Sphinn - Michael Martinez Busted: Lying Online Doesn't Work

12
Sphinn It!

Michael Martinez Busted: Lying Online Doesn't Work

Posted By: ANOnym 93 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com)
Category: Water Cooler

Michael Vandemar brilliantly debunks statements made against him by Michael Martinez, showing that lying online with plenty of evidence available, probably, shouldn't be done.

15 Comments

Who Desphunn This (5)

Comments

from Burgo 93 days ago #

Votes: 4 | Vote:

+ -

Sigh. I didn't want to desphinn or anything, and due respect to both Michaels... but this kind of thing is exactly what we don't need in our industry. Just my 2c.

from mvandemar 93 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Ok, Burgo and Halfdeck, I wasn't engaging in any kind of flame war. Michael didn't call me a dumbass or say that I didn't know what I was talking about, or that I was an jerk... he didn't post opinions of me, which is something he would of course have a right to do.

What he *did* do is outright lie, claiming that I did things that simply never happened. All I did was to simply post links and quotes showing what was actually said.

And believe it or not, that is a valuable anti-lesson in reputation management online. This actually happens quite a bit. Anyone ever hear of Starposition/Robert Sexton?

from webprofessor 93 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

Save the flamewar bs for your own site unless its good. This stuff is just crap and irrelevent to everyone but the parties involved. For a good example of sphinn worthy flamewars read DaveN's blog or some old threadwatch stuff.

from mvandemar 93 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

Btw... his post with the flame about me (which was an actual flame) is sitting on the front page.

from Skitzzo 93 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

So pointing out that someone lied is now flaming? When did that happen? Are we really so afraid of conflict that we can't point out when someone is wrong (or outright lies)?

Also, as mvandemar points out, the post where Michael takes the shot at mvand is sitting on the front page. I assume everyone that desphunn this post also desphunn that one? If not, I think that's a bit unfair.

from webprofessor 93 days ago #

Votes: 2 | Vote:

+ -

If I had read it I would of. Personally I don't care if flames are posted on here with one caveat. It should be entertaining or involving someone notable.

from Skitzzo 93 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Webprof, here's my comment on the thread for the attack post: http://sphinn.com/story/57359#c47153

You can read the piece that Mvand is responding to through that link as well. The post went hot here on sphinn thanks in part to the likes of HalfDeck sphinning it despite a blatant flame thrown in at the end.

Now, when the person attack responds (with direct contradicting quotes from his attacker) it's labled by some people as a "flame war"? Give me a break.

from eKstreme 93 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

So let me get this right. If I create an experiment, get some results, but then destroy the experiment (in this case removing the links) and then write up about it, and in the write up flame someone, that's OK.

But if I don't hide my flame behind an experiment that cannot be confirmed or refuted because it's gone now, then that's not OK?

Flame wars are not usually a community's problem, but in this case the Sphinn community made a flame go popular. That makes it Sphinn's problem and so doesn't deserve a desphinn.

from Halfdeck 93 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

"What he *did* do is outright lie, claiming that I did things that simply never happened."

Ok, even if he lied, you could have debunked his claims without getting personal and playing this out in public - but you didn't. This post hurt your rep instead of bolstering it and having this sit on the front page will only make you look bad.

"Btw... his post with the flame about me (which was an actual flame) is sitting on the front page."

Unless you got baby skin that's not a real flame. He just said you flamed him multiple times (big deal).

Sure, I understand you defending yourself but some things you say in the deleted comment do cross the line. If you think building negative karma does your rep any good, go ahead, encourage more people to sphinn this up to the front page.

from neyne 93 days ago #

Votes: 4 | Vote:

+ -

can we just get back to the SEO ?

from webprofessor 93 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

Essentially yes because the other sphinn ( which I haven't read other than the sphinn blurb) is based on the premise of an experiment not a flame. Sphinning a blatant flame holds the sphinn to a different set of merits... things like: are the people important enough for me to read it? Is the flame entertaining? Do I give a damn about these people?

Had the other sphinn been entitled "person XXX is an idiot" AND I had noticed it I would have desphunn that to. OR had this sphinn been under the premise of "Why MM experiment is broken" then I would have not even bothered to even notice it to desphinn it.

Basically the set of criteria people use to judge the worthiness of a sphinn is determined by how you frame the issue presented.

from theGypsy 93 days ago #

Votes: 5 | Vote:

+ -

the ever enigmatic Lisa once said something like such;

Never speak badly or others in blog posts
Never respond to those that speak badly of you

As a seasoned ranting veteren, I have learned to take this to heart the last while. I have no interest in dumping on peeps and will not respond in kind - but that's just me.

As for what doesn't belong on Sphinn is another thing... there have been plenty of asides and personal nature posts here (both positive and negative). To those that want the 'Web Marketing Times' you might want to consider that this is SOCIAL media and that kind of stuff is not only entertaining, but often very SOCIAL.... he he...

from mvandemar 93 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Dude, reputation management IS part of the marketing industry, and trying to counter verifiable facts is not the way to go about it. You're continuing to call it a flame does not make it so. Get over it already.

from Halfdeck 93 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

"You're continuing to call it a flame does not make it so."

Funny, that's what I just told you. You and your cheerleaders are the ones making a raucus over this little post, not me; now get back to work.

from Wit 93 days ago #

Votes: 5 | Vote:

+ -

As I've said elsewhere already: I expected nothing less from Smackdown. It's the Private Eye of blogs (only withouy the made-up bits ;)).

This is about debunking, getting rid of the FUD. There's too much FUD online... Personal FUD needs personal debunking. After that, people can all go out and grab a beer together.

Who Desphunn This Topic what is desphinn?

Avatar Halfdeck 07/09/2008 11:12pm

people are free to indulge in flame wars and character assassinations but do me a favor and keep it to yourself and off the front page of sphinn

Avatar g1smd 07/10/2008 02:51pm

If you hadn't said here that you had called each other names, I would never have known it had happened... that would have been just fine.

Avatar webprofessor 07/10/2008 06:41am

Keep your personal problems and flame wars on your own site.

Avatar mphung 07/10/2008 06:28am

While I enjoy a flamewar as much as the next person (no, not really), Sphinn is supposed to be about how to be a good internet marketer. Desphunn for being unhelpful and too lame for Sphinn.

Avatar baiduyou 07/10/2008 08:04am