth is, that I now have an advocacy – a word I see quoted a great deal on the Filipino blogosphere recently.
Two immensely powerful passions have been awoken from their comfortable sleep by the events that have unfolded since August 2007.

My love for a particular person and her country – and my absolute craving for transparency, honesty, justice and ethics in behaviour online.

Yes – top marks must go to the aforementioned SEO campaign (complete with video interview) – for they have infiltrated with ease the territory of the sympathy vote – by focussing attention on to the girl.
They have done the same with the territory of national pride, by falsely inciting xenophobia.
They have acheived a complete distortion of my character, with their lies and exaggerations – in order to gain the justly contemptuous vote of those who are aware of the activities of sexual tourists – and will try to convince you that my intentions were similar.

A pretty clean sweep – very thorough.

The votes will all come from people who will not spare the time to think for themselves – perfectly prepared to jump on the bandwagon of consensus – or people who are not impartial – or thinking that it is of no concern to themselves.

But these people are already online, already using their Internet.
Are they content to let behaviour like this propogate?
If it cannot be dealt with when it is made visible – what chance is there of rooting it out?

Whereas I have scrupulously assembled, dissected and examined all of my causes for suspicion and have not given weight to any detail that is superfluous – I suggest that their activity was no more than a deliberate, malicious and devious knee-jerk, an orchestrated mobilisation of forces – which has not been backed up by the slightest scrap of evidence – not even bothering to sensibly address even those issues I have raised.

No – it has been an excercise of elusiveness, refusing to communicate with me personally despite many invitations – refusing to answer to my probing questions as to their first hand personal knowledge of these events.

Why have they been so elusive?
It is perfectly obvious – they have not got a single scrap – not a shred.
That is a most indefensible and unconscionable position to launch a propaganda campaign from.

Even when the video interview was made and launched online as a missile against my emotional defenses – they completely ignored, deliberately avoided searching for the smallest hint of absolute proof, relying exclusively on the sympathy vote – but unfortunately, in doing that, revealing their transparent aim.

So – Filipino voices – I have heard nothing yet.
What is your voice?
What is the true voice of your nation?
Is it a whisper, a shout, a scream?

Amidst all the intense political polemic here on this site, the intellectual debate, the open condemnation and loathing of cronyism, nepotism and corruption, is your voice going to be impotent through fear or apathy?
Isn’t it hypocritical to accept this sort of behaviour, just because it concerns some of your own?

And – please – Reyna Elana – spare us all your sense of humour.

Research Cyber- Bullies
Flag Day

Thank you.

hahaha! Harry Potter series it is. :-)

Well, here’s my experience.

When I arrived in the United States in late (I won’t tell you hahaha!) sumtin’ sumtin,. I remember the Sunday Editions of both the New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer. They were THICK! Well, not anymore. Thank god! No more junk. Or so I thought. As a matter of fact, the Philadelphia Inquirer when it announced the loss of 15 percent of the Inquirers editorial staff many years ago, it was big news here in our city. We thought the paper would close down. The paper was saved. With less readership of course. But it is still alive. Now you begin to ask if print media will soon just be junk. Guess what, the last Sunday paper I bought? Half of it were advertisement. Not included are inserts.

I don’t know how it is in Manila, but I’m sure it’s not just in the United States where the effect on broadsheets has been fierce. It’s been many years now that print media kept losing its readers to the Internet with even steep declines in advertising revenue continuing. We’ve seen publication closures (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/media/29paper.html?_r=2&bl&ex=1225425600&en=63df0ce22e52f090&ei=5087&oref=slogin) at the same time, soaring internet revenues (http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id=1005549). Even broadcast media is fighting for those internet advertising dollars. Well, wherever the audience is.

Put the financial crisis aside, there were papers here in the US who has been doing round of layoffs even before that. When did the print industry ever witnessed a sold-out newsstand? Perhaps that day when Obama won – and maybe on the Obama inauguration. Will it survive as the internet saturates each and every household? Hmm…

Of course media will always follow where the great advertising dollars (pesos) are. Thus explains their big presence on the web. Wait, most journalist are even blogging now. I seem to think that marriage will be the end game for bloggers and journalist. U think?

Those who are in the MSM don’t like it. Just as the illustrative monks hated Gutenberg.

Comment by Noemi
2009-01-11 16:48:08
How interesting that Manuel said the same thing in his blog re google cache. You think I am afraid of google cache? Read my lips: My sentence still stands the same.

ANC viewers will be able to READ YOUR LIPS when you talk about full disclosure in EDITING/UPDATING BLOGS in order to maintain credibility and when you speak about the effect of jumping to conclusions in the New Media.

Comment by Noemi
2009-01-13 18:49:27
…Incidentally, you will hear more from me when I guest in ANC’s Media in Focus hosted by Che che lazaro on Thursday, January 15 6 to 7 pm. The topic is “de la paz and blogging”. Other guests are Carlo conde, atty disini and someone from Ang Kapatiran.

—–
quotes copy-pasted from A Filipina Mom Blogger

It’s better that we all work for Google for nothing.

Who controls bloggers and what we get in the Blogosphere?

Now of course at the level of individuals the barriers are entirely permeable.