Whistleblowing

[legalbeagle]

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not about getting out of bed, surely!

> Besides, Gina's norks might fancy a bit o ruff

> fireman, just for a nice change...

One can but ask. Many a posh bird has gone a bit "Lady Chatterley" so it's gotta be worth a go.

[RosieH]

I just want to add that I will drink prosecco with anybody.

LM, I haven't lied (and have PMed you the details) and my offer of meeting in person to clear the air still stands.

[brum]

Thanks LB. I feel more encouraged.

"With respect, m'lady, set down 'ere 'n show uz yer norks"

by the way, is the prosecco simply poured over? What is the etiquette here?

[legalbeagle]

I'm not sure it would be proper of me to comment! Perhaps you should ask *Bob*? He seems rather more experienced in these matters.........

[brum]

*bob*....?

[HAL9000]

I'm grateful to one of the participants of this thread for directing me to a strange coincidence: it seems that Huguenot, in real life, is an internet marketing consultant who makes a living out of training big business in the fine art of spamming FaceBook and Twitter users with targeted advertising...

A few interesting quotes from an article in Campaign (some from Huguenot himself):

The World: Cashing in on social networking the Asian way (23 October 2009)

Social media users can be bought by advertisers for as little as nine pence each. Robin Hicks finds out how marketers benefit.

As in the West, traditional advertising is not the most popular way brands are using social networks in Asia. Advertisers are increasingly trying to enter the content stream itself, reaching "influencers" in blogs and friend circles. ...

The idea was to attract foreign visitors and encourage guests to promote the hotel as "the perfect blend of East meets West.

More extreme methods to get popular quickly are now emerging ... an online marketing company ... sells Facebook friends for 15 cents each (nine pence) to companies interested in a particular demographic or interest group that suits what they sell.

... provided that brands do not spam their "friends" too often with messages and links, a relationship can be built over time. "It's not like buying Google ad clicks, which you have to keep on buying. A Facebook friend or Twitter follower, if treated well, can be marketed to indefinitely at no extra cost." A Twitter follower could be worth ten cents a month in sales, he says, while a Facebook friend is worth a dollar a month.

But the good times might not last if the letters to his lawyers continue to arrive. He has already received legal writs from Digg and Twitter, but, after writing back to defend his corner, has heard nothing since.

... proves that the rules are still being written for social network marketing in Asia. "We're not breaking any laws. We're just doing what any other Facebook user would do if he had the knowledge or time," he says.

Talk about hypocrisy!

[Ladymuck]

RosieH Wrote:

> LM, I haven't lied (and have PMed you the details)

> and my offer of meeting in person to clear the air

> still stands.

You have posted false allegations. The first time I actually met you/spoke to you was months later when I was out with friends one Saturday. You will recall that it was I who went over to you to introduce myself as you were sitting with several other forumites.

Whilst I had earlier today agreed to meet up with you to "clear the air", having now seen your defamatory statements I no longer wish to meet you. Furthermore, as I also stated - please do not PM me any more.

I am now leaving this thread on the advice of a good forum friend. I shall not respond to further posts.

[legalbeagle]

So.

*Bob*?

[RosieH]

To be clear, I don't mind whether we meet or not - I simply wanted to make nice.

But as I said, I will not be called a liar. I met you at the December drinks downstairs at Boho. Clearly either I'm not terribly memorable, or you were too drunk to remember, I've PMed you the details to jog your memory but you're still denying it. Hey ho. I'll go on Jeremy Kyle if you like.

I'm choosing to think that you genuinely don't remember rather than are deliberately telling lies about me. It's a real pity you can't extend that same courtesy.

Edited because people are right and all this "he said, she said" crap is unedifying in the extreme - my righteous indignation got the better of me - but I am keen to rise above the playground and make peace.

[*Bob*]

peeeeep..! peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.. !

[citizenED]

Interesting - three threads for the price of one. There's the "he said, she said." one between Rosie and Lady, The "he said, she said." one between Hal and Huge. And there's the lovely little cameo with "Bob" and LB offering Prosecco and Jenny.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I'm waiting for the fourth one. What happened in The Clockhouse?

[RosieH]

A lovely time was had by all.

And there was lashings of ginger beer.

And I think I might have told Quids he was very handsome. Oh god, I've also just remembered Citizen that I reminded you that I told you you were very handsome on our first meeting. Clearly I'm a whore of Babylon.

(and apologies for the "he said, she said" nonsense - even Jesus got a bit cross on occasion)

[citizenED]

Whore of Babylon, Rosie - I just think you have good judgment.

[????]

So do I.

[????]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm grateful to one of the participants of this

> thread for directing me to a strange coincidence:

> it seems that Huguenot, in real life, is an

> internet marketing consultant who makes a living

> out of training big business in the fine art of

> spamming FaceBook and Twitter users with targeted

> advertising...

>

> A few interesting quotes from an article in

> Campaign (some from Huguenot himself):

>

> The World: Cashing in on social networking the

> Asian way (23 October 2009)

> Social media users can be bought by advertisers

> for as little as nine pence each. Robin Hicks

> finds out how marketers benefit.

>

> As in the West, traditional advertising is not the

> most popular way brands are using social networks

> in Asia. Advertisers are increasingly trying to

> enter the content stream itself, reaching

> "influencers" in blogs and friend circles. ...

>

> The idea was to attract foreign visitors and

> encourage guests to promote the hotel as "the

> perfect blend of East meets West.

>

> More extreme methods to get popular quickly are

> now emerging ... an online marketing company ...

> sells Facebook friends for 15 cents each (nine

> pence) to companies interested in a particular

> demographic or interest group that suits what they

> sell.

>

> ... provided that brands do not spam their

> "friends" too often with messages and links, a

> relationship can be built over time. "It's not

> like buying Google ad clicks, which you have to

> keep on buying. A Facebook friend or Twitter

> follower, if treated well, can be marketed to

> indefinitely at no extra cost." A Twitter follower

> could be worth ten cents a month in sales, he

> says, while a Facebook friend is worth a dollar a

> month.

>

> But the good times might not last if the letters

> to his lawyers continue to arrive. He has already

> received legal writs from Digg and Twitter, but,

> after writing back to defend his corner, has heard

> nothing since.

>

> ... proves that the rules are still being written

> for social network marketing in Asia. "We're not

> breaking any laws. We're just doing what any other

> Facebook user would do if he had the knowledge or

> time," he says.

>

> Talk about hypocrisy!

I just can't let this go.

Advising people on how to use the social networks is not 'Spamming', Hugenot's quotes in this article are absolutely fine and certainly not hypocritical and not part of the picture you try to paint.

Hal, you really are a bit of an unpleasant maggot aren't you? Bad taste in my mouth as I have defended you in the past. YUK. Go away.

[HAL9000]

Whether you like it or not, his occupation is probative to this thread ? a thread he started - Huguenot is a consultant on targeted advert spamming. And by including a link to the original source there is no deception on my part.

I'm surprised you don't see the hypocrisy in his attempt to expose someone who was allegedly practicing what he preaches - I guess it takes all sorts.

Argumentum ad hominem aside ? care to explain why it isn?t hypocrisy?

[RosieH]

HAL9000 Wrote:

> Talk about hypocrisy!

Talk about misrepresentation! For anyone reading, but not of a mind to look up the article in question, the above doesn't refer to Huguenot. HAL has simply chosen to smear Huguenot by dint of the fact that his comments appear in the same article.

That's pretty despicable HAL.

Edited because I realised that I unthinkingly colluded in HAL's spiteful cyber-stalking attempts to reveal the identiry of a fellow forumite, which I think is really low.

[HAL9000]

I agree that it is difficult to tell exactly who said what in that article. He appears to have been quoted four times although it is not clear - to me at least - what he is actually said to have said. In any event, the selected quotes are intended merely as an overview of his industry, which in retrospect, I should have made clearer. I apologise for any unintentional misattribution. The linked article is the definitive source and is there for all to read.

On the issue of misrepresentation:

Huguenot attempted to apply emotional pressure on Admin to take a stance on the deleted thread - as an industry insider he would be expected to know FaceBook's policy on suspension yet he cites it as justification for inviting legal action.

If Admin had fallen for the deception and an action resulted, the opposition's lawyers would have had a field day with this information. It would have, in my view, pole-axed any defence by introducing arguments such the ethics of using harvesting bots and cross-referenced demographic databases against hapless internet users, and so on.

A clever lawyer might develop an argument painting Huguenot's attack on another internet marketer as a ploy to undermine a rival business. The possibilities are many.

Furthermore, it could have opened up another can of worms: has Huguenot been harvesting and cross-referencing commercial information from the EDF itself, for example? The Forum's business, residential and family demographics are valuable resources when cross-referenced against other marketing databases (especially now with the new sections). Could that be why Huguenot has tried to stop someone else from muscling in on his territory - have ED forumites been used as guinea pigs for his harvester and cross-referencing bots?

RosieH (who provided the essential keywords that expedited my research - thank you) brought up the illegality of this type of marketing in the EU. Note that Huguenot operates from Singapore - a jurisdiction beyond EU and US laws. I don't know if that is significant or not, but it is relevant as part of the overall picture.

I would add that one would expect an ethical professional to have disclosed the fact that he was an industry insider when launching a unilateral attack against a rival internet marketing business.

So, in conclusion, I submit that introducing this information is perfectly valid given that Huguenot subjected the target of his attentions to much the same treatment: quid pro quo.

That?ll do for now.

[brum]

Yes Hal, that'll do for now. Please.

*sighs*....Despite our best efforts to deviate from it, some are still determined to continue childish arguing, which, for me at least, is a very unpleasant reading experience. I don't think anyone involved is showing themselves in a good light. In truth, I don't care two hoots what job Hugenot does, whether someone at a forum drinks 6 months ago felt snubbed, whether someone wishes to disprove so-called allegations.

For me, The forum is a place to go to chat, debate, have fun, create stimulating discussion, make good friends, meet lovers, inform, learn, be crude, feel part of a vibrant community. In other words, everything most of this thread isn't.

Oh and to make up new words like 'norkage'TMBob.

[KalamityKel]

Well Hal as you've already said it is simply from "your view". I don't understand where you justify this extreme character assisination or why you feel it necessary to pursue this discussion with such a personal and quite pathetic vandetta.

I'm sure you would never dream to attack an ED business in such a manner so why you see it excusable to attack a user for no reason but your poor interpretation and lack of solid factual information is beyond me.

shame on you!

[RosieH]

Biggest load of post-rationalisation crap I've ever read HAL. Staggeringly disingenuous.

I apologise to Huguenot for unwittingly outing him on the forum - I'm pretty sure that he'd already talked about what he does (which is how I knew) but I forgot about HAL's dubious cyber-stalking pastimes.

Pathetic.

[legalbeagle]

Well I feel really sad now. This is the worst I've seen the forum behave. Shame.

*Bob* and I are going to get drunk in the corner on free bubbly whilst pondering the merits of Jenny's right breast. Mockney, if you care to make up the pair, you know where we are.

Hic.

[Fuschia]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just can't let this go.

>

> Advising people on how to use the social networks

> is not 'Spamming', Hugenot's quotes in this

> article are absolutely fine and certainly not

> hypocritical and not part of the picture you try

> to paint.

>

Agreed. I didn't know that Hugenot had specific knowledge about what is allowed and not allowed in the world of marketing via social sites... now I do I put all the more store by his view that the individual discussed on the other thread had overstepped the mark in terms of what was acceptable and allowed by Facebook.

[Keef]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear Hal. You were doing rather well, and had the sympathy of many. Now you just look like a bit of a fraud.