So I’ve finally got an answer.  Readers of my blog may remember my article: https://openbytes.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/you-know-you-have-made-it-when/

Asking for evidence of allegations that were being made against me.  So here is the answer I received, but before I give you that, let me remind you of what was put on that site:

Used to troll MS Watch at some point. Then went trolling Neowin withsome help. He “exposed” Neowin as a “Windows shill site”, which is akin to exposing fsf.org as a “Stallman shill site”, but you can’t beat investigative journalism of this caliber. Goblin is quick on the trigger but a bit slow on the uptake. He also patrols the ‘net for evil and reports back.”

Now you’ve read that, as you can see from the other article I asked the site via email to provide evidence of their claims against me.  Here is their first email answer:

Hello Goblin,


I think you are confused as to what the point of my "blog" is. For
example, when I say "exposed Neowin as a shill site" I'm not
attributing that to you, but to Schestowitz:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_
thread/thread/780dcde1be7a38d9

Like other people he uses to augment his prodigious output, you're
just a cog in the machine (no disrespect meant to you here), so I'm
less interested in what *you* are saying than in how *he* is using
that information. Case in point, he's already using your post about me
in the same way (don't you think it's interesting how he's been using
your post, which refers to a single paragraph of a single post of
mine, as a sort of bullet point for the past few days with no context
and not even a link to the offending material?) I believe he calls
people like you "useful idiots" (again his words). Quick to be used to
prop up his arguments, quick to be discarded among ridicule and
accusations if you start to veer off message.

I thought about replacing the links about MS Watch you referenced with
this: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/01/uber-puppet/
But after thinking about it a bit more I realized that MS Watch is
(was) really no different in a way than COLA, so it's hard to tell who
is trolling and who is not. So I'll just remove the reference
completely. I hope that's agreeable to you.

The "quick on the trigger" part is an important example of how these
witch hunts can go wrong. I have many more examples of this. So that
stays.

Finally, as to the "reports back" thing, it's just another example of
the witch hunt thing, which would be all well and good if it would
stay in his chat room, but unfortunately most of the time it doesn't.
Judging from how important "cheap hits" seem to be to you, I suppose
you're OK with him publishing things like that as long as you get some
links back to your (as of a few months ago) largely unknown blog. That
stays too.

And you are right BTW, to enclose the word blog in quotes when you
refer to my little effort. I wish I could have used a wiki instead,
but I suppose I'll make do  :) 

Publish this, don't publish it; link to me or don't. It doesn't matter
one bit to me. I will use all this later anyway. I just wanted to
reply and explain why I said what I said.

If you have any other concerns about anything I write, please do not
hesitate to contact me. I'm always open to corrections and
clarifications.

Cheers.

So I ask the readers to look at the description and then this persons “evidence”…Looks like back peddling to me.  The first Roy knew about my dealing with certain Neowin reporters was when the article was published on my blog.   Roy also linked to it so people could read it in context.   So readers there’s this persons evidence against me in respect on the first allegation which they now seem to want to back peddle.  Again I believe them a liar (incase it wasn’t clear before)

Next up we move onto the new allegation that I am somehow a “cog” in Roy’s machine.  What rubbish, firstly because my conversations with everyone on BN are documented (and mostly revolve around non Microsoft subjects) secondly because myself and Roy have VASTLY different views on many subjects (since you are a COLA user you will know the post I wrote in regards to that) and thirdly because the challenging I have done of what I perceive as false information (either intentionally or not) does not even make up for 15% of what this blog is about.  Check it yourself.

Anything that this poster claims Roy thinks/says is only fact if Roy confirms it himself and in anycase its accademic. I was challenging people BEFORE I had even met Roy and infact the reason this blog exists is because of one the MS faithful on Microsoft Watch.  Please check the dates yourself.  I personally do not see challenging people over misleading tech posts as an issue and surely is the point of the forum or comment section?

Next our “defender of justice” has this to say:

The "quick on the trigger" part is an important example of how these
witch hunts can go wrong. I have many more examples of this. So that
stays
-

and again I say liar.  In the time you took to write that you could have provided evidence, you havent.  There is no witch-hunt here.  Take a look at the conversations with Winobs for example, a Windows advocate and a very nice chap.  I’ve had quite a few decent discussions.    Why?  because he doesn’t post misleading comments and has an honest held belief in what he says.  Take a look at the MS employee’s that have posted on this very site.  Have they been tret with anything other than courtesy?  Didn’t a Microsoft employee say on this very blog I seemed a nice guy and would like to have a drink with me?

I personally dont see myself engaging in a witchhunt and yet again you seek to make claims with no evidence what so ever.

In regards to the Linux advocate I challenged, I wont argue the point, you wont provide evidence (so its pointless), but luckly the link above will allow users to read that I could care less where misleading information comes from.  On this occasion it was a Linux user, I make no apologies and in-fact if you look at the comments that were made to me, I still continued on with my article regardless.  Again, I repeat, I put it to you that you are a liar.  It is my opinion that you haven’t provided anything new (in terms of evidence) which to me says that you are now trying to back track on your original statement.

Talking though of me challenging people, if you care to look over on COLA in the last few days you will see I challenged the views of the user “7” a well known Linux advocate on that newsgroup, that’s further proof that a/ I post to my own agenda (freedom of choice of users through informed decision) and b/ I could care less if the poster uses Linux/Windows or a ZX81.

Now readers, keep in mind that I ask for clarification on their  “evidence”, keep in mind their first response….I hope you see the irony when they say:

If you have any other concerns about anything I write, please do not
hesitate to contact me. I'm always open to corrections and
clarifications.
-

As for using things later, that’s a little coincidental as you are kindly contributing to some points I am making in a very detailed report to the FTC.

Open to clarification?  I have asked and you have not clarified anything nor have you justified your position with evidence.  The people reading this are the judge I am happy to let them decide.

So readers that’s the second part.  I hope you enjoyed it.   I hope you have been provided with enough material to make an informed decision.  Pt3 will continue with the second email this user sent and will probably be posted tomorrow.
Goblin – bytes4free@googlemail.com