Blog posts that bring controversy

[bkpkgene]

Anyone ever write a blog post that creates a controversial buzz? I am in a real stink-poo contest over Elizabeth Jackson and the Home Employment Agency. I've called out several spamming domains and affiliate IM's (internet marketers) and now have them making the 'my attorney will be in touch' comment.

So how about it, anyone ever hit nerve in a post?

[Katalina]

I've never had the guts to write a truly controversial post. I just want people to like me! I hear they do create a lot of traffic!

[ajwalsh]

I usually just write positive things about others, so I haven't struck a nerve to this point.

I'm curious about your situation, though. Who exactly are these people who are threatening legal action? What exactly are they saying?

[bkpkgene]

Originally Posted by ajwalsh

I usually just write positive things about others, so I haven't struck a nerve to this point.

I'm curious about your situation, though. Who exactly are these people who are threatening legal action? What exactly are they saying?

An Internet Marketer and if, to be believed, the company behind the spamming of the program for the Home Employment Agency. One made a 'review' where they called out the program as a scam, then cloaked a link to a program they said was better - and voila! It went straight to the same Home Employment Agency they just called out. When I called out the behavior in the comments, they of course deleted my comment (no problem - it's their site) and then went straight to my Contact page and sent me a blistering contact message after reading about what I had to say about unitedservicesinternational dot com.

Needless to say, he earned a spot on the Halloween Project page.

The other is, if to be believed, the force behind unitedservicesinternational dot com, which I have called out for their spamming of the same HEA program and which lead me to the example above.

It's all Huff and Puff. I am not concerned at all by it, but it does make me smile at their reactions.

[Melody]

@bkpkgene - I was just visiting your blog, and I had to google Elizabeth Jackson to figure out what you were talking about. The Home Employment Agency looks like a horrible scam! But I couldn't find any blog post on your site about it. I'm a little confused about your thread here.

I think you and I have a different definition of controversy. We have blogs with differing purposes. You have a site designed to uncover scams. I can see how you might breed a little controversy with that. But the scams I see listed on your site are so very obvious ...

My site is more of 'put on a smiley face and have a cup of coffee with me'. Though what is not obvious is that I have a billion-dollar corporation reading every single word that I write. They can't control me, but they really want to ... The corporation _hopes_ that I'm not critical, don't steal their thunder, don't talk about "coming soon" products, don't gossip about their executives, and generally not negative ... That's their _hope_ ...The reasons why are obvious.

I have managed to write a few things now and then that really annoyed my audience of a billion-dollar corporation ... A bit of that has gotten back to me now and then. But there are lots of Starbucks blogs (I literally have one of four or five sites just about Starbucks!) and well, they can't really control independent writers. So long as I'm not writing in reckless disregard for the truth, I'm pretty okay. I realize that's vague, but it is strange knowing that a HUGE corporation can feel that one tiny blogger is influential or worth closely monitoring.

To a small degree, I have to work to not irritate Starbucks too much ... They've invited me to special events that normal customers don't go to, and in order to maintain that good relationship with them, I can't be _too_ controversial.

You're not in a relationship with anyone. You can write whatever you want about these scams.

[bkpkgene]

Originally Posted by Melody

@bkpkgene - I was just visiting your blog, and I had to google Elizabeth Jackson to figure out what you were talking about. The Home Employment Agency looks like a horrible scam! But I couldn't find any blog post on your site about it. I'm a little confused about your thread here.

I think you and I have a different definition of controversy. We have blogs with differing purposes. You have a site designed to uncover scams. I can see how you might breed a little controversy with that. But the scams I see listed on your site are so very obvious ...

My site is more of 'put on a smiley face and have a cup of coffee with me'. Though what is not obvious is that I have a billion-dollar corporation reading every single word that I write. They can't control me, but they really want to ... The corporation _hopes_ that I'm not critical, don't steal their thunder, don't talk about "coming soon" products, don't gossip about their executives, and generally not negative ... That's their _hope_ ...The reasons why are obvious.

I have managed to write a few things now and then that really annoyed my audience of a billion-dollar corporation ... A bit of that has gotten back to me now and then. But there are lots of Starbucks blogs (I literally have one of four or five sites just about Starbucks!) and well, they can't really control independent writers. So long as I'm not writing in reckless disregard for the truth, I'm pretty okay. I realize that's vague, but it is strange knowing that a HUGE corporation can feel that one tiny blogger is influential or worth closely monitoring.

To a small degree, I have to work to not irritate Starbucks too much ... They've invited me to special events that normal customers don't go to, and in order to maintain that good relationship with them, I can't be _too_ controversial.

You're not in a relationship with anyone. You can write whatever you want about these scams.

You stopped just short of calling me a liar. Other than that, I responded to Melody via PM and fully expect a ban for what I had to say.

All I can say is it must be really tough being a Starbucks lapdog and having them look over your shoulder at what you write. Then again, your site is not exactly objective is it.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by bkpkgene

You stopped just short of calling me a liar. Other than that, I responded to Melody via PM and fully expect a ban for what I had to say.

All I can say is it must be really tough being a Starbucks lapdog and having them look over your shoulder at what you write. Then again, your site is not exactly objective is it.

Lordy, I didn't call you a liar. That's a hostile reply: You attack me, and never bother to get any clarifying information? Let's have rational conversation please.

Yes, I write things that Starbucks doesn't like - but not often.

No, I didn't call you a liar, but in total honesty, I don't know what blog post on your blog prompted this thread. You could have kindly replied with a link rather than calling names.

[ChickenFreak]

Originally Posted by bkpkgene

You stopped just short of calling me a liar. Other than that, I responded to Melody via PM and fully expect a ban for what I had to say.

All I can say is it must be really tough being a Starbucks lapdog and having them look over your shoulder at what you write. Then again, your site is not exactly objective is it.

Uh. bkpkgene, I think that you must have utterly misunderstood Melody's post. I can't see _anywhere_ where she called you a liar. Or implied it. Or alluded to it. Or... anything whatsoever along those lines.

When I search, and search again, and search yet again for what you may be reacting to, I to see that Melody said that if _she_ (she, not you) wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, she could be in trouble. That's the only bit that has anything to do with truth or otherwise, so I assume that must be what you're reacting to. But I don't see a finger pointing at you there, I see her referring to herself and her own blog, and no more.

The way I interpret that bit is that for Melody to make people angry writing about Starbucks, she'd have to lie, because the truth is reasonably clean and tidy. For you to make people angry writing about scams, all you have to do is tell the truth about those scams, because that truth is pretty nasty and ugly.

I think that you misunderstood. I think that you owe Melody an apology. I don't know if I'm going to hear, next, that I'm a lapdog of the perfume companies. But... bkpkgene, I'm convinced that you're interpreting this conversation very, very wrong.

[health70]

i should have guessed a topic about controversial content wouldn't take long to cause some controversy.

people can get passionate about their writing, but what say we don't all take a deep breath? misunderstandings can happen; i'm sure we are all reasonable people.

[QuirkyJessi]

Agreed. Sounds like this post was its own bit of controversy....