« PSA Wants Testimonials | Main | ? Qrush Qrush »
October 20, 2004
Character Assassin Backpedalling?
By QBlog in Web Initiative
It's generally bad form for a blogger to yank posts without explanation. However, one active blogger (and vocal critic of this blog) has removed an especially vicious and possibly libelous personal assault against Quixtar Critic Scott Larsen and for that I'm grateful. I usually don't like to see content of any sort removed but when that content crosses the line, as it clearly did in this situation, then I'm glad to see it gone.
The post in question came from a guy calling himself "Qrush" and he's basically critical of anyone who doesn't share his extremist ideology. His now-missing August 28 entry was titled "Scott Larsen Sadomasochist Pinko Sicko?" and it began by discussing communists and quickly degenerated into a hate-filled diatribe about sexuality. I was disgusted.
But I wasn't always disgusted with the Qrush blog. When it first appeared, I said that I loved it and I wasn't lying. I admired the guy for being "candid" and saying what a lot of IBOs were probably thinking. However, the "Sicko" post that forced me to reevaluate my original assessment. Is the "Qrush" blog really just the honest (if not misguided) rantings of an angry IBO or is it part of some larger, coordinated smear campaign?
Smear Campaign?
A smear campaign is a systematic attempt by an individual or group to malign another individual or group's reputation, usually to undermine the confidence the public holds in the target. Smear campaigns rarely address the issues, preferring rumors to facts and anonymity to accountability. Several facts about the "Qrush" blog seem to indicate that it's part of a coordinated smear campaign.
- Each month an estimated $100-500 is being spent to advertise the blog on various search engines.
- Billy Florence, a leader in Quixtar's Web Initiative, has voiced his support of "Qrush" on various blogs and in alleged emails.
- The "Qrush" blog is totally anonymous.
- The character attacks are primarily focused on at least two of the four individuals named in Quixtar's Response to the Dateline show, Bo Short and Scott Larsen.
So why did the "Qrush" guy yank the "Sicko" post? I have no idea. Maybe his conscience kicked in or maybe someone at Quixtar ordered him to remove it. Who knows. I'd ask the guy but he doesn't to respond to emails. Whatever the reason, I'm just glad it's gone.
Comments
If there is a coordinated effort with a group fund, I ain't gettin' paid jack.
Qrush’s response to this post can be viewed shortly on the Qrush website or you can email Qrush if you wish. Cheers. Qrush over and out.
QRush: If you're so credible, what are you afraid of? Either the truth sets you free or it doesn't, but you can't straddle the fence. Until you provide your credentials or even cite your sources as Qblog does, I'd concider your information but until then you're a fart in a windstorm.
This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Note: I'm not defending Qrush's post here. I don't even know what it said since he pulled it.
But there are way too many issues here to put in a comment. I'm replying to this in the anything goes forum on this website.
Ambivalent
Allow me to paraphrase and save some folks the trouble of visiting Qrush's site:
'The whole thing was a set-up by Qblog, Scott Larsen and Bo Short to make Qrush look bad.
P.S. - Qblog is in bed with Bo Short.'
Porkchopjim is glad all of this is cleared up now.
Hi Porkchopjim,
It was not a setup by myself, Qblog, or Bo Short. Somebody thought they would be clever and feed Qruch with stuff he wants to hear. The difference betewen Qrush and my site is, I have documented sources, mainly court cases or newspaper articles.
On the other hand Qrush has nothing but he makes up and his site visitor e-mail. Why doesn't Qrush first start with a documented court case or a newspaper article like the rest of us do? If we started articles like Qrush did we would be burreid by defamation lawsuits. The only suits filed so far are "copyright" suits so that the plaintiff can have his suit and minimize the amount of discovery he has to withstand of his personal information.
Maybe Qrush can learn something from those of who have been doing this for years. Qrush needs a mentor. Maybe he will ask me to be his mentor.
Think About This:
If this was really a setup (which I it wasn't, at least not that I know of) then why isn't Qrush "outing" his bogus source? That's what I'd do. Why not publish the name, email address, IP address and details of the emails Qrush says were part of this elaborate setup? I'll tell you why, because he's lying.
Ambivalent, I like you and I refuse to be angry with you. You're a great guy and no matter what you say, I believe that.
QBlog wrote:
"Ambivalent, I like you and I refuse to be angry with you. You're a great guy and no matter what you say, I believe that."
Umm. . . OK, thanks. And from the little I know of you from this blog, you seem like a great guy, too.
But I'm not arguing with you personally, I'm arguing with your ideas and opinions and the way they're expressed here.
Isn't that what we're supposed to do in the comments section of a post? Disagree with things that we disagree with and agree with things we agree with?
I wasn't trying to make you angry, so I'm glad that you're not.
Ambivalent
Now let's go get a smoothie. ;o)
Qblog wrote:
"Now let's go get a smoothie. ;o)"
Hey, wait a minute. After a few minutes' thought. . . is this your way of telling me that you're too lazy to read my entire post in the forum? ;)
Harumph!
Make mine a double. :)
Ambivalent
Noooo... it's my way of saying I'm two steps ahead of you. Check the Forum. ;o)
Scott,
Sorry, should have placed a disclaimer on my post that my paraphrasing in no way supported or negated QRush's position. But, I thought I presented the flavor of it.
Regardless, here are the wise man's choices:
1. The three of you have indeed conspired to ruin the fine reputation of QRush and are reaping the benefits with glee.
2. Another charter member of the tin-foil hat society has exposed himself.
And here is my vote: http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
Wear it in good health, QRush.
Fun aside, he can, and should, get in a lot of trouble for that.
Qrush, from now on, I'll call you "Mini Me". My own son is just not evil enough.
Great article by Qrush regarding Passport. Wouldn't you agree?
hey Truthseeker!
Long time no see!! What happened to your blog?? I was there for the opening, joined in and made a couple comment posts...then it was gone?
You should join in over at mine.
(shameless plug, sorry QBlog)
Roger:
We probably bumped into each other at a function in Ohio. I was also at the Michaels events. How did you end up with TOD?
Qrush's post is documented here.
http://www.amquix.info/florence_blog.html
The link is still on Billy's site to Qrush however. Maybe Qrush will delete the other pages he wrote in conjunction with the first one.
He might have also got wise to the fact there is an open lawsuit and I might be able to use subpoena to find out who he is. It would be embarrassing for the people suing me if he turned out to be part of their group.
Posted by: scott larsen | October 20, 2004 11:04 AM