White Moose Man v "Social Influencer"...

Stuckforcash

No idea why people are so in love with this guy.

Oh look another media whore stirring up controversy for attention/money. How refreshing...

fritzelly

riffmongous wrote: »

You can tell her from her profile picture in fairness

Because we all trust profile pics...

riffmongous

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Yeah, just like my avatar is an accurate representation of what I look like and my age.

It was on Facebook, no need to act thick

riffmongous

fritzelly wrote: »

Because we all trust profile pics...

Have you ever been on Facebook?

Buford T Justice

Stuckforcash wrote: »

No idea why people are so in love with this guy.

Oh look another media whore stirring up controversy for attention/money. How refreshing...

Personally, I don't particularly like him, I find that his snapchat is over indulgent and he irritates me quite a lot from a personal perspective. He spends half his days on holidays while the rest of us shmucks work, and the other half talking about how everyone he meets is 'very special'

When it comes to how he runs his business however, i think he's brilliant. I love his attitude of how customers can be wankers and he's not afraid to admit it or call them on it. In an age of kiss ass-ery when the customer is always right and, lets never upset a customer (the horror) he's not afraid to tell them to fuck off when needs be, and I think its quite refreshing. Like the video of the woman who scoffed her food down and never said a word, paid and left but left a bad review. He was dead right to call her out on it. She should have complained to the staff who could have done something about it, but chose not to and was rightly called on it imo.

fritzelly

riffmongous wrote: »

Have you ever been on Facebook?

Did you miss the sarcasm?

Buford T Justice

riffmongous wrote: »

It was on Facebook, no need to act thick

You're argument is invalid, for many many reasons.

glenfieldman

riffmongous wrote: »

It was on Facebook, no need to act thick

Hey Hey Hey, stall the balls,
No need for cyber fisty cuffs at this godly hour

fritzelly

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Personally, I don't particularly like him, I find that his snapchat is over indulgent and he irritates me quite a lot from a personal perspective. He spends half his days on holidays while the rest of us shmucks work, and the other half talking about how everyone he meets is 'very special'

When it comes to how he runs his business however, i think he's brilliant. I love his attitude of how customers can be wankers and he's not afraid to admit it or call them on it. In an age of kiss ass-ery when the customer is always right and, lets never upset a customer (the horror) he's not afraid to tell them to fuck off when needs be, and I think its quite refreshing. Like the video of the woman who scoffed her food down and never said a word, paid and left but left a bad review. He was dead right to call her out on it. She should have complained to the staff who could have done something about it, but chose not to and was rightly called on it imo.

From that pic she couldn't get it down fast enough

Buford T Justice

fritzelly wrote: »

From that pic she couldn't get it down fast enough

My point exactly, she'd much rather leave a negative review than afford an establishment the opportunity to fix whatever fictitious issue she had, and that's not on. If I was in his shoes, I'd have done the same.

riffmongous

Buford T Justice wrote: »

You're argument is invalid, for many many reasons.

Except it is valid, the girl was 14. Now if your man thought it was a fake profile of someone pretending to be a young girl that would be a bit weird to be drawing attention to it

Buford T Justice

riffmongous wrote: »

Except it is valid, the girl was 14. Now if your man thought it was a fake profile of someone pretending to be a young girl that would be a bit weird to be drawing attention to it

Say for a moment it was - does that mean she gets free reign because of her age? Do people of a certain age not have to live with the consequences of their actions, and should everyone make subjective judgements based on a profile pic before taking an individual to task over the potential damage they are doing to their professional reputation.

I agree she was stupid to do it in the first place and most likely lives(d) in the social justice warrior bubble, and so did he. Once he found out her age it was removed, and you can't say fairer than that.
It's not my responsibility to find out how old you are or make that assumption about you based on a profile pic before I reply to something you potentially say to me.
None of this, however takes away from the fact that the response was commensurate with her actions. She shouldn't have a) left a fake review, or b) involved herself in something that didn't concern her and none of it would have happened.

There are consequences for your actions, and people need to take responsibility for that.

Venom

riffmongous wrote: »

Except it is valid, the girl was 14. Now if your man thought it was a fake profile of someone pretending to be a young girl that would be a bit weird to be drawing attention to it

It's not in any way valid. He had no way of knowing her age as if that even matters, only that she lied in a review of his business that could cause damage to it. He was 100% correct in calling her out so publicy because if he didn't and the matter was handled quitely, the usual "no smoke without fire" types would still be harping on about it.

Do you seriously expect peope to believe that when seeing a bad review of their business, knowing it's complete lies, the owner is going to actually consider it might be a kid acting the bollocks on the internet and just let it go!

_Dara_

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

My favourite is when lovin dublin asked a pub that they had previously pilloried if they would give them a free christmas party in exchange for a write up:

That's hilarious. Lovin' Dublin has no principles.

There was furore over an article they wrote in which they laid into Roddy Doyle. Now, I'm not someone who thinks Doyle is above criticism. This was many people's problem with the article and that's silly, IMO. But the reason others criticised it was because the same writer that wrote the article had very recently before that written articles glowingly praising Doyle. So this one criticising him blatantly came across as trying desperately to be provocative.

end of the road

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Say for a moment it was - does that mean she gets free reign because of her age? Do people of a certain age not have to live with the consequences of their actions, and should everyone make subjective judgements based on a profile pic before taking an individual to task over the potential damage they are doing to their professional reputation.

I agree she was stupid to do it in the first place and most likely lives(d) in the social justice warrior bubble, and so did he. Once he found out her age it was removed, and you can't say fairer than that.
It's not my responsibility to find out how old you are or make that assumption about you based on a profile pic before I reply to something you potentially say to me.
None of this, however takes away from the fact that the response was commensurate with her actions. She shouldn't have a) left a fake review, or b) involved herself in something that didn't concern her and none of it would have happened.

There are consequences for your actions, and people need to take responsibility for that.

consiquences and responsibility are irrelevant here as the adult overstepped the mark. there is no excuse or justification for his behaviour and no amount of ranting and whining about consiquences and responsibility will change the reality. he was 100 times more wrong then she was as he is an adult.
there are no defences for his actions, i'm afraid.

riffmongous

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Say for a moment it was - does that mean she gets free reign because of her age? Do people of a certain age not have to live with the consequences of their actions, and should everyone make subjective judgements based on a profile pic before taking an individual to task over the potential damage they are doing to their professional reputation.

I agree she was stupid to do it in the first place and most likely lives(d) in the social justice warrior bubble, and so did he. Once he found out her age it was removed, and you can't say fairer than that.
It's not my responsibility to find out how old you are or make that assumption about you based on a profile pic before I reply to something you potentially say to me.
None of this, however takes away from the fact that the response was commensurate with her actions. She shouldn't have a) left a fake review, or b) involved herself in something that didn't concern her and none of it would have happened.

There are consequences for your actions, and people need to take responsibility for that.

Not free reign B but I think when they are still young they need to be treated differently than adults, we do have childrens courts after all.

And yes I do think he should have made a subjective call based on the girls profile which does clearly indicate how young she is, he could just have deleted the review, reported her to facebook and moved on, not calling on all his fans to troll her, like some weird sort of mob justice.

end of the road

Venom wrote: »

It's not in any way valid. He had no way of knowing her age as if that even matters, only that she lied in a review of his business that could cause damage to it. He was 100% correct in calling her out so publicy because if he didn't and the matter was handled quitely, the usual "no smoke without fire" types would still be harping on about it.

Do you seriously expect peope to believe that when seeing a bad review of their business, knowing it's complete lies, the owner is going to actually consider it might be a kid acting the bollocks on the internet and just let it go!

he wasn't correct in "calling her out" publically, he was just looking for attention as per usual IMO. if he wants to "call out" people who leave bad reviews, go to the courts with a liable case.
also "calling out" people doesn't stop the "no smoke without fire brigade"

fritzelly

end of the road wrote: »

he wasn't correct in "calling her out" publically, he was just looking for attention as per usual IMO. if he wants to "call out" people who leave bad reviews, go to the courts with a liable case.
also "calling out" people doesn't stop the "no smoke without fire brigade"

She was lucky he didn't decide to sue her!

riffmongous

Venom wrote: »

It's not in any way valid. He had no way of knowing her age as if that even matters, only that she lied in a review of his business that could cause damage to it. He was 100% correct in calling her out so publicy because if he didn't and the matter was handled quitely, the usual "no smoke without fire" types would still be harping on about it.

Do you seriously expect peope to believe that when seeing a bad review of their business, knowing it's complete lies, the owner is going to actually consider it might be a kid acting the bollocks on the internet and just let it go!

Ah come on but he did, you see then profile photo and click on the profile from the review.

Delete/ report and move on, like every other business out there.

end of the road

fritzelly wrote: »

She was lucky he didn't decide to sue her!

maybe, but chances are she would have got a slap on the wrist and been told not to do it again.
of course normal people would just report the review to facebook and move on.

_Dara_

Buford T Justice wrote: »

When it comes to how he runs his business however, i think he's brilliant. I love his attitude of how customers can be wankers and he's not afraid to admit it or call them on it. In an age of kiss ass-ery when the customer is always right...

That age has long since past so I don't think he's being in any way maverick. I've have a few bosses down the years who recognised when a customer wasn't work keeping but they dealt with it with a modicum of class unlike him.

If his parents didn't own the hotel, he'd be long since fired. He only gets away with for that reason and because it's budget accommodation which is a fairly precious commodity in any capital city. He attracts some customers with his antics but most certainly puts others off. I'd never stay there personally. One would be afraid to make a legitimate complaint to him (and every single one of us has had to make a legitimate complaint at some stage). I don't believe his approach overall brings in much more business when you consider than he probably puts off as many people as he attracts. A moderate approach would likely work just as well. Let's not pretend he's any kind of rebel. He's in a privileged position and is exploiting it like an overgrown spoilt child.

Brendan Bendar

end of the road wrote: »

consiquences and responsibility are irrelevant here as the adult overstepped the mark. there is no excuse or justification for his behaviour and no amount of ranting and whining about consiquences and responsibility will change the reality. he was 100 times more wrong then she was as he is an adult.
there are no defences for his actions, i'm afraid.

These self appointed liggers need to be confronted, mate.

andekwarhola

Didn't read the whole thread and I'm know it's been pointed out that surely this undermines her (and these influencers and review sites) because it's upfront that they'll obviously even big up a place they think is mediocre for a freebie. I guess their followers don't think fake reviews are problematic.

I don't care about fools like her or the fact that she got exposed but I too would avoid that cafe now because of how annoying and sanctimonious this and other stunts are.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

rawn wrote: »

WMC:

"I've just deleted my last post as I've learnt that the writer of the one star review was a 14-year old girl and she was getting abuse from followers. I'd like to remind everyone that the reader of a Facebook review does not know the age of its author nor whether the review is a piss take or a dare. When you write a fake negative review on a business you are seeking to damage the reputation of that business. I hope this incident will have taught the individual in question, and others, not to be writing false reviews on establishments for the purpose of piss-taking.

P.S. We have always and will always have soya milk in the cafe."

Reply from the original poster of the review:

"Thankyou Paul I really do appreciate you deleting it . I do understand that I shouldn't of posted the fake review and that it was wrong to do and thanks to the people that understood me.it was stupid of me to post the fake review and I truly apologise , I'm sure the white moose cafe is a great place and I have learnt to be more safer on the internet and to not do anything like this again . Thankyou again Paul.

WMC:

No worries at all, *name*. Sorry for any abuse by some of the followers. Call into the cafe sometime and I'll buy you a coffee! Cows milk only though!!!


.... Followed by many happy, supportive comments directed towards the reviewer.

I dictinctly remember a guy commenting something negative on his status once. Turns out this guy owned a barbershop, had a business facebook page but wasn't very active, i.e. Had a modest following. The negative comment wasn't even bad but his business facebook was shared over social media platforms and followers were actively encouraged to bombard that mans business with (fake) negative reviews from people who had never been there. Hes addicted to attention seeking

Mountainsandh

Yeah sure, I don't like your man either. I don't follow anyone, whether him or her, whether on Twitter, Snapchat, or whatnot.
But I like that he's calling out bloggers on how vacuous their "reviews" are, and how meaningless their self-appointed "job", when they expect to be paid in free stays and freebies in general.

"Social influencers" decide that they're going to use business and public and attempt to link the 2 in order to live a great life.

If it works for them, good, but they also have to accept that businesses and sections of the public are under no obligation to ride along with their idea, and that some businesses and some sections of the public will (oh shocker) disagree with this as a business idea. And whatever businesses and public disagree are perfectly entitled to express that publicly.

If a social influencer has a problem receiving feedback from one of the main actors in their business model, then they shouldn't engage in that career.

Kermit.de.frog

Heat_Wave wrote: »

She was 14.

14.

She did a silly thing.

I'd say some children around that age have more brains and less ignorance than some adults these days to be honest.

Youth does not automatically equal ignorance.

Having said that he didn't know and would surely never have responded had he had known.

retro:electro

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Personally, I don't particularly like him, I find that his snapchat is over indulgent and he irritates me quite a lot from a personal perspective. He spends half his days on holidays while the rest of us shmucks work, and the other half talking about how everyone he meets is 'very special'

When it comes to how he runs his business however, i think he's brilliant. I love his attitude of how customers can be wankers and he's not afraid to admit it or call them on it. In an age of kiss ass-ery when the customer is always right and, lets never upset a customer (the horror) he's not afraid to tell them to fuck off when needs be, and I think its quite refreshing. Like the video of the woman who scoffed her food down and never said a word, paid and left but left a bad review. He was dead right to call her out on it. She should have complained to the staff who could have done something about it, but chose not to and was rightly called on it imo.

But he has just replaced the customer is always right mantra with the customer is always wrong. Neither are ideal or good for business. Like Dara said, he's lucky he has mammy and daddy's business to bankroll him because he'd be long gone from any other establishment the big bowsie head on him. He's just as "positive vibes only please" as any blogger he seeks to ridicule.

_Dara_

anna080 wrote: »

But he has just replaced the customer is always right mantra with the customer is always wrong. Neither are ideal or good for business. Like Dara said, he's lucky he has mammy and daddy's business to bankroll him because he'd be long gone from any other establishment the big bowsie head on him. He's just as "positive vibes only please" as any blogger he seeks to ridicule.

“big bowsie head”

Buford T Justice

end of the road wrote: »

consiquences and responsibility are irrelevant here as the adult overstepped the mark. there is no excuse or justification for his behaviour and no amount of ranting and whining about consiquences and responsibility will change the reality. he was 100 times more wrong then she was as he is an adult.
there are no defences for his actions, i'm afraid.

You continually ignore that at the time of posting he wasn't aware of her age.......

riffmongous wrote: »

Not free reign B but I think when they are still young they need to be treated differently than adults, we do have childrens courts after all.

And yes I do think he should have made a subjective call based on the girls profile which does clearly indicate how young she is, he could just have deleted the review, reported her to facebook and moved on, not calling on all his fans to troll her, like some weird sort of mob justice.

I accept that that's your opinion and I choose to disagree with you. PS, I don't think the hotel can remove reviews, just like trip advisor

_Dara_ wrote: »

That age has long since past so I don't think he's being in any way maverick. I've have a few bosses down the years who recognised when a customer wasn't work keeping but they dealt with it with a modicum of class unlike him.

If his parents didn't own the hotel, he'd be long since fired. He only gets away with for that reason and because it's budget accommodation which is a fairly precious commodity in any capital city. He attracts some customers with his antics but most certainly puts others off. I'd never stay there personally. One would be afraid to make a legitimate complaint to him (and every single one of us has had to make a legitimate complaint at some stage). I don't believe his approach overall brings in much more business when you consider than he probably puts off as many people as he attracts. A moderate approach would likely work just as well. Let's not pretend he's any kind of rebel. He's in a privileged position and is exploiting it like an overgrown spoilt child.

On the contrary, he has said on more than one occasion that he is quite happy to deal with complaints as they arise. For instance, there's a problem with your room and you complain to reception they will deal with it there and then - likewise in the cafe. He takes issue (and rightly so) with people that don't afford them the opportunity to rectify the problem and just bitch in a negative review instead.

I think a lot of people in retail will disagree that this time has passed too, as is evident in some threads on this forum.

strandroad

Buford T Justice wrote: »

On the contrary, he has said on more than one occasion that he is quite happy to deal with complaints as they arise. For instance, there's a problem with your room and you complain to reception they will deal with it there and then - likewise in the cafe. He takes issue (and rightly so) with people that don't afford them the opportunity to rectify the problem and just bitch in a negative review instead.

Eh that's a lie though. His whole "I'll shoot all the vegans" controversy arose from a woman's complaint there there was nothing on the entire menu for her and they wouldn't customise. How hard it is to "deal with it there and then" and make her a mushroom toastie or something? My sister is severely lactose intolerant and I would never go to his cafe for fear that a similar request would make us (and obviously all lactose intolerant people since this is how he operates) his public enemy of the day. But I'm sure he got a lot of fans out of it to compensate.

He's a social influencer himself, it's just his flavour is trolling for self-promotion instead of paid promotion.

strandroad

strandroad wrote: »

Eh that's a lie though. His whole "I'll shoot all the vegans" controversy arose from a woman's complaint there there was nothing on the entire menu for her and they wouldn't customise. How hard it is to "deal with it there and then" and make her a mushroom toastie or something? My sister is severely lactose intolerant and I would never go to his cafe for fear that a similar request would make us (and obviously all lactose intolerant people since this is how he operates) his public enemy of the day...

It started when he made the pretty reasonable suggestion that people with specific dietary requirements should give notice.

strandroad

Deleted User wrote: »

It started when he made the pretty reasonable suggestion that people with specific dietary requirements should give notice.

It's not the 1980s, it's not outlandish to expect a dairy free option on the menu, I never came across a cafe in Dublin that wouldn't have them or wouldn't be otherwise accommodating. He made an example out of her because he wanted a sh*tstorm.

_Dara_

Deleted User wrote: »

It started when he made the pretty reasonable suggestion that people with specific dietary requirements should give notice.

I can’t think of the last time I was in a restaurant or cafe than didn’t have a vegan option. Especially in urban areas.

It’s inflexible to not be able to come up with something on the fly.

_Dara_

Buford T Justice wrote: »

On the contrary, he has said on more than one occasion that he is quite happy to deal with complaints as they arise. For instance, there's a problem with your room and you complain to reception they will deal with it there and then - likewise in the cafe. He takes issue (and rightly so) with people that don't afford them the opportunity to rectify the problem and just bitch in a negative review instead.

He’s far too capricious for that to be convincing. Basically, he’s untrustworthy. He’s fuelled by online validation as much as any other influencer and who knows to what lengths he’d go to achieve that validation.

I think a lot of people in retail will disagree that this time has passed too, as is evident in some threads on this forum.

I have plenty of retail experience myself. In every place I worked, there were customers the managers didn’t care about losing. ‘The customer is always’ has long been an outdated notion. Again, he’s no rebel. Just a privileged fücknugget.

Buford T Justice

strandroad wrote: »

It's not the 1980s, it's not outlandish to expect a dairy free option on the menu, I never came across a cafe in Dublin that wouldn't have them or wouldn't be otherwise accommodating. He made an example out of her because he wanted a sh*tstorm.

Nor is it obligatory.

strandroad

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Nor is it obligatory.

Of course, but even of you can't provide a fairly standard service you can turn your customer away politely, happens everywhere everyday.
He turned it into a social media rant instead. He likes to gleefully escalate them too - he is now invoicing his current blogger enemy for millions of euro worth of exposure he gave her. One is worth the other.

Galwayguy35

It was tough but I watched the 17 min video of this idiot whinging about not getting a free stay in the hotel.

The most surprising thing is that she had 1 follower let alone 93 thousand of them.

Galwayguy35

end of the road wrote: »

consiquences and responsibility are irrelevant here as the adult overstepped the mark. there is no excuse or justification for his behaviour and no amount of ranting and whining about consiquences and responsibility will change the reality. he was 100 times more wrong then she was as he is an adult.
there are no defences for his actions, i'm afraid.

She's 22.

Also an adult.

Although I think you might be talking about someone else here not Elle Darby

Mountainsandh

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

She's 22.

Also an adult.

Although I think you might be talking about someone else here not Elle Darby

EotR is talking about a 14 year old girl who made up a negative review of his establishment for likes on Facebook.
He didn't know she was 14 and reacted as he seems prone to do, with drama and anger.

When he discovered she was 14 matters were sorted more amicably.

End of the Road has difficulty computing the fact he didn't know she was 14 when he responded initially.

Annasopra

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Nor is it obligatory.

Maybe not. There is no need for his ignorant rude responses to a simple request.

B.A._Baracus

Honestly don't know why you're all still arguing about this? :pac:

- She gets more exposure (before this she was relatively unknown)
- Hotel gets free publicity.
- They both win in their own way. While you all are arguing about the ****e both parties said while they wanted to win the argument/be in the right.

Brendan Bendar

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Honestly don't know why you're all still arguing about this? :pac:

- She gets more exposure (before this she was relatively unknown)
- Hotel gets free publicity.
- They both win in their own way. While you all are arguing about the ****e both parties said while they wanted to win the argument/be in the right.

Sometimes one has to take a stand B.A. otherwise the liggers will win.

Eventually one has to let the product speak for itself, if it’s good enough it will succeed, not because some freeloader had an input.

The owner obviously realises this.

Buford T Justice

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Honestly don't know why you're all still arguing about this? :pac:

- She gets more exposure (before this she was relatively unknown)
- Hotel gets free publicity.
- They both win in their own way. While you all are arguing about the ****e both parties said while they wanted to win the argument/be in the right.

Because this is a discussion forum.

georgina toadbum

strandroad wrote: »

It's not the 1980s, it's not outlandish to expect a dairy free option on the menu, I never came across a cafe in Dublin that wouldn't have them or wouldn't be otherwise accommodating. He made an example out of her because he wanted a sh*tstorm.

If I remember this correctly. It was a Saturday midday, their busiest time of the week. They had people queuing outside. They said the kitchen was already manic busy and couldn't accommodate a dish they didn't have on the menu at that time.

It was her then that completely blew it out of proportion which prompted him to respond.

I've got a family member who is lactose intolerant as well. I wouldn't go to a restaurant without researching first if they could accommodate them. I don't assume everywhere can provide dairy-free alternatives.

strandroad

georgina toadbum wrote: »

I've got a family member who is lactose intolerant as well. I wouldn't go to a restaurant without researching first if they could accommodate them. I don't assume everywhere can provide dairy-free alternatives.

If we couldn't get anything we would just leave, of course (although I still fail to see how it's suddenly impossible to swap ingredients on a cafe sambo which is made to order anyway).

But even if the customer is rude you deal with them on the day, if the owner then starts a social media campaign to insult and ban all *insert a dietary requirement* customers then they are just an attention seeker with horrible customer service skills.

strandroad

strandroad wrote: »

But even if the customer is rude you deal with them on the day, if the owner then starts a social media campaign to insult and ban all *insert a dietary requirement* customers then they are just an attention seeker with horrible customer service skills.

He didn't start with that, he started with the request that anyone with specific dietary requirements contact the restaurant a day in advance. His language was a bit provocative and it all escalated from there. He's obviously an asshole and
pretty much the poster boy for misplaced superiority complex when he's so patently stupid...but the request itself was reasonable.

strandroad

Deleted User wrote: »

He didn't start with that, he started with the request that anyone with specific dietary requirements contact the restaurant a day in advance. His language was a bit provocative and it all escalated from there. He's obviously an asshole and
pretty much the poster boy for misplaced superiority complex when he's so patently stupid...but the request itself was reasonable.

I don't think a request to "stop waltzing in with your idiosyncratic dietary requirements" (for idiosyncratic remember we are talking simple vegan/dairy free other places handle without thinking twice) is reasonable but then we have to agree to disagree. He was obviously angling for a storm and he got it, plus plenty of clicks.

Similarly with the blogger, every hotel or spa in the country gets such requests which I guess they just bin or spam filter. But he has to call her out, invoice her for millions, and now runs a competition for an antiblogger t-shirt slogan. He loves it, it's his game.

Mountainsandh

strandroad wrote: »

Similarly with the blogger, every hotel or spa in the country gets such requests which I guess they just bin or spam filter. But he has to call her out, invoice her for millions, and now runs a competition for an antiblogger t-shirt slogan. He loves it, it's his game.

It's good to have them rough-housed a bit though.
This whole blogger culture is fine for entertainment purposes for the youngsters, but it's not reality, nor should it become or appear so.
Your man just popped a bubble and it's nice to think that some young people, despite the dramatic reactions that are to be expected, might just get the message that not everything will fall into your lap if you ask for it, and that no one who exposes themselves to the public for a living is above scrutiny or criticism.

That's life for grown ups.
Same with the guy who went shooting video in the suicide forest.
You can invent a lovely, cool, or fun world to "sell" videos, but behind it all you are still an ordinary lad or lassie who is subject to the same rules and moral barometers as the rest of society, and you should be aware of that.
It's healthy to call out people on their BS sometimes.

end of the road

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It's good to have them rough-housed a bit though.
This whole blogger culture is fine for entertainment purposes for the youngsters, but it's not reality, nor should it become or appear so.
Your man just popped a bubble and it's nice to think that some young people, despite the dramatic reactions that are to be expected, might just get the message that not everything will fall into your lap if you ask for it, and that no one who exposes themselves to the public for a living is above scrutiny or criticism.

That's life for grown ups.
Same with the guy who went shooting video in the suicide forest.
You can invent a lovely, cool, or fun world to "sell" videos, but behind it all you are still an ordinary lad or lassie who is subject to the same rules and moral barometers as the rest of society, and you should be aware of that.
It's healthy to call out people on their BS sometimes.

your man popped nothing from what i can see. he just did his usual (what is in my view) attention seeking. the amount of "calling out" aka attention seeking he gets up to is not healthy tbh.

Buford T Justice

end of the road wrote: »

your man popped nothing, he just did his usual attention seeking. the amount of "calling out" aka attention seeking he gets up to is not healthy tbh.

Not healthy how? It appears to be very healthy for his business..