2. After you tell me who that person is, I will be willing to prove to you that never have I ever talked to that person about posting for him or for her for whatever reason.

3. After I prove to you that indeed nobody asked me to and I just posted and researched on this issue out of my own concern and volition, admit your malicious imputations and take back your accusations.

4. Clear the name of the person whom you think is my payor.

..and please, please stop thinking that just because some people hold a different view, they’re already plotting against you.

I hope we’ll be able to clear this once and for all since sobrang nakakapagod na. Ayoko na sanang sumagot pa kaya lang talagang pinipilit mo pa rin na tama yung maling accusation mo eh. I need to clear the issue kasi me dinadamay kang ibang tao.

Isa-isahin natin, ha?

Yung sinabi mo dati:

Ipinakita ko sa yo yung mismong nakalagay sa post ko:

The Beting Laygo Dolor:
[...]

Ipinakita ko sa yo na unlike what you claimed na ni-refer si BLD as founder, yung nakalagay sa summary is “who started”.

Ipinaliwanag ko sa yo na me malaking pagkakaiba yung founder at who started kasi yung founder, mas specific, mas madalas itong ginagamit sa technical at legal na aspeto.

The phrase “who started” on the other hand, can encompass a lot of things, mas general sya.

A founder can automatically refer to someone who started something butthe converse of it will not always necessarily be true. Someone who started something can’t always be considered a founder.

This has already been discussed in detail in my other blog entry.

With your most recent update, you have already replaced founder, with started. OK na sana eh. Yun nga lang, talagang pinilit mo pa na:

Lie?

Papanong naging lie?

Eto ha? pakitingnan:

lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com

lie
Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy]
Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

A false statement daw DELIBERATELY stated as being true.

A false statement daw made with DELIBERATE INTENT to DECEIVE;

Pakitingnan nga ulit nung statement:

[...]

Can you see what’s right below the summary?

The link, the source.

Here’s what you’ll see when you click on the link:

a. Note that the statement is but a recap of what’s in the content.

b. Note that the link is placed right below the gist so the reader can check the content and the source.

Since you’ve been doing news correspondence and you’ve been writing for so long, aren’t you supposed to know that putting the source and links after each summary is the very essence of verifiability and attribution? In the principles of reporting, you acknowledge the source and present their actual statement so the reader can further check and verify the source, if they want to.

Did I lie?

I presented the actual content alongside the gist. You can check it right there.

I presented the actual link and the source. You can verify it right there.

Where’s the intent to deceive?

Where’s the lie?

You, on the other hand, claimed this:

Huh? Where’d I even mention anything about PCIJ that remotely justifies your accusation? Where’d you even get that idea?

The only reference to PCIJ in my post is that one sentence above which I showed you. One sentence. The word PCIJ was just even used once.

Can you point out where there was any mention of any PCIJ post or aticle?

Did you even see any mention of Daily PCIJ ?

If I understand it correctly, PCIJ is the center for investigative jounalism, and Daily PCIJ is its online publication.

Did I even refer to any PCIJ post, much less a Daily PCIJ post?

That one sentence statement that happened to mention PCIJ is from another source as you can see clearly from the link indicated.

Not only did you accuse me of using a post nowhere visible in my outline, you even went as far as saying I imputed that that post in Daily PCIJ was a favor.

Ain’t that a quadruple whammy?

1. I imputed..?   Where? Any statement on PCIJ aside from that one sentence I showed you?

2. The post in Daily Pcij?   Can’t see any such mention of it nor any link to it in my outline.

3. Daily PCIJ?    Again, no such mention, reference or link to Daily PCIJ in said outline.

4. As a favor?    How? By whom? For whom? Where was there any discussion of that?

You amaze me with the way you can inject malice to a simple sentence in one sweeping generalization.

You said:

Again, that accusation.

Black propaganda?

A post with details actually gleaned from your blog and links verifiable over the net, presnted in an outline form, sans opinion, sans conclusion, you call it black propaganda?

You said: Idinamay ang PCIJ, “a well respected , two-decade-old institution of professional investigative journalists”.

Papanong idinamay? May sinabi bang masama laban sa PCIJ? Kinuwestyon ba yung kapasidad nito bilang institusyon? Pakituro nga kung saan nakalagay sa nag-iisang sentence yun.

Again, as a basis of your claim, you allude to a PCIJ post I never mentioned, included or referred to in my outline.

Makes me think why you’re hurling all these invented accusations, supposedly defending PCIJ’s integrity, when there’s nary even an attack towards it.

Dinagdagan mo pa to with:

Ano ba talaga, ate, me sinabi ba kong masama tungkol ke Ms. Sheila Coronel o Ms. Mangahas? Was there ever any mention of anything in my post questioning their reputation?

Pakita ko ulit, sa yo, ha? Baka kasi nakakalimutan mo, eh.

Eto lang yung simpleng nakalagay:

[...]

Sige nga, paturo naman kung saan kinuwestyon ko yung kredibilidad nila?

Saka teka nga…

Eh di ba, mangilan-ngilan sila? Bakit ba naman talagang yung unquestionable reputation lang ni Ms. Sheila Coronel at Ms. Malou Mangahas yung binanggit mo?

What about the others?

Et al, yun di ba?

(Don’t mind the last 2 sentences, wag mo na seryosohin, just teasing. I’m just trying to lighten the mood because you’re too defensive about PCIJ and the 2 people you mentioned when nowhere in my post did I ever mention anything questioning their credibility.)

Just thought I’d let you know that I find your reaction to that one simple sentence way off-base. You injected too many assumptions, addressed too many supposed accusations when you can’t find all those things you said anywhere in my post.

I do not know if you’re just doing selective focusing, I do not know what your purpose is, I do not know what reasons you hold for forming those assumptions.

I do not know why you threw all those accusations and I do not wanna assume.

All I know is on the PCIJ issues you raised, I need to emphasize this: I only drafted one simple sentence. Nothing more, nothing less.

All the other accusations, assumptions and meaning you put into it are but yours , whatever you reason is.

Sabi mo: associate opponents with unpopular titles (kagaya ba ng astro-turfer, bayad, o nagba-black propaganda lang?). As to your quote, this makes other shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

In the same breath you agreed to a comment that:

calling out the astro-turfer is perhaps cheap but good enough. And responsible bloggers can cut them down to size by moderating and not letting them in.

Since inakusa mo akong astro-turfer and hindi naman yun totoo at ni wala kang basis sa akusasyon mo, does this mean you are just putting a label on me?

Bakit? Anong purpose mo?

Pwede bang mai-apply yung definition ng “crisis management technique” na pinapaliwanag mo sa aktuwal na ginagawa mo ngayong pang-aakusa?

You said:

Note what you accused me of doing:

You further added this in one of your comments :

You bolstered the suspicion you’ve created with this insinuation:

And again affirmed your astroturfer claim with this:

Note this baseless, totally ludicruous claim, too:

I already told you several times that nobody’s paying me, that there was no reason for you to involve PCIJ and allude to statements I never even said, that I just posted because I’m concerned about the isssues of responsible blogging, cyber law and freedom of speech and because a good number of bloggers, some media practitioners and solons are discussing your expose, making it the flag-bearer of said issues, I studied it.

Why do you keep on pushing that I’m paid? Because I do not lavish you accolades? Because you do not approve of my post?

Why do you have to throw accusations and feed the suspicions of your readers? So that you would be able to quash the content of my post? So you can discredit me?

Why do you need to do that? What’s in the post that’s not in the thousands of posts and comments about your DSWD expose that you so badly need to overshadow with your accusatory tirade?

You seem to be so well-versed with crisis management techniques, dirty tricks in damage control, black propaganda, astroturfing and other internet trolling and mudslinging explanations. Is it because you only studied this in the advent of the “paid hack” thing or “ella bayaran ka” comment or is it because Press Release writing, public relations and online reputation management is your actual work, your bread and butter?

You are the PR person.

I already noticed the links that refer to your line of expertise even prior to drafting the post you’re so agog about, yet I didn’t include them before because they’re irrelevant to the issue, the story, your expose. I was researching on the expose and its veracity so I never felt any need to discuss your background.

Now, however, since you seem to be adamant about characterizing my post into something I haven’t done nor had any intention of doing – astroturfing, black propaganda, trolling, PR crisis management – now, your background becomes relevant.

It gives me a grasp of how you are wired, of how you think, of what you suspect or assume people are doing because your exposure defaults on the nuances of your line of work.

There are links all over the net that show that way back 2001 (or maybe even before that, you were already writing), 2004 and 2005 you were already a journalist, a correspondent for Philippine news, 2006 onwards till the present you’ve already been doing PR writing. Here is the description presented online by one company where your name appears:

[Ella's] expertise ranges from journalism to public relations to online reputation management.

Now I understand that you are quite knowledgeable about how press release writing, public relations, reputation management – the good and the bad that comes with it – work. You know the ins and outs and you’re supposed to because, that’s your line of expertise.

The question however is, does it automatically follow that because you are wired that way, others think along the same line, too? Papano pala kung wala silang pakialam sa mga propaganda-propaganda na yan? Papano kung simpleng nagpu-post lang?

Do you think you can go about accusing people who write posts not to your liking of being paid, of doing astroturfing, of doing black propaganda, when it’s not even true?

Dahil di mo gusto yung naka-post me license ka na to hurl accusations at me? Binabayaran ang pagpo-post ko? Troll ako? Astro-turfer ako?

Ni wala ngang opinyon laban sa ‘yo sa post and naka-cut and paste lang yung mga statements na ikaw mismo ang nagsabi and makikita naman sa blog mo, pero talagang kelangan mong pagdiskitahan yung post na yun. Lahat yun, links and quotes lang na verifiable online, ba’t grabe yung reaction mo? Sa sanlaksang comments sa isyung to, yung iba sobrang lala pa, bakit grabeng pagdidiskita mo sa particular post na yun?

Eto ang sabi mo:

Anong masama kung mag-post sa ibang blogs na nagdi-discuss sa issue na to? Nabasa mo naman siguro yung post di ba? Outline lang. Outline ng mga detalye, ng mga quotes, ng mga links.

Anong gusto mo gawin ko, baguhin ko isa-isa? Lagyan ko ng opinyon ko? i-rewrite ko ng paisa-isa and ipresent na parang article?

Para ano? para hindi mo mapansin na pare-pareho? para hindi halata?

Bakit ko gagawin yun, wala naman ako intensyong masama. Pinag-aralan ko lang isyu, then yung resulta ng pananaliksik, ipinost ko sa sites na yun yung topic na pinag-uusapan. Walang analysis na kasama, walang konklsuyon.

Your reaction goes:

Alam mo ba yung proseso habang nag-post ako?

Alam mo bang karamihan dun, hinde ko nakitang naka-post yung isinubmit ko dahil halos yung mga sites under moderation?

Alam mo bang yung unang post na pinag-submitan ko dumaan pa ang isang araw bago ko nakitang na-approve na yung post ko?

Alam mo bang yung sinabi sa kin sa unang site na yun baka hindi hinold for approval kung maraming links. Yung ibang site ganundin, naka-hold. Me nakita ata akong na-post pero putol, kulang.

Nung nakita kong naka-post ako ng isa na buo (o dalawa yata), ayun, tumigil na akong i-post yung outline na yun.

Saka, ano yun, dahil sa ELEVEN sites na sinasabi mo, pwede ka ng magtatalon sa konklusyon and mang-akusa ng kung anu-ano?

Do you not even notice what you’ve done to spread your own blog entry?Yung sandamukal na kopya ng posts mo?

Eh di nga ba, nagpatulong ka pa sa ibang tao na ikalat yun?

Napansin mo ba kung ilang daan o malamang higit pa yung nag-post nung blog entry na pinakalat mo?

Tingnan mo nga kung pano mong ipinakalat yun:

Pag ikaw mag-post, pwede and walang masama dahil concerned ka lang?

Pag iba yung mag-post, kaduda-duda, pag ikaw, concerned lang, me freedom of expression.

Yung iba ba inanalisa maayos yung kwento at sinaliksik yung mga nakalagay dito, walang karapatan? Hindi concerned?

And to think na wala pang opinyon dun, ha? Nilagay lang yung mga detalyeng verifiable naman online, ewan kung bakit ayaw mong makita.

I do not know how you define concern, freedom of expression and the basics of what’s right and wrong.

Yung obvious lang, nag-iiba yung definition mo pag naga-apply sa yo. Nag-iiba pag dun sa taong hindi bow lang ng bow sa sinasabi mo.

Yung obvious, pagkatapos mo akong akusahan ng kung anu-ano, pagkatapos ding i-explain ko sa yo ng makailang beses na nagpu-post lang ako, hindi ako astro-turfer, and walang kelangang magbayad sa kin para gawin yun, eto yung last na sinabi mo:

Calling out the astro-turfer is perhaps cheap but good enough. And responsible bloggers can cut them down to size by moderating and not letting them in.

Your accusation -> your desired reaction.

Makes me think kung ano nga talaga purpose mo sa pagpipilit ng akusasyong hindi totoo.

P.S.

Do continue blogging. You write exceptionally well in English or Filipino. Not many can do that with ease. Hindi ito pang-aasar. I mean it. Happy Valentines! 

Thanks. Ayokong isipin kung pang-aasar o di pang-aasar. Masakit  sa ulo. Happy Valentine’s day, too.

Please stop stalking me. Istorbo kasi eh. Para patas, I promise I will totally ignore you from now on. Deal?

Definition of stalker:

stalker
SC someone who follows and watches another PERSON over a period of time in a way that is very annoying or threatening
http://www.ldoceonline.com/Crime+and+Law-topic/stalker

Ako ba yung  nangs-stalk?

 Let’s look at this:

Sequence of events from your end:

Una, nag-post ka addressing me, and I quote:

I’m not sure what to call you, isang netizen na kulang sa pansin o mahilig lang makisawsaw. Ikinakalat mo kung saan-saang sites ang template ng rumor mongering mo, na feeling mo ay mga “bomba”. Mga “well researched revelations” na ikagugulat ng mundo.

 Hindi lang sa isang site, lahat ng madaanan mong “kampi” kay ella, iniiwan mo ang basura mo.

 
Ilan ba ang nagpo-post tungkol sa isyung DSWD-Ella?

Sandamukal, di ba?

Sa site mo lang mismo, tadtad na ng comments ang blog mo.

Sa internet, di lang daan, libu-libo.

Andami-daming nagpo-post tungkol sa isyu, tinutukan mo AKO.

Hinanap mo kung saan yung mga sites na nagpo-post ako.

Hinanap mo ako after reading one of my posts.

You devoted a number of blog entries and comments to me.

You projected your suspected intentions on me.

Marami kang sinsasabing mga akusasyon laban sa akin.

Hinayaan mong tira-tirahin ako sa blog mo.

Hindi lang pala hinahayaan, ikaw pa mismo nagdadagdag sa mga akusasyong to.

AKO yung tinutukan mo, hindi yung isyu.

Di ba yun yung stalking?

Yung tinututukan mo kung saan-saan yung TAO mismo?

Yung minu-monitor mo yung TAO kung saan sya napapadpad?

Yung hina-harass mo sya at kinu-cause ng harm ?

If we be technical about it, di ba AKO and sinu-stalk mo?

***I’m not saying I do not understand where you’re coming from. I understand that you may have misconstrued my post and my intention of posting that’s why you deliberately tried to find my other posts. Please, as I said in my other posts, just be careful of how you use words. Madalas ka mag-accuse ng tao and kung susumahin, nagbu-boomerang sa yo ang accusations mo. Still I say, I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from.

Sequence of events from my end:

Nabasa ko yung article sa inquirer stating that a Department Secretary’s harassing a blogger.

Nabasa ko din yung mga iba pang article na nagsasabing me mga solons na dini-discuss yung issue in the light of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Me mga nadaanan pa akong articles na dini-discuss na yung blogging freedom at cyber laws.

Napukaw ang interes ko.

Naghanap-hanap na ko ng mga articles na related sa issue.

Napadpad ako sa mga blogs and forum sites na pinag-uusapan ang isyu.

Nakita ko yung mga sentimyento ng mga bloggers at iba pang mga nagkukomento.

Naalarma ako sa nagiging takbo ng kwento.

Napansin kong yung nagiging ingay na eh medyo natututok na sa blogging world vs. govt. official, harassment of a blogger by a govt. official, a miniscule blogger vs. a powerful goliath.

Naisip ko delikado to.

Magkakagulo lang yung mga hindi naman involved sa kaso, malamang ma-tarnish pa lalo ang tingin ng bloggers sa non-bloggers and vice versa.

Mafe-feed din yung disrespect of govt. officials lalo.

Mas mapapalakas ang bias sa may posisyon at me koneksyon, nung mga wala and vice versa. Napapalawak masyado ang epekto, and yung masama nawawala na yung focus sa talagang isyu.

Nag-reply din ako sa isang blog. Tungkol sa pagtutok sa isyu at responsible blogging yung pinag-usapan namin.Tungkol sa harassment yung slant ng blog entry. 

Yung assertion dun, dahil me posisyon se Cabral, yung pag-file ng libel constitutes harassment.

Pinag-aralan ko ang isyu. Nag-research ako. Tiningnan ko yung posts na pinagsimulan ng kwento.

Oo, binasa ko maigi yung post mo. Tiningnan ko kung ano ang basehan ng iba’t ibang komento ng mga tao.

Hinanap ko rin yung article sa Philippine News na ni-refer mo na paglalabasan ng kwento.

Napansin ko yung writer, BLD.

Napansin ko yung unang nabasa ko sa Inquirer na article, yung minention yung sinasabing real name mo JCD.

Naisip ko bakit pareho yung apelyido so ni-research ko yung explanation.

Nakita ko yung mga links, nakita ko yung articles. Nakita kong pareho pala kayo ni Sec. Cabral na me koneksyon, me posisyon sa sari-sariling larangang ginagalawan. Parehong makapangyarihan sa kanya-kanyang larangan.

Note that in all my posts anywhere I said na hindi natin dapat i-assume na dahil me posisyon o me koneksyon yung sinuman, automatic na aabusuhin nya na to, gagamitin na nya para makapang-harass ng tao.

Same take for Sec. Cabral, same take for you.

Note too that I did not include my opinion on the post you referred to. I did not write any conclusion.

Napansin mo yun.

Napansin din ng mga nag-comment sa blog mo.

Talagang walang conclusion. Wala akong intention lagyan yun.

Wala akong intention to impose my thoughts on anyone. My only intention is ma-weigh natin pare-pareho yung isyu kung mapag-aralan natin yung mga detalye ng kwento.

That’s how my thought process went.

That’s what I did.

Yung isyu yung tinutukan ko, hindi ikaw.

Pinag-aralan ko yung articles, pinag-aralan ko yung writers, pinag-aralan ko yung mga affiliations that may determine the veracity to the articles that started it all.

Pagkatapos kung mapag-aralan yung issue, yun na yun.

Hindi ko hinanap lahat ng mga posts mo kagaya ng ginawa mo sa mga posts ko.

Hindi ko alam kung san ka naglalagi sa net samantalang ikaw yung mga sites na binibisita ko eh alam mo.

Mas naglalagi pa nga ako sa ibang blogs na may iba-ibang opinyon sa isyung to nung nabasa ko na ang DSWD post mo.

Hindi ako nag-post sa mga blog ng anything against you.

Wala akong akusasyon laban sa yo.

I did not incite anyone to cast aspersions towards you.

Tapos ako yung ina-accuse mo ng pangs-stalk.

Baliktad ata.

Never kita hinarass.  Ni hindi nga ako nagpo-post sa blog mo after I read about the issue.

Napapadpad na lang ako sa site mo pag nagbabasa-basa ako updates ng mga diskusyon sa ibang websites na binabasa ko. Yun eh dahil naga-appear ka sa google, nag-aapear ka sa ibang sites na binabasa ko, and naga-appear din yung iba sa mga  sites dyan  sa blog mo.

Nung in-address mo na ako sa blog mo mismo, yun dun lang ako nag-attempt mag-post ng reply ko.

Pero hindi na-post sa blog mo, so nagdesisyon na lang ako na sa blog na ito ko na lang i-upload.

Sabi mo nga, mahaba. Mas nababagay siguro na dito ko na lang ilagay.

***Sana lang maingat ka sa mga sinasabi mo. Sana bago ka mag-akusa, isipin mo muna na baka ikaw yung gumagawa ng bagay na binabato mo sa iba.

On:

…Para patas, I promise I will totally ignore you from now on. Deal?

I hope so.

I hope after I post my reply to your latest entry (again addressed to me), you’d totally stop zooming in on me.

Honestly, I didn’t expect your reactions, your accusations, all the abrasive remarks.

Since it’s already done and over with though and I’m totally ok with you ignoring me, I’m with you on this.

Deal.

 

 I believe it funny (haha, not strange) though that he/she “apologizes” to the unnamed one who “supposedly pays” him/her. For what misdeed, I have absolutely no idea. Seriously.

Your comment is well-received for indeed my initial reaction to the accusation was also that of hilarity. I have edited my draft before I posted it though so I may have erased a couple of lines here and there that may have compromised the fluidity of thought.

I initially drafted the message addressing it : To the invisible person who doesn’t exist: along with some other statements.

When i read the entire mock letter to the invisible person though it sounded a bit caustic. In the process of erasing lines and modifying some, the meaning may have been lost in the edits, thus the feedback:

 

For what misdeed, I have absolutely no idea.

 

    

Here’s to elucidate on my statement.

When I said:

 

…pero I think I owe it to you, nonexistent you may be, so I can clarify the answer to this accusation.

2. To the one accusing and to those who’ll believe her, the person is “real” though. 

I am sorry.

I am saying sorry to that person who will be blamed.

I know that no such payor exists but I understand that people may believe he or she does.

Whoever’s face may be placed in that nonexistent entity, that person will be real.

He or she will be affected.

He or she will be accused.

I am saying sorry that due to me being accused as “paid”, somebody will be thought of as paying me. If I am supposed to be paid, then the logic is, somebody’s supposed to be paying right?

The one who’ll be thought of as the payor doesn’t deserve the imputation.

I do not deserve the imputation, as well.

If MY POSTS made someone’s mind go on overdrive then I am apologizing in her stead to whoever’s thought of as the payor.

Never even thought that by merely posting somebody would already equate that with astroturfing.

:: my post -> interpreted as a paid PR job (astroturfing) by the one who suspects -> somebody is accused as a payor -> supposed payor’s painted in a bad light.

I indirectly adversely affected somebody without meaning to so I am saying I’m sorry.

To Ella:

Nowhere in the internet can you find the exact information on the “COMPLAINTS” against me. Specially in this blog. I think it’s useless to go on and on and on dropping his very looong opinion about it everywhere.

The sites and individuals on my left sidebar issued ONE post regarding their take on the libel case and that’s it. It’s their opinion. We can’t say anything more about the matter kasi nga wala ng ibang INFORMATION.

 There are a good number of blogs discussing not the complaints but the elements of libel present in your case. Some were able to see some points, some were not.

Researching on the definition of the case filed, the elements were posted along with quotes from your blog. Whatever different interpretations different people may have, it all boils down to what the courts will decide.

Those were but quotes and links all verifiable over the net. Yun lang yung mga detalye o information , walang conclusion, walang opinion.

May kanya-kanya din namang opinyon ang ibang tao so kanya-kanya na lang siguro ng style sa pag-weigh ng information.

 

And please, please lang, Mr or Ms Opiniononissues. What more do you want from this issue? Pigang-piga mo na siya nang husto eh.

 

 

Kaya lang di ka kasi tumitigil sa mga akusasyon mo sa kin so sa tingin ko naman, dapat ko ding liwanagin ang side ko.

May mga inilagay ka ding mga specific blogs kung saan tinutukoy mo ang mga posts ko so naglagay na rin lang ako dun ng explanation and link papunta dito.

Marami kang hinuhang mali, mga comments na lagpas-lagpasan naman ang atake, so siguro karapatan ko din at responsibilidad ko rin na iklaro yun.

Sa totoo lang, sobrang nakakapagod na rin talaga to.

Nagulat nga ako sa mga reaksyon mo’t itinakbo nito eh.

Kaya lang kailangan ko din kasing itama yung mga maling pag-aakala mo.

Ni sa hinagap di ko ma-imagine yung mga ibang pinagsasabi mo.

I’m trying to understand though. Baka mali lang ang pagkakaintindi.

That’s why I’m trying to explain.

Meron na pong assigned na fiscal who will decide if there’s probable cause. ‘Wag mo na siyang agawan ng trabaho.

Di ko balak and ni hindi ko inisip na ganito ang itatakbo nito. Andami namang nagpo-post tungkol sa isyung to. Bakit nga ba biglang ako yung tinutukan mo?

It was only last night when I noticed there were visitors from your site.

I haven’t posted since the last post yesterday so now’s my chance to thank you for linking to this blog.

Thanks.

There you go again. Did I ever say you blocked me or banned me from your site? Where, in any of my posts did I say that?

The careless assumptions really astound me.

… So now, I can do the blocking hehe

Oh, so there’s the caveat.

No problem. It’s all up to you.

At the end of the day, everything boils down to what you really want to do.

O huling pagpansin. O huling pagbibigay ng atensyon. Huli na ito, opiniononissues. There are more worthy bloggers and commenters out there to quote in this blog.
…But you will still kiss my dog

 

Aba nakalimutan mo yata kung alin yung basis ng dare mo (na baseless pa rin) pero sige, sasagutin ko yung mga puntong ni-raise mo tungkol sa comment approval.

1. Logic

Sana mo yung logic na pinagbasehan ko ng hinuhang nabasa mo yung reply ko.

May dahilan naman siguro akong isipin na na hindi nga in-approve yung reply ko.

Feb 11 ko pa na-send yun, umaga.

After lunch, walang approval.

Gabi, walang approval.

Hatinggabi, walang approval.

Yet, me mga additions ka na nga at revisions na na-address incidentally yung mga kinuwestyon kong punto na andun mismo sa reply ko sa yo.

Yet sinagot mo na yung mga puntong nilahad ko sa blog ko.

Kung nakasagot ka nga sa reply ko, ibig lang sabihin nabasa mo nga.

Apparently you read about my reply given that you addressed my comment in your addendum. Siguro naman alam mong nag-send ako sa yo ng comment kasi yun yung intro ko sa blog ko.

Here it is, my Feb 11 post:

Note what I stated in that post.

Nag-link ka din kay Marocharim and nung time na ni-link mo yun, yung post na nire-refer mo nung sinasabing mong “nagkandarapa akong ipakit kay marochim “ay ito:

Note the content of that post. Note the timestamp.

Ni-refer mo yung marocharim post. Sa marocharim post naman nakalagay na mismo yung link ng blog ko.

Na pinagbasehan mo ng addendum post mo.

Maaga pa lang yesterday, Feb. 12, nakita ko na yung addendum post na yun.

My reply to your addendum on the other hand, the one where you based your quote on, was only submitted yesterday afternoon.

Meaning sa time na sumagot ako, nabasa mo na yung reply ko.

Ikaw na mismo ang nagsabi:

I was going to take a screenshot of my comments page on February 11, 2010 to prove that your extremely long comment (na mas mahaba pa sa post you’re commenting on) was not there. But there are a number of “whisper” comments that are for my eyes only. So hindi puwede.

Sinabi mo rin na:

The comment you’re talking about, siguro saksakan kasi ng haba ay napagkamalang SPAM ng Akismet. Click here for the start and here for the end. Notice it’s between spams? (sorry wala akong snagit to capture the entire page)

…at heto pa ang sinabi mo:

I understand you’re a newbie blogger so please refer to a previous post “Not Spam” before reading further.

Nabasa mo na, alam mo na, pero di ko naman nakita yung approved reply ko bago ko pa itaas ang blog na to.

Kung alam mong me reply ako, kung sinasabi mong wala sa comment box mo, kung alam mong malamang nasa spam kasi mahaba, logical ba na isipin kong kahit alam mong nagreply ako, hindi mo nga talaga in-approve? In all possibilities automatic naman yatang iisipin mong nasa spam kasi me blog entry ka pa nga on spam and akismet.

Me tickbox namang “not spam” sa ipinakita mong feb. 11 screenshot as far as I see it.

So tama bang isiping pwede namang i-tick yun as not spam saka i-approve?

2. Intention

Sana kinumpleto mo naman yung kwento:

Here are my posts:

Feb 12 :

I submitted my reply to your site yesterday morning.

Lunch time came, no signs of the comment’s approval.

There were revisions like you replacing the title: To OpiniononIssues: , you claiming that the MO is familiar, you scratching out the word panties and a bit of edits here and there that would take longer than pushing the approval button. I saw the revisions on your site and 2 other comments that were approved thereafter but still, no signs of the reply I sent to you on your blog.

You were able to revise and edit some of the points I zoomed in on my reply to you, so I thought you may have had time to approve my comment.

I crossed my fingers, hoping you would allow it to be posted.

Comments were piling up but my reply wasn’t visible anywhere in the list of those approved.

Feb 11

This is my reply to Ellaganda’s post in her site addressed to opiniononissues.

I sent my reply this morning but apparently she still hasn’t approved it. I checked it just now and 2 new comments from other post readers have already been approved.

Crossing fingers she will, still.

In case she doesn’t though, I’ll post my reply here and include a screen cap of her original post as well.

I was reading about you not approving other comments from visitors whose views you do not like, yes.

Pero sana you took into consideration that I suspended my judgment, gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Nag-antay ako i-approve mo reply ko di ba?

Nung Feb 11, chini-check ko every now and then yung blog mo bago ko ituloy yung posting sa blog.
Umaga pa yun.

Nagdesisyon akong mag-post na rin lang ng linksdirected to my blog sa sites na binaggit mo sa blog mo, madaling araw na ng Feb. 12.

Nilagyan ko ng note na reply ko yun sa post mo and na nag-aantay pa ko kasi para liwanagin na kaya ko lang inilagay yung reply ko sa blog na to eh dahil di nga na-post sa blog mo.

Nag-post lang ako saying na hindi mo na hindi mo nga talaga in-approve yung post ko, hapon na ng Feb. 12.

And I mentioned it ONLY because you were putting malice into my setting up a blog, insinuating that:

That’s when I explained to you kung bakit dito ko na lang nilagay yung reply.

That’s when I posted this:

Wala akong intention banggitin pa sana yung yung di pagka-approve ng reply ko pero as you can see in the screen cap, binanggit ko na rin lang kasi kelangan sagutin ko yung accusation mo re the setting up of this blog.

I hope sa pagpapaliwanag ko sa yo ng logic na pinagbasehan ko plus kung ano intention ko and ano yung mga kinunsidera ko, you’ll now see why i said hindi mo pinost yung reply ko.

I just hope you put the time element into consideration so we can see everything in their proper context.

As to that missing reply, no worries, andito na rin naman sa blog, ok na rin.

Cheers.

O huling pagpansin. O huling pagbibigay ng atensyon. Huli na ito, opiniononissues. There are more worthy bloggers and commenters out there to quote in this blog.

…But you will still kiss my dog

Huh?

You dared and I quote:

If you can prove that Beting Laygo Dolor is one of the founders of PCIJ, I will eat your panties in public in front of a hundred witnesses. But if you cannot, you will french kiss my dog in public, in front of a hundred witnesses.

Put up or shut up.

I already answered your baseless claim but I’ll sum it up again (you can just refer to my original reply so you can see the didactic version of it).

I do not have to prove something I never even claimed. Your accusation is baseless on these grounds:

1. I did NOT refer to BLD as one of the founders. Check my post.

2. You accused me of something I did not even do.

You claim:

Normally, I would ignore a “rotting”, old school black propaganda like this pero idinamay mo ang PCIJ, a well-respected, two-decade-old institution of professional investigative journalists sa basurang ikinakalat mo. Because they dared speak the truth!

Nowhere in my post did I say anything against PCIJ. I didn’t even have any links or quotes from any PCIJ articles.

Here’s a snippet of my previous answer to you.

Please refer to my post. Note that I just listed a rundown of the media and journalism outlets that that name is connected to. I researched on the personalities behind the “expose” and their connections to such media/journalism outlets came up.

PCIJ just happened to appear in the search along with the other establishments. It’s not the only voice front mentioned.

Why are you zooming in on PCIJ alone? Why would you go as far as inventing supposed accusations against it nowhere visible in my post?

3. In the same breath, you again accused me:

You are imputing that the post in Daily PCIJ was a favor granted to one of its founders.

Where in my post did I ever say that?.

Check if you can ever find such a claim.

I do not even understand where your accusations are coming from but definitely,  you can’t find any such statements in my post.

Having said that, do I not even deserve a simple sorry instead of you asserting: 

…But you will still kiss my dog

Mali ka na nga, baseless na nga yung pagdi-dare mo, tapos ako pa rin dapat susunod sa gusto mo sa dare na inimbento mo.

You really amuse me.

Anyway, thanks but no thanks. Not interested in kissing YOUR DOG.

Sasagutin ko bawat puntong ni-raise mo para pagkatapos nito sana malinaw na.

Para sana naman tapos na at grabe, nakakapagod na to talaga.

To quote from Ms. Ella:

…para hindi ka nabibistong astroturfing (PR-speak) aka trolling (net-speak)

Astroturfing
- the act of PR agencies placing blog and online forum messages for their clients, in the guise of a normal “grassroots” user or comment.

- posting paid opinion pieces to public forums under an assumed name. Astro Turf is fake grass, hence the term.

Sorry po sa sinumang pagdududahan dahil sa akusasyong nakadirekta sa akin. Dahil me akusasyong binabayaran daw ako, yung kasunod na hinuha dun me nagbabayad supposedly.
Hindi ko alam kung san pinagkukuha ni Ella mga ideya nya, ayokong patulan mga paninira nya pero I think I owe it to you, nonexistent you may be, so I can clarify the answer to this accusation.

Sorry at pinaako ka ng bagay na wala ka namang kaalam-alam (parehas tayo, wala din akong kaalam-alam). Kakausapin ko po si Ella dito. Sasagutin ko tong  pagpapaduda nya.

Ella:

Sinabi ko na to. May mga taong pwedeng concerned lang talaga. Kung nagtyatyaga man sila pag-aralan yung isyu kasi alam nila yung responsibilidad na nakaakibat sa anumang salitang binibitawan nila. Pwedeng interesado sila sa pinag-uusapan, importante sa kanila yung pinag-uusapan, gusto rin nilang makipagtalastasan pero gusto nila gawin to sa maayos at masusing pamamaraan.

Pinagsisikapan kong maging isa sa mga responsableng taong tulad nila. Kung pagre-research lang ang magagawa ko, eh di yun yung gagawin ko. Kung me mga taong magtyatyagang magtanong at makinig sa opinyon ko, eh di sige makakipagpalitan ako ng kuru kuro. Pero habang di naman kelangan ang opinyon ko sa ilang bagay, sapat na sa kin na tumulong pag aralan yung mga iba’t ibang aspeto ng isyung pinag-uusapan.

Wala akong maalalang binira kita sa kahit alinmang post ko. Palagi kong sinasabi na yung isyu mo and Cabral, sa inyo yun, yung korte na bahala mag-usap sa isyu nyo. Palagi kong sinasabi na yung concerned ako eh yung kung papano dinidefine ng iba yung freedom of expression and speech everytime they set your case as an issue… Sinabi ko rin na hindi yata tamang pinagsasabong si Cabral at yung blogging world dahil labas naman yun sa isyu, pabigla-biglang paglalahat na yun.

Sa pakikipagtalastasan ko sa ibang site, sinabi ko na hindi dapat i-incite yung galit ng iba, i-stoke yung fire nila, sulsulan kumbaga na laban ito ng gobyerno at mundo ng blogging, david vs. goliath, makapangyarihan vs. walang kapangyarihan kasi hindi naman tamang ganun yung palabasin ninuman. Is it about somebody powerful preying on a hapless blogger? Hindi naman ata. Pareho naman kayong me koneksyon at me kapangyarihan.

In the post you referred to, I never formed any conclusion nor pushed any opinion. Mga detalye lang yun na tingin ko me relevance sa pinagdidiskusyunang isyu so makakatulong yun sa pagtitimbang ng mga tao sa iba ibang aspeto ng pag aanalisa nito.

Sa akin, yung naging epekto nung pagkakita ko ng mga impormasyong yun, naisip ko and mas lalong lumakas yung opinyon ko na: hindi naman dapat pala talaga palabasin na laban to ng makapangyarihan o walang kapangyarihan, na pangha-harass to ng may koneksyon sa taong wala, na simpleng pangbubu-bully lang yung isyu and hindi paghahanp ng katarungan at katotohanan. Pareho naman kayo me koneksyon, pareho naman kayo me posisyon na me kakambal na power sa kanya kanyang larangan, eh bakit yun pa yung slant na dapat tutukan?

Naisip ko baka hindi naman intensyon ng iba na yun yung palabasin, baka lang kelangan lang ng dagdag na panahon, dagdag na pag-aaral. Kung makakatulong yung konting detalye para maging balanse yung usapan ba’t di natin gawin? Ba’t kelangang iiwasan? Nasa net naman lahat. Puwede namang masusing pag-aralan. Wala din naman masama sa mga detalyeng pinag-usapan.

Masama ba na konektado ka sa media? Masama ba na malawak yung koneksyon mo sa blogging and net community?

Hindi naman di ba?

In the same manner siguro na hindi rin naman fair na isipin ko o ninuman na dahil konektado si Cabral sa gobyerno, automatic eh bully na sya, nangha-harass na sya, ginagamit na nya posisyon nya para mang-ipit ng iba.

Yun lang naman opinyon ko. Ni hindi ko na nga sinama sa post ko kasi wala naman ako balak i-impose kaninuman.

Just trust that people too have a mind of their own. Allow them to think for themselves, form responsible opinions of their own. Naniniwala naman kasi ako na kung presented naman yung facts and details ng maayos sa kaninuman, lahat naman siguro gugustuhing maging balanse sila sa pagtitimbang.

I am one of those na nagta-try maging fair sa paraang alam ko, sa paraang makakayanan ko. Walang nagbabayad sa kin, hindi kailangang bayaran pa ako para magkarun din ako ng interes o concern sa mga bagay na me kabuluhan.

Kawawa din naman kasi yung taong mapagkakamalan ng iba na nagbabayad supposedly when in fact, hindi naman talaga.

Kahit para sa kanya na lang, kaya sinagot ko tong particular na accusation na to.

Sa akin, ano naman, hindi naman kasi talaga totoo, eh.

Nasa sa iyo na lang kung anong gusto mong isipin.

Addendum ulit:

Opiniononissues ulit:Joskohnaman, dong… or dang? Pakialam mo kung magdagdag ako sa original post ko? At least nagdagdag ako sa sa site ko… na DATI na. TATLONG taon na!

Err, take a deep breath. What I’m trying to say here is the reply I posted was drafted to address your original blog entry. It was what I read first, you addressed it to me, so I replied to it.

You said:

Hindi katulad mo, biglang nagtayo ng blog, nagkukumahog na, kandarapa pa. Sobrang emergency ba para maka-rebuttal ka at ipakita kay Marocharim? Sa WP.com, it takes about a minute and voila! Instant blog! Grabe, nakakatawa ito masyado, kulang ang lol smiley.

note: I heart Marocharim, sobra (Winner, Best Commentary Blog, Philippine Blog Awards 2009) Ang galing-galing niya. Pumalakpak talaga ako sa ending eh. Basahin ‘nyo yung sagot niya kay opinionblahblah. Sana kasing-galing niya akong magsulat *sobrang inggit*)

Let me address this and please stop the tirade for a while and listen.

I submitted my reply to your site yesterday morning.

Lunch time came, no signs of the comment’s approval.

There were revisions like you replacing the title: To OpiniononIssues: , you claiming that the MO is familiar, you scratching out the word panties and a bit of edits here and there that would take longer than pushing the approval button. I saw the revisions on your site and 2 other comments that were approved thereafter but still, no signs of the reply I sent to you on your blog.

You were able to revise and edit some of the points I zoomed in on my reply to you, so I thought you may have had time to approve my comment.

I crossed my fingers, hoping you would allow it to be posted.

Comments were piling up but my reply wasn’t visible anywhere in the list of those approved.

I’ve been reading a lot about you not approving comments and yes, i thought, it may be a possibility that it won’t get posted. Though it veers away from my idea of fair play and balanced discussion, yes, i understand that it’s your call and whatever you wish to do as regards comments approval, it will all be up to you.

You have been dissecting me and my post in your blog though, putting meaning to my entry that was never my intention in the first place, so I thought my reply deserves to be read as well.

You do not expect that you can go on bashing people,  basing everything on your assumptions, yet deny them the right to be heard, too, do you?

I agree  it was only yesterday I posted an entry but that was because I never intended to set up a blog to address your issues here in the first place.

I have now, though, because you denied me the right to be heard in your web space.

You addressed your post to me, devoted one blog entry to me yet when I replied to address your aspersions, you did not allow it to be shown.

You expect to continue bashing me, dissecting my reply, posting your interpretations for the world to see, yet you wonder why I need to set up a blog where I can post my explanation?

I have to post the earlier drafted reply so I can answer you point by point on your malicious, out of this world imputations.

I never planned to set up a blog.

This blog has been registered days or maybe even a week before this entry was posted. I only registered it because some sites required that I log in when I post my comments. I tried to register but I wasn’t able to actually use this account.

Till it came handy when you chose not to post my reply.

Yes, naisip ko i-post na lang dito yung reply ko sa yo. Tutal ayaw mo naman ako makapa-explain sa site mo.

Hindi ako nagkandarapa as you put it para maka-rebuttal at ipakita kay Marocharim. That’s a lot of accusations in one statement.

Ilang days na naka-register ang blog, wala sana ako balak gamitin for posting purposes.

Yung rebuttal na sinasabi mo, my reply, umaga pa tapos na yun. Inantay ko lang approval sa site mo.

Lunch time, wala.

Gabi, wala.

Maghahatinggabi, wala.

Ganun ba yung nagkakandarapa? Nag-antay pa na magbago ang isip mo?

Nagkakandarapang ipakita kay Marocharim?

Bakit ako magkakandarapang ipakita sa kanya?

Saka why are you zooming in on him, specifically?

Sino si Marocharim? (Pardon me, Marochim. In case the question gets taken out of context again, I am just stating that you shouldn’t be singled out. There’s no reason for you to be. I have no reason whatsoever to do that because I do not know you personally and I had no idea about you or your site prior to the DSWD-Ella issue.)

Ano ba yung meron Ella para yun na naman ang isipin mo?

Note that you indicated in your comments the sites where i posted. Therefore, sa mga sites na yun din ako nag-post ng link na reply ko sa yo since yung comment ko dun yung inaddress mo.

Di ko alam ba’t nilalagyan mo lagpas-lagpasang interpretation lahat.

You said:

O wag ka nang magtangkang mag-deny, opinionblahblah, na-screenshot ko na rin ang blog mo. Ang byuti ko lang ang post mo as of NOW, ako lang ang nasa archive mo, nag-iisa, unika iha, one and only, first and last love mo hehe.

Ba’t ako magdedeny, eh totoo namang yung reply ko lang sa yo yung naka-post dito. In-explain ko na sa taas kung bakit.

Saka kelangan din naman siguro kitang sagutin. Masyadong marami ka nang idinadamay and kung pababayaan ko lang na paniwalaan ng tao yung sinasabi mo, hindi naman ata tama yun. Lalo lang magkakagulo. Yun ba yung gusto mo? Kaya nga pinapaliwanag ko sa reply ko yung maling akala mo, ayaw mo naman makita ng ibang tao. Post ka naman ng post ng mga akusasyon and mga kung anu anong pagdududa mo. Di mo na nga tinitigil, dinadagdagan mo pa ng dinadagdagan ang akusasyon mo.

Siguro naman, nararapat ding ipaliwanag ko na mali ang mga hinala’t akusasyon mo.

You said:

Shet sayang, hahangaan na sana kita kasi galing mo ring mag-Inglis. Pero mahina ka sa planning eh. You did not foresee this, aminin mo na! Dapat noon ka pa nagtayo ng blog, mga two weeks ago siguro, puwede na, para hindi ka nabibistong astroturfing (PR-speak) aka trolling (net-speak)

Alin and di ko na-foresee? Alin ang aaminin ko? Planado ba lahat ng to? Mahina sa planning, ibig sabihin nagplano?

Aba, di ko yata makita yung logic bakit kelangan ko pagplanuhan ang pagsagot sa blog. Pinagpaplanuhan ba yung concern? Yung mababasa mong magkakarun ka ng interes o di kaya’y makita mong isyung nararapat tutukan?

Nabasa ko lang yung balita sa inquirer about a govt. official supposedly harassing a blogger. Nagbasa-basa ako. Halos yung mga nakikita ko panlalait o masasamang salita tungkol sa Secretary and sa DSWD. Nung binasa ko naman yung mga diskusyon and analysis nung ibang pinagsikapang alamin yung katotohanan dito, mukhang maayos naman yung mga sagot at gawain ng mga nasabing taong gobyerno.

Nung nagbasa-basa pa ako sa mga comments and forum, napansin ko na medyo mainit yung mga ibang blogger sa mga taong gobyerno. Yung parang naging laban na tuloy, blogging world vs. govt. official, nawala na sa pinaka-isyu.

Nabasa ko rin na may mga Congressmen na napasali na din. Nalaman ko pa na ini-equate na ng karamihan sa pagkawala ng freedom of expression and freedom of speech yung pagfa-file ng kaso sa yo.

Whatever your take is, I respect that pero sa kin kasi, my take is: wag tayung padalus-dalos. Wag natin gamitin yung isang kasong ni hindi pa nga napagdedesisyunan para maging battlecry ng freedom of speech, freedom of expression or internet freedom.

Yun lang namn yung concern ko, yung pantay at mabusising pag-aaral sa isyung ito. Yung pagtutok sa tunay na isyu.

Di ako kelangang bayaran para makabuo rin ako ng sarili kong opinyon.

May mga bagay na di pinagpaplanuhan, lalu-t lalo kung wala ka namang intensyong makaapak kaninuman.

Again, gusto ko lang lumabas katotohanan. Nadiskubre ko lang na hindi lang pala si Sec. Cabral yung sinasabi na makapangyarihan dahil sa posisyon nyang co-terminus and mawawala din naman. Ikaw din pala makapangyarihan kung media o internet o mundo ng blogging ang pag-uusapan. So inisip ko lang na siguro, tigilan na natin yung pag-aakusa kung kani-kanino na gamit ang isyu ng anumang kapangyarihan na yan.

Di ba kung ikaw ang aakusahan ng harassment o bullying dahil marami kang koneksyon sa media, mas lalo na sa mundo ng blogging, ayaw mo yun?

Naisip ko lang na in the same manner, di rin dapat akusahan ng iba si Sec. Cabral na gumagamit ng kapangyarihan sa pangha-harass at pambu-bully dahil lang sa rason na nasa posisyon sya.

Generalization yun na matatawag. Hindi lahat ng taong nasa posisyon, may masamang intensyon.

Hindi ko rin sinasabi yung kabalintunaan ng pahayag na yun dahil wala akong sapat na basehan para magsalita ng laban o kampi sa pagkatao nya.

Yung nakikita ko lang sigurong punto eh na tama na yung patutsadahan na low-blow matatawag.

Di naman kasi yun yung issue. Nada-divert lang mga tao sa talagang punto.

Nagagamit lang yung issue para pati yung critical na topic like freedom of speech and freedom of expression mas lalong lumabo.

Kung nababasa mo nga yung iba kong blog posts sa ibang sites kagaya ng sinasabi mo (oo, ako din si weighingmatters), makikita mo dun na yung sinasabi ko lang, tumutok na lang kaming mga miron sa punto ng responsible blogging and iwasan namin yung atakeng balahuraan.

Hindi naman kasi tamang sasabihin natin na dahil me posisyon at koneksyon, pag klinaro ninuman yung pangalan nya at ng opisinang pinapanguluhan nya, awtomatiko, me maitim na syang motibo. Nakita ko naman sa pag-aaral ko ng isyu na ikaw din pala marami ding koneksyon sa media at sa mundo ng internet na pwedeng magsalita para sa yo. Pero nakita mo bang inakusa kita na naghaharass ka din? Nakita mo bang me nilagay ako na opinyon dun na sinabi ko na nambubully ka din? Wala. Kasi alam kong mali na magtapon ng akusasyon kahit kaninuman.

Sabi nga nung comments sa site mo:

Kutitap Reply:

February 11th, 2010 at 10:50 pm

Naku, nag-mamala-nuno sa punso itong si Opiniononissues… Sa internet-speak, troll baga. Ang sakit sa bangs… Ahahaha!

Naisip ko tuloy, bakit ba ganon nlng ang dedication nya na mag-research?

Isa pa, mukhang intensive naman ang pagkakasaliksik nya. Subalit, datapwat, ngunit, alalaong-baga… bakit mukhang nahilaw ang conclusion? Manibalang pa, hininog sa pilit.

..and:

Para namang ang hasty ng conclusion ni opiniononissues. Talagang pinipilit na iconnect ang mga bagay na may gap pa din kahit pagdugtungin.

..ang sagot mo naman:

Hi Kutitap,

Kulang yata sa prep time…

Here’s my explanation kutitap:

Nahilaw ang conclusion, sabi mo. Hindi nahilaw, wala talaga. Ayokong maglagay ng opinyon dun.

Hindi ko isinama ang opinyon ko sa post na sinubmit ko sa ibang sites, kasi ayokong i-impose ang opinion ko sa iba.

Nag-research lang ako, sa tingin ko maidadagdag yung mga detalyeng yun sa pwedeng timbangin nung mga concerned sa issue, i shared it with the sites which are focusing on this topic. Naniniwala kasi ako na kaya naman mag-isip ng iba, na marunong din tumimbang yung iba. Kung anuman opinyon nila, as long as yung detalye ng iba-ibang eh sides nakikita nila, mas makakatulong yun.

Kutitap said:

Para namang ang hasty ng conclusion ni opiniononissues. Talagang pinipilit na iconnect ang mga bagay na may gap pa din kahit pagdugtungin.

Again, wala akong ginawang conclusion dun. Wala akong balak gawan ng conclusion yun. Wala akong pilit ikinu-connect.

Hindi ako si Ella, hindi ako si Cabral, hindi ako yung court na me sapat na impormasyon sa iba’t ibang aspeto ng issue na to. Yung kaya ko lang gawin pag-aralan yung isyu at mga detalyeng makakatulong para matimbang  ng maayos yung sitwasyon.

Kaya nga yung mga post ko sa ibang blog eh sinasabi kong wala akong karapatan o sapat na kaalaman para magsalita about the DSWD-Ella case eh.

Yung pwede ko lang pagtuunan, yung mga general issues na pinipilit i-confuse and i-infuse sa issue na to: blogging world vs. govt. official, harassment of a blogger, bullying of a blogger, excesssive use of power, responsible blogging, freedom of speech, freedom of expression… Sabi ko nga masyadong malawak and critical yung mga isyung to and magiging myopic yung tingin natin kung gagawin nating synonymous yun sa merits ng kasong DSWD-Ella.

You said:

Teka, teka ulit, bigla ko ‘tong naisip. ‘Yung sinabi ko sa itaas na “PUT UP or SHUT UP, hindi ibig sabihin nun eh PUT UP A BLOG! nyahahahaha! Ooowned!

Baka nga talagang hindi lang tayo magkaintindihan.

Baka nga nilalagyan mo ng interpretasyon yung mga bagay na dapat eh hindi naman.

Pero sige dahil mukhang nag-eenjoy ka naman, hahayaan na lang kita basta’t alam ko naman kung ano ang katotohanan.

This is my reply to Ellaganda’s post in her site addressed to opiniononissues.

Screencap of Ella’s Original Post:

To Ms. Ellaganda:

May I quote you on this:

I’m not sure what to call you, isang netizen na kulang sa pansin o mahilig lang makisawsaw. Ikinakalat mo kung saan-saang sites ang template ng rumor mongering mo, na feeling mo ay mga “bomba”. Mga “well researched revelations” na ikagugulat ng mundo.

I’m not sure what to call you, isang netizen na kulang sa pansin o mahilig lang makisawsaw. Ikinakalat mo kung saan-saang sites ang template ng rumor mongering mo, na feeling mo ay mga “bomba”. Mga “well researched revelations” na ikagugulat ng mundo.

Screech… Brake… Have I used the same words to describe the way you handled your DSWD “expose”?

Are other people not allowed to be concerned about this issue as well? Do we have to be “kulang sa pansin” o “nakikisawsaw” or inciting “rumor mongering” just because we are concerned about how the discussions on the matter are inadvertently veering away from the issue of responsible blogging and is being focused instead on a Government official vs. blogger slant?

If you but notice, I only presented quotes from your own site and links. Are we not even allowed to do some research on any issue we’re concerned about before we form our own take on the issue?

Had you done your own research before casting aspersions against me, you will notice that I have consistently stated in some sites that whatever the results of your case may be, it’s up for the courts to decide. If you win, you win. If you don’t Cabral wins. It’s between you, Cabral and the courts. I did not post my take on the issue because of you. This whole DSWD-blogger issue is no longer just about you.

What I am but concerned about is the furor this is creating online and in the media. Having read the posts online, there were allusions to govt. official vs. blogging world scenario, government vs. freedom of speech scenario, Ella’s case representing the blogging world’s sentiments scenario…. That, my dear, is what I am concerned about.

Some solons and the media have already dipped their fingers on this matter and it would be but fair that if they deliberate on it, people like me who are concerned about its effects on the shaping of Cyber Laws, would at least be well-informed.

It would help if we have a balanced view of the whole spectrum. It would help that before we assume Sec. Cabral is using her office to harass a blogger thru the media and thru NBI(as is the running sentiment on some blogs), we should at least be aware of the type of access you both have to the avenues she has taken.

There are still a good number of net people, including me, who care about responsible blogging, responsible net guidelines and how they’re gonna be defined in our Cyber Laws in the making.

If people say this case is gonna affect freedom of speech and freedom of expression, I hope it would be for the better, leading to responsible freedom of speech, responsible freedom of expression. Founded on details, founded on facts…

You said:

Hindi lang sa isang site, lahat ng madaanan mong “kampi” kay ella, iniiwan mo ang basura mo.

 

My. Check where your foot is going, miss.

If you do a little bit of research, these blogs are the ones that allow easy posting and they are the blogs that have commentaries on this particular issue.

If you also google the topic, you will realize that they are the sites coming up.

I post in the sites I visit. I post in the sites who are as concerned about this issue as I am.

I didn’t even know they were “kampi” kay ella.

Nowhere in my posts on their sites did I accuse them of that.

Are you saying they are?

I sure hope it’s not true. I sure hope they are “kampi sa katotohanan” rather than “kampi kaninuman”.

I hope that the very reason they permitted the posting of such researched links is because they also are after balanced views as some other bloggers are.

You said:

Normally, I would ignore a “rotting”, old school black propaganda like this pero idinamay mo ang PCIJ, a well-respected, two-decade-old institution of professional investigative journalists sa basurang ikinakalat mo. Because they dared speak the truth!

 

Old school black propaganda?

When other people who do not agree with you ad infinitum speak their mind out, it’s black propaganda? When you say your piece, it’s “freedom of expression”?

Doesn’t this issue now involve everyone who will be affected by the cyber “freedom of expression” and “freedom of speech” the furor has spawned?

Can we not do our own research so we can weigh things and not just take your position or the other bloggers’ as our own?

Will it automatically be a “rotting”, old school black propaganda when people research and study the other avenues which will help them see the issue on a broader perspective?

And papanong idinamay ang PCIJ?

How?

Can you check the post again and point out where there is any mention whatsoever of any negative contention against PCIJ?

Are you trying to push an opiniononissues vs. PCIJ slant?

You said:

Hindi na ito opinyon. You are imputing that the post in Daily PCIJ was a favor granted to one of its founders.

You amaze me with how you put malice into things you carelessly focus on, miss…

Care to point out where I actually ”imputed” “ that the post in Daily PCIJ was a favor granted to one of its founders.”?

Have I ever mentioned of any PCIJ post anywhere in my comment?

And what favor? Where in my post did I even mention or even refer to that?

You are putting words in my mouth.

Now as to founder…

I did not use that word anywhere in my post. But to be fair, just in case you misconstrued my usage of “who started” (not who founded or founder), we’ll discuss your contention.

You went as far as saying:

If you can prove that Beting Laygo Dolor is one of the founders of PCIJ, I will eat your panties in public in front of a hundred witnesses. But if you cannot, you will french kiss my dog in public, in front of a hundred witnesses.

Put up or shut up.

Please refer to my post. Note that I just listed a rundown of the media and journalism outlets that that name is connected to. I researched on the personalities behind the “expose” and their connections to such media/journalism outlets came up.

PCIJ just happened to appear in the search along with the other establishments. It’s not the only voice front mentioned.

Why are you zooming in on PCIJ alone? Why would you go as far as inventing supposed accusations against it nowhere visible in my post?

Miss, here’s my post and I quote:

The Beting Laygo Dolor :

Of Philippine News Online:

http://philippinenews.com/article.php?id=5380

who started PCIJ (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism ) alongside Sheila Coronel, Malou Mangahas, Lorna Kalaw-Tirol, Howie Severino and David Celdran.

http://preciousanne.blogspot.com/

Editor- of:

1. Bandera

2. Prime Asia and Pinoy Global Access

http://www.upjournalismclub.org/gallery/photos/suit-of-cards-a-forum-on-libel/

3. Playboy Philippines

http://www.bworldonline.com/Weekender072508/main.php?id=focus1

4. Business World

http://www.grabeh.com/forum/index.php

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR of:

http://www.filglobe.com/files/augpage22forum.pdf

Same Beting Laygo Dolor who released this:</p>

http://philippinenews.com/article.php?id=5380

Donated goods sitting in DSWD warehouse

Published, October 23, 2009

… after Ella released this:

http://www.ellaganda.com/?p=1759

Aanhin pa ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo? (A special report from a volunteer)

Published, Oct 21st, 2009

Same Beting Laygo Dolor who co-wrote the articles appearing here:

http://pinoybsn.blogspot.com/2006/10/arroyo-to-nurses-retake-board-test.html

http://bolanon.com/forums_topic_view.aspx?page=1&tid=3363&fid=2929&=desc

…with the girl whose name appears here:

http://services.inquirer.net/mobile/10/01/22/html_output/xmlhtml/20100121-248693-xml.html

…and whose identity is confirmed here:

http://forums.seo.ph/showthread.php?t=10191

You see? There are a lot of media outlets listed there but since you zoomed in on PCIJ alone , ok, let me ask you:

Can you point out where I stated “that Beting Laygo Dolor is one of the founders of PCIJ”?

Nowhere.

Nada.

Zero.

What I said was:

The Beting Laygo Dolor :

[…]

who started PCIJ (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism ) alongside Sheila Coronel, Malou Mangahas, Lorna Kalaw-Tirol, Howie Severino and David Celdran.

http://preciousanne.blogspot.com/

Founder, the word you used, is defined by several dictionaries as:

Founder

n.

One who establishes something or formulates the basis for something: the founder of a university; the founders of a new nation.

http://www.answers.com/topic/founder

2: a person who founds or establishes some institution; “George Washington is the father of his country” [syn: founder, beginner, father]

http://www.dictionary.net/founding+father

Founded on the other hand, is defined as:

Founded

tr.v. found•ed, found•ing, founds

1. To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence: The college was founded in 1872.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/start

Really specific.

I did not use any of those words. Did I?

What I used instead was: started.

Start, in its various definitions translates to:

–verb (used with object)

8. to set moving, going, or acting; to set in operation: to start an automobile; to start a fire.

9. to establish or found: to start a new business.

10. to begin work on: to start a book.

11. to enable or help (someone) set out on a journey, a career, or the like: The record started the young singer on the road to stardom.

12. to cause or choose to be an entrant in a game or contest: He started his ace pitcher in the crucial game.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/start

v.tr.

1. To commence; begin.

2. To set into motion, operation, or activity.

3. To introduce; originate.

4. Sports

a. To play in the initial lineup of (a game).

b. To put (a player) into the initial lineup of a game.

c. To enter (a participant) into a race or game.

5. To found; establish: start a business.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/start

You see then, start can mean a lot of things, a few of which would be applicable to what was described by the author of the blog whose link I have included along with the quote.

If you haven’t read the content of the link yet, here it is:

Little did I know that this simple thought which entered my mind as a teenager has actually been institutionalized through a research paper written by Honorable Rigoberto D. Tiglao (“Office of the Presidential Chief of Staff” Office of the Republic of the Philippines President Web Site. 26 August 2006 ) during his Nieman Fellowship at the Harvard University. The proposal on the establishment of a center to “address the need for newspapers and broadcast agencies to go beyond day-to-day reportage” (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism Online. 26 August 2006

)gave birth to the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)in 1989 together with his colleagues who are all well-respected Filipino journalists. They are Sheila Coronel, Beting Laygo-Dolor, Malou Mangahas, Lorna Kalaw-Tirol, Howie Severino and David Celdran.

And btw, you said:

If you can prove that Beting Laygo Dolor is one of the founders of PCIJ, I will eat your panties in public…

Panties?

Err…

Seems like jumping to conclusions has become arbitrary, huh?

You said:

Dahil hindi ako mahilig magdemanda, ganito na lang…

 

I’ve been reading other sites on this issue and I’ve noticed you seem to have a knack of saying these words to people who care to study this issue and whom you see as not agreeing with your views hook, line and sinker.

Miss, all the links stated herein are verifiable online and are out there for the public to see. Are you preventing me from pointing out that we all need to do some research before we cast aspersions on anyone? Or to be more apt, be responsible in how we present facts to the public and refrain from hurling stones at anyone?

People have minds of their own, they can think for themselves. I do not believe in imposing my opinions on them. The links indicated are but quotes from your own site and from sites scattered online which are relevant to the issue at hand.

Update

Looking at her site now, I noticed some lines have been revised so I am including the screen cap of the revised entry as well.

Additional Update:

Again, Ellaganda has updated the abovementioned post. Here’s her latest additon:

This is getting funnier by the minute.

I guess you really find it impossible to believe that other people can be concerned too. Not if they do not share your views.

I did a research on an important issue and I tried to share this with people who are as equally concerned, with the notion that informed interpretations are borne out of weighing matters with as much available details or facts as possible.

That being said, I’ll leave you to your assumptions and suspicions. It seems like when you’re dead set on something, not grace nor humility can veer you away from the track you want to take.

I’m already overwhelmed by the inanity. This is getting to be too off-tangent for me.