rarebitt

On her IndieStone post Chloe said tht the IndieGoGo campaign was not her idea and taht she was against it in the begining. Did you know that? If you did, did you ever mention it when you wrote about the fundraiser.

I can't any reference to that anywhere else. The only place to read it is the IndoeStone post which you have to fond an archived version of since it has been deleted.

You seems to suggest that Niezo was indiferrent or even encouraging to you publishing further details and lied about ordering you not to. However the communications you divulged seems to be consistent with his public statements.

1) He clearly states he himself would not publish any further information. 2) He says he fears negative reaction. He warns you that there will probably be catastrophic consequences.

This isn't anything else but discouraging. And then he said you need to do more research.

Now you either didn't or you did, found out something new and ran it past Niezo without informing him. Either way, how can you claim he is lying bout wanting you to run the story?

This is nothing but he said she said.

Now I empathize with you greatly, but I feel you are just trying to alleviate your blame by sharing it.

And why throw under the bus people who were not familiar with the situation as you were? You were the one who had a communication with Chloe not them.

Again you got a lot of shit thrown on you some maybe undeserved.

Thanks for your reply's Allistair.

I wanted to clear something about the timeline of the events. As far as I see it: You first posted the information about the fraud on twitter. After the whole fallout Niero claims he wanted you to keep silent. You then started doing FAQs and divulging more information on twitter and outed Niero, Johnathan Holmes and others Destructoid writers. And that is the reason actually for to get layed off. Is that right and can put dates to this?

Why do you feel Patricia Hernandez had a conflict of interest when she wrote about you? Even if it was Anna Anthopy what difference would it make? They were both NOT personally involved with the situation.

This argument sounds to me like this basically - Somebody obviously had a negative opinion of you so s/he shouldn't have written about you at all.