My post was not intended to be a flame - it's just a fact.
I wasn't talking about you, or anyone in particular.
Maybe it's because I read this thing top to bottom instead of being involved in it from the start, but I can see that the individual facts, statements, arguments, affidavits, anecdotes, stories, legends, insults, and everything else blend into the perfect whole that the OSA is just so DELIGHTED to see.
Step back and see the forest instead of the trees.
This joker was a fraud. He was exposed.
Probably not OSA, but we can't rule out that possibility - it blends in too well with their modus operandi.
End of story.
Keep an eye out for future sockpuppets and the like, but we're always on the watch for that sort of thing aren't we?
Seriously, you guys are being hoodwinked here into thinking that something matters when it DOESN'T - and you're continuing the argument long past the time it should've died.
Here's what someone who's feeding into the paranoia running rampant would say:
Itsaline is obviously the OSA op here. He found this guy who got his rocks off pretending to be 3-4 different critics and, what's more, pretended to be a girl - and he could use that, so he trapped the poor sucker and then trumpeted that success story to the heavens to accomplish 2 goals:
1) to discredit a critic that many people trusted, and
2) to spread even more discord among the critical community, knowing that they'd point fingers at each other and start flinging around wild accusations while saying, "I knew she was a guy the whole time."
Win/win for OSA.
That's an exaggeration, but it's the sort of thing that's been flying around this thread a little too heavily.
Now, WHY doesn't this matter?
Because in the end, we are none of us quite who we claim to be on the internet - well, Magoo comes across as a straight shooter, as does Andreas, but a lot of us hide behind anonymity for dozens of reasons on this forum ALONE, frome the benign (don't want OSA to come after us) to the malevolent (pretending to be a critic to disrupt all their good times).
As long as we understand that and don't accept anything as pure truth until we meet the person face-to-face and shake their hand, it's just a part of life on the 'net and we can live with that. It might seem mistrustful and paranoid, but do you go to a game of 3 Card Monte expecting the guy to NOT palm the red card?
And ironically, as long as you can use that as a baseline, you know how far to trust people and can even have a lot of fun on the 'net.
Mmm. I suppose that as long as we agree that argument threads like this should be taken with a grain (or preferably an entire shaker) of salt, then I guess that there's no real problem, eh?