Opinion on Issues

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Posts Tagged ‘cabral

Let’s clear the accusations once and for all…

leave a comment »

Here’s what I can do to allay your doubts and to clear my name and the name of that person you’re accusing as my payor:
1. If you really suspect I am being paid to post my ideas, if you really think I am an “astro-turfer” as you say I am, make a stand and tell me who the supposed payor is.

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.


Written by issuesopinions

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:34:45 +0000 at 9:34 am

Who’s Lying?

leave a comment »

Alam mo, napapag-isip mo ko kung bakit gagawin mo lahat maipilit lang ‘to:

Ella's Lie allegation

Isa-isahin natin, ha?


Yung sinabi mo dati:
Ella's Founder dare, ellaganda.com

Ipinakita ko sa yo yung mismong nakalagay sa post ko:

The Beting Laygo Dolor:

Opiniononissues' post on PCIJ

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:

Ella's PCIJ Lie bintang Accusation, ellaganda.com



Papanong naging lie?

Eto ha? pakitingnan:

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

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.


A false statement daw DELIBERATELY stated as being true.

A false statement daw made with DELIBERATE INTENT to DECEIVE;

Pakitingnan nga ulit nung statement:


Opiniononissues' post on PCIJ

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:

Preciousanne blog content on PCIJ, ellaganda.com


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:

Ella's Hindi opinyon accusation, ellaganda.com

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:

Ella's Black propaganda accusation, ellaganda.com

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:

Ella's mention of Ms. Sheila Mangahas and Ms. Malou Coronel, ellaganda.com

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:


Opiniononissues' post on PCIJ

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.

Written by issuesopinions

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:53:15 +0000 at 6:53 am

Look who’s talking…

with 8 comments

Curious lang, kasi mukhang talagang ipinipilit mo na pagdudahang astro-turfer nga ako or binabayaran lang kagaya ng pinapalabas mo, kaya mo ba ginagawa yan dahil ina-apply mo yung “crisis management technique” na sinasabi mo?

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:

Screen Cap of Ella Comment on Crisis Management Technique, ellaganda.com

Note what you accused me of doing:

Screen Cap of Ella's Astroturfing accusation, ellaganda.com

You further added this in one of your comments :
Ella's spin doctors accusation, ellaganda.com

You bolstered the suspicion you’ve created with this insinuation:
Old PR Crisis Management Accusation, ellaganda.com

And again affirmed your astroturfer claim with this:
Ella on Crisis management Technique, ellaganda.com

Note this baseless, totally ludicruous claim, too:

Ella's Black propaganda accusation, ellaganda.com

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:
Ella's Eleven sites interpretation

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:

“Can you imagine ELEVEN sites?”

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:
Ella's tulungan ikalat, ellaganda.com

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.

Written by issuesopinions

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:23:24 +0000 at 4:23 pm

Happy Valentine’s day, too…

leave a comment »

From Ella:


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.

Written by issuesopinions

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:47:38 +0000 at 10:47 pm

On “Please stop stalking me”…

leave a comment »

From Ella’s blog:

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


Definition of stalker:

SC someone who follows and watches another PERSON over a period of time in a way that is very annoying or threatening


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.



…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.


Written by issuesopinions

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:50:43 +0000 at 9:50 pm

On “Huling Pagtingin” Comments…

with 2 comments

To Orlando:

Screencap of Orlando Comment at ellaganda.com, feb 13 1:35pm

 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.
What I wanted to relay was:
1. To me (and i know the truth to this specific matter), the person doesn’t exist. There’s nobody paying me.

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:

Screencap of comment by Orlando at ellaganda.com,  Fabruary 13 1:25pm


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.
Wala ho. Kung sana napansin nyo pagka-post nung mga napag-aralang detalye, wala na rin naman sanang post na iba.


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?

Written by issuesopinions

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:21:31 +0000 at 8:21 pm

On “I linked your blog in my post”…

leave a comment »

Form Ella:

You also forgot to mention, I linked your blog in my post. My readers will be able to read everything you wrote about me, lahat ng reklamo, lahat ng rants mo. If that’s not fair play, I dunno what to call it, dear.

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.


Written by issuesopinions

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:45:39 +0000 at 7:45 pm