View Single Post
Old 03-04-2010, 04:13 AM   #167
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 964
Default Re: The Jonathan Reed Hoax - Project Camelot impersonation on YouTube

Just some random thoughts.

Why not see the bright side of what has happened the past couple of days? We have learned an awful lot. For one we all gathered in the chatroom & became 'familiar' with eachother.

WE are Avalon! All of us.

I think the most important fact that has surfaced is, that if we want to keep this forum online as it is, we should take precautions that the events that took place, can't happen again.

Computers do not understand me, so don't ask me how, but there must be some people who do, at the forum.

And let's quit the power & control game.

Moderators & members stood side by side in the chatroom, which told me there was/is no power/control dispute among us.

There are 2 kinds of members: those who feed the forum with content & those who mainly comment on that content. One without the other doesn't work. So no one is more - or less - important than the other.

The 'forum-feeders' & moderators tend to cling together, because they invest precious time in PA, mainly to produce 'material' that has value for the development of all individual members & guests.

The quality of the content is not measured by the number of hits (views) a topic scores overnight, but how threads develop in the long run.

I've been working for 'commercial' tv, where everything is measured by ratings. Viewers + ad-bloc = $. So I've studied PA through my tv eyes. Which threads/topics score in which category. It's interesting to see that online members react mainly on the 'here & now' & guests tend to surf through the library, for instance.

PA has become a database/library of knowledge.

That is what the PTB would like to see disappear/shut down.

The above I’ve already posted on the ‘Bill Ryan chat’ thread as well, but in my opinion it applies to this thread as well.

I want to add something too.

There are only so many – or better – few ‘genuine’ whistleblowers around.
The moment they have blown the whistle on their topic, they’re pretty much done. When someone had something really interesting to tell, viewers/listeners want to hear more revelations from that person. But he told everything he knew, so there’s nothing more to say, no matter how hard you push him/her.

Than there is the category of ‘whistleblowers’ who sort of get addicted to the ‘attention /fame’ they achieved with their original revelation & they start to become ‘repeaters’, claiming that they are blowing whistles. (Deagle, Peterson, etc) Some of those make a living out of it, attending the ‘Conference cirquit’, & in order to remain ‘hot’, start to fabricate ‘secrets’.

The problem with a regular ‘whistleblower’ radio show, is that the limited number of ‘genuine’ guests makes it hardly possible to air an exiting show on a regular bases.

So the choice that should be made than is you either broadcast only then when you have a truly genuine guest who has something new to tell, or you choose for weekly broadcasts, where 60% of your guests are either repeaters or straightforward hoaxers.

The more often you have the latter category of guests on your show, the less reliable your program becomes.

I think that this is - in a nutshell, the dilemma Project Camelot is facing.
TRANCOSO is offline   Reply With Quote