I cut short the comment in the middle because it was just way too long. I wouldn’t be surprised if the anonymous comment was from Sam Sethi. The IP of the comment was out of the Netherlands so I don’t know if he’s out that way or not.

I’m with you on this one. One of the reasons I wrote this post was for the benefit of those who get the short end of the stick. You have supporters.

Rob

There’s a good reason why I don’t allow anonymous comments on my blog and that reason is well illustrated above. What you’ve got up there may look like a perfectly legitimate comment by an editor loyal to blognation but I’d bet you a grand that it isn’t.

You may not have noticed it, but “Scam” Sethi has an interesting habit of making self serving posts either under assumed names, anonymously, or even using the actual names of editors on for the now defunct blognation.

If you doubt, check out the comments on the TechCrunch posts where Sam impersonates Ewan Spence and then admits having done so.

What makes the above comment particularly unfortunate for your blog is that not only is this Scam trying to make himself look a little less pathetic (and failing) but it is a simple matter to prove that the comment is rife with lies that no editor - even the most delusional - would have ever made.

What’s more the editors that were dumb enough to remain loyal to Scam Sethi to a one made robot like comments of support adjacent to my original open letter each using his real name in the comment. Having done that, why would they then comment anonymously on a blog that ( no offense) receives only a small fraction on the traffic that they have already seen on TechCrunch?

Moreover the comment itself is a dead giveaway. Scam is specifically trying to deny the very things I asserted in my open letter (assertions for which I can easily provide you with incontrovertible proof if you wish).

I can guarantee you that no editor was informed that we wouldn’t be paid until funding had been secured. We were all under the impression that initial funding HAD ALREADY BEEN SECURED.

There’s more but I’m sure you get the point. He lied about Funding back in August to the entire team. Prior to that he lied about funding to get me on the team and then he lied to my face again about funding when I was in the UK at his request.

I think this should be sufficient to convince you of the wisdom in not permitting anonymous comments - or at least being especially careful any time you are dealing with a topic in when Scam “the worm” Sethi has taken any sort of an interest.

-Nuff Said.

Oliver “the exworminator” Starr

I have no doubt that Loic is charming. I’ve seen people comment the same about Sam Sethi as well. Not sure about Mr. Arrington. Unfortunately I think they all could use a little more realistic feedback in their ventures.

We saw with Edgeio that having a top of the line A-list blogger as a founder can’t help save a company. Scoble obviously couldn’t make a difference at PodTech under the ‘editorial’ model. So the theory that A-listers can pump something up enough to build a sustainable business or get it sold is quickly becoming a questionable one.

Thanks for jumping in Mark. We need more conversation on hot topics, not less.

It is sad that certain well educated entrepreneurs see the need to keep bending the rules to suit themselves. I guess playing fairly is too slow. Glad to see I’m not the only one who was kind of aghast at the Loren Seesmic post and almost instantaneous highlight post by Mike Arrington on Techcrunch with Loic’s mixed rhetoric of outrage morphing to almost “mon cheri” faux adoration, after his partner in Seesmic Arrington made it clear to him that this opened the door wide to hype Seesmic. Wink, wink, nudege, nudge.

Loic seems like a charming guy but what I see mainly is yet another guy trying to hawk a a product that doesn’t have a financial model but with adequate support from a-list blogger partner friends can probably get enough ROI for the inner circle of cool kids when they golden parachute on the back end. Just sayin.

The fact that the comment is anonymous reinforces my main point. Individuals don’t want to identify themselves because of the forces at play in the blogosphere.

The Arrington sabotage theory is one that I don’t personally subscribe to with respect to Blognation. But those who feel it has merit should speak on their own blogs.

With respect to VC funding for Blognation. I’d love it if someone paid me to blog about social media every day. So I can see why people would join the group. But Oliver’s story about the promises that were made and broken repeatedly seems to be holding up well. Even Mr. Sethi admits he fibbed, with the excuse that he wanted to, “put Arrington off the scent…”

But that’s all done and I’m sure everyone wants to put that behind them. I’m not going to address or comment on that here again. I will state thay if the ten other editors feel they’ve been wronged by forces other than Mr. Sethi they should speak out on that. And if they don’t speak out then who or what is stopping them from doing so?

None of us editors were employees, we were simply freelance contractors. I knew I was joining a startup that was seeking funding and that it was a risk.

10 of 13 editors remained loyal to the project until the end, why would we do that. Because we were in conversation with the VC and knew the funding was delayed but was coming before Christmas until it was sabotaged.

The fact that Oliver and Debi had been excluded from the team a few weeks earlier might explain some of their noise.

The one common theme you might note in your post is the involvement of Arrington. There in lies one problem.