Anyone wrote:Ever heard of clients? Ever heard of editorial input and/or control? Ever heard of contracts and remuneration?
Have
you? You've me one good reason to think TDA has any of that at Breitbart? As far as I can tell, there's no difference between his relationship with them and mine with this place, accept that he has to live with the fact he can't post immediately and sometimes they'll simply reject a submission. And accept it he seems to do, as the price to pay for their larger reach.
I don't know why you persist along this path that somehow, the life and times, and ways and means, of a critic like TDA, is a mystery to me. I know this shit, because it's my business to know. That's the difference between why I'm here, and why you're here.
I've forensically reviewed many of his Breithart articles myself, so I have a pretty good idea he's not being controlled editorially in the sense you probably meant, as in "reasonably academic" (that you flew right past that point is noted - academic scrutiny in action). If anything, he might be being steered, consciously or subconsciously, to alter his content.
I'll repeat, because you blew right past that too, the quality of my work posted here, stacks up against any perception of quality you want to attribute to his "published" body of work. It can be disputed or even wholly rejected only for the reasons people might dispute his work for Breitbart. There is a crucial difference however. Wikipedians don't have the stick to beat me with that they have due to his choice of publisher. They have to address my work on the merits alone, or not at all, so no surprise they choose the latter, really.
Take a look at what he has managed to get published on Breitbart, as seen in your list. I have a hard time believing that reflects his true areas of interest as a Wikipedia critic. Far easier to believe he's made peace with the fact that if he wants to write a piece for them on, say, Framgate, he's gonna need to write two or three pieces that more overtly play to their audience to do it. Me, I can write what I want, nobody can point to a piece I've done here and say, ha! you only wrote that because Sucks! wants you to. For all the issues I'm having right now with how this place is being mismanaged, being told what I should and should and should not write about, and so by extension what I can and cannot be seen to be possessing as a critical philosophy, is not one of them. My work is my own, my philosophy clear and uncompromised.
My pieces on Framgate have been well received by those who don't have a vested interest in decrying it as crank nonsense (the asshole hemegony of Wikipedia for whom the truth of Framgate can never be acknowledged). His piece was easily dismissed not only by those who need to reject it, need to declare it as the heresy of an unperson even, but also by those outside Wikipedia who have the liberty of accepting those parts they do agree with, but can't or won't because of his choices in how he got it out there, both his choice of publisher and his choice of words, which rather made it clear why he was writing the piece.
Shit, the fact he has to admit in his byline that he too is ArbCom banned and disputes it for the same reasons Fram claims he got an unfair trial, is an easy out for anyone not minded to get into the weeds. And getting into the weeds is certainly what you have to do if you're gonna read one of his pieces. Why bother, when my piece laid out the bare facts for the uninitiated, the who, what, where, when and why, and nobody can accuse me of having been guided by bias or an attempt to lead the reader to an unsupported conclusion, because all such accusations inevitably turn out to be unproven, the butthurt whinings of asshole Wikipedians and their Wikipediocracy cousins.
You name it, and people all across the critic space from all different venues, have admitted, often begrudgingly, that my work is pretty darn good. My critics are usually marked by personal grievance, people jealous of my abilities and my freedoms. I directly challenge them to find a flaw in my work, to make an actual case I screwed up, and it never happens. All you get is generic nonsense, the sort of mindless rubbish that is easily dismissed. All this is because I apply my own editorial standards, and I have sufficient background and training to be able to do it.
If you don't really know what the guy does or why he does it, if you're only speculating on his situation at Breitbart, and even then on the rather foolish basis that Breitbart is somehow a publisher of repute, how far do you think you're gonna get with telling me what's what?
If you knew anything about me, you'd know the reason I choose not to run my own blog or reach out to publishers. I've been offered many opportunities by people in the critic space who recognise the quality of my work, but for one reason or another, usually because it would involve compromising my editorial standards to agree to their terms, I've politely declined all offers. Posting on a place like this, until the current difficulties, has always served my strategic goals as a serious critic. You can disagree, but I don't think you've been involved in this stuff nearly enough to really tell other people what works and what doesn't.
If TDA were ever to let it be known he considers his situation as superior to the point he'd actually refer to me as "pond life" in comparison, a boy to his mighty Collosus, well, it's a mistake he'd be regretting for the rest of his days, as many others have done, to this day. Just because these places are largely unregulated, doesn't mean you can't pay a high price for letting your mouth write cheques your work can't cash. You ask Vigilant, does he regret treating me like some punk ass bitch now? Does he want to go back and choose not to utter fighting words in my direction, to think before he speaks? Do you?
If TDA had listened to me way back when, his greatest achievement to date would have been breaking the one story he wants so desperately to break. He thought he had a different way. And as good as it is that he's got stuff out there, he's not done what he set out to achieve, and so I measure him by that standard.
I am fortunate enough to have seen enough fruit from my labours that even if it ends now due to the current crisis in mismanagement of my current platform, it will have been worth it, and nobody will be able to make the case otherwise, without of course having made the mistake of not paying attention to what I've said about what is achievable in this field and how you measure success, particularly as a pseudonymous writer.
You don't need luck in this game to be seen to be a winner. You 'gotta do the hard yards. You gotta smash who needs to be smashed, right in their goddamned shit talkin' mouths. You gotta be relentless, vicious, uncompromising. But you also gotta have a Code. Be capable of inspiring other people to Great things. Whiny little bitches, pacifists, collaborators and cowards, they're not your Brothers. They don't share your goals, don't deserve your collective rewards in the future to come. They belong to the Never Never.
You gotta be the
Autumn Wind. You gotta be a Raider.
A baby killing village burning crop stealing Raider. A true 76'er.
Someone who fucks Timmy's Cowboys right in the ass, and make no mistake!
Knock on wood if you're with me.
HTD.
)