Say NO to Kimkins Web Ring

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Low Carb and High Minded, part II

My, my how times have changed! Just this past spring, all the principles of this little brouhaha about stealing one person's post from a message board and blogging about it without the courtesy of asking the OP, were working in a little investigative group. The purpose? So we could discuss theories and share bits of information away from the prying eyes of any Kimkins spies. (I didn't mean for that rhyme, it just happened!)

Again, this problem is NOT about blogging to get the word out about Kimkins! It's about taking someone's else's research from a public, but relatively closed-off forum, and blogging about it without giving any thought that this might cause problems with the OP's inside source at Kimkins. This blogger claims to have her own inside source, so why steal the material?? In any case, co-owner of the board where this all started is the blogger known as Yust Yucky. But, when she was in the investigative group back in March 2008, she had an entirely different take on using material found by someone else.

Yust Yucky said: Let's all keep in mind that one of the fun
-- and motivating -- aspects of investigative blogging is "first dibs." If
you're the one who found something, you have the right to blog about it first
and break the story. Common courtesy. If there's something somebody else has
discovered, and you're eager totalk about it on the boards or blogs, please
let's all remember to discuss it with the person who made the discovery --
there've been times when somebody found something but in order to maintain
secrecy passed the "dibs" to somebody else. And a lot of times, more than one
person was working on the story, and found other aspects that are related but
unique -- each person has the right to blog or publicize the information they
themselves have found, but like I said, let's keep common courtesy in mind ahead
of the excitement in spreading the word about whatever's been found. I myself
have been guilty of blabbing because the news was so cool, and that's something
I'm ashamed of and hopefully have learned my lesson!
(Screenshot available at: http://s249.photobucket.com/albums/gg235/Mayberryfan/?action=view&current=Yucky_stolen_thunder.jpg )

Common courtesy. That's all we were asking for. Maybe you can understand why I assumed the rules Yucky promoted at one group would apply to another, similar group. Obviously, the groups are different because the group Yucky is speaking to here was entirely hidden, and by invitation only to join. Still, her message board is advertised only on a couple of blogs, but cannot be found by searching for it at Google. So, while it may be "public," it does not have the same visibilty that the anti-Kimkins blogs do. Case in point, the anti-KK blogs are regularly advertised on Low Carb Friends, but the blog posts announcing Yucky's new board a couple of months ago were not linked at LCF because it would have violated the TOS.

Co-owner of the message board, and also a member of the hidden investigative group, prominent blogger Medusa weighed in this past spring about using other people's information from one group and then blogging about it.
Medusa said: As with any sleuthing group, it is imperative
that any information discovered and reported here be kept within the strict
confines of this group and not disclosed or alluded to in our own personal
blogs, onLCF, or in personal e-mails to people outside the group without the
consent of the majority of the members here. If you have discovered something
independently and wish to blog about it, post it on LCF, or discuss it with
another party, that's fine, but if that information is discussed here, it should
remain here within the group until most agree that it's fine for you to release
the information. There are just too many unknowns and double-agents lurking
about to risk releasing sensitive information before its time. Put simply, "what
happens in Vegas stays in Vegas :^) Hope everyone understands my "hard line" on
this.~ Medusa
(screenshot available at:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg235/Mayberryfan/Medusa_stays.jpg )

Oh, I totally understood your 'hard line' then. But I'm at a total loss to understand it now. You obviously have sources helping you with your blog. You should understand the dangers of potentially burning one of those sources.

The most disappointing thing in all of this is that these people have tried to damage my reputation within the anti-KK group. Whatever disagreements we might have, I would never try to paint you as backstabbers, as you have done to me. It reminds me of when Kimmer called Amyb "fake nice." But who could expect any better from Heidi Diaz? I expect better from you. We can agree to disagree on the ethics of taking someone else's post, but you've made this personal against me. And what you've insinuated about me is untrue. Period. So I will offer this final quote from the investigative group where I make my intentions clear about why I continue to investigate, and Yucky has nothing but good things to say about me.

Mayberryfan- Just so there are NO
misunderstandings.... I am zealous about our pursuit of Xxxxx and the
xxxxx, but it has nothing to do with personal animous toward her. At this point,
we just don't know much about her. She's greedy. That much we know. But, we also
know that she doesn't seem to be nearly as aggressive as Heidi, based on her
lack of marketing of xxxx and her lack of activiity within her own forum.
Even if she is somehow in league with Heidi, she still doesn't appear to be
quite the landshark that Kimmer definitely is. So, I am motivated in this effort
by trying to educate people about the dangers of this type of eating. There are
many things about Xxxx that appear to be less than honest. I am hoping if
she realizes that we're on to her, she'll decide the risk to her in terms of
liability are too great and she close Xxxx, and refund Suzy's $$


Yust Yucky - {{{Celeste}}} That's because you're a NICE
person! :) So many times I feel so snippy (that's a nice word for it)
toward Xxxx and Xxxx, reading their crap and the weird stuff, and the emails
like between Xxxx and AmyB, and Xxxx and Suzy -- she's so snippy and
cold, for no apparent reason, and totally paranoid. So I do have feeling of
personal animosity toward her, and I've got to work on that, because a lot of
times that gets in the way of what the real goal is. So I wasn't criticizing you
and ANYBODY, definitely! {{hugs}} Just reflecting on my tendency to take
everything so personally andoveremotionalize everything. (screenshot available at:

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg235/Mayberryfan/Yucky_nice_Celeste.jpg

Special Note: To those who have taken the time to PM me, I truly appreciate it! One person even apologized for not speaking out publicly and supporting my position. That's absolutely OK! There is no need to choose sides. I'm choosing to speak out because a friend was wronged in this mess, and I have been personally maligned in the process. Believe me, Heidi Diaz was the last person to walk on me. No mas!

8 comments:

Unknown said...

Ya know, I just don't get it.

If you're miffed about something, you're miffed. Especially if it's someone that has a history of ill will against you. In this case, it's almost like you're being told that you're not ALLOWED to be miffed, that you're simply not "permitted" to be offended.

I dunno. I feel like we're being led around yet another "Dog and Pony Show". And apparently, we're not privy to the REAL Secret Garden, and are now pissing off the natives for the exposure.

v0x

Mimi said...

Trying to catch up. May, as I thought I already said in the original thread about this at Fascinated, it now appears that you and Jo were correct in stating that the post that was featured at the Prudentia blog was indeed an exact copy of the post that Jo did at Fascinated.

I thought I already said that.

What I'm unable to agree with is your and Jo's assessment that by pasting that copy, that Prudentia had "stolen" it and was trying to pretend (or something to that effect) that it was her own original discovery or her own orginal post.

That's not how I view it, because she states in the preface there at her blog that that had been published already online.

I also am unable to agree with your or Jo's assessment of the antiKK community and bloggers as ravenous alligators fighting each other for as Jo described it "pieces of raw meat." (referring to information passed along to her by somebody inside Kimkins)

But you're both entitled,as everyone is, to opinions and feelings, and it was wrong of me to have such a fit about those opinions and feelings. Vox here says it's like being told that you're not allowed or permitted to be miffed or offended. And that's a valid point.

I regret reacting as I did, with such emotion and self righteous indignation, and with such a lack of graciousness and tact.

So anyway, for whatever it's worth, the fact is you and Jo were right, that the copy of the post at Prudentia's blog is an exact copy of what Jo posted at the fascinated board.

You are not right that that constitutes thievery, IMO, because she stated clearly that it had been posted "elsewhere on the internet."

I feel that Prudentia is a true blue antiKK blogger, and a good decent human being, and if she feels that she did anything wrong IMO she would apologize to you both from her heart. The fact that she hasn't apologized means IMO that she doesn't feel that she did anything wrong. So you guys feel one way about it, and she feels another way. That's something you guys are going to have to settle.

But as far as your and Jo's characterization of the antiKK community and bloggers, my feeling is very strongly that that characterization is unfair and untrue.

The last thing is what you or Jo said about the Fascinated board. That I know for a fact is absolutely untrue, and you and Jo know it also -- you have both been there since practically the beginning, and there's no way on Earth either of you could truly, in your heart of hearts, believe what you said about it.

bleh, I'm way behind, trying to catch up, and wanted to take a moment to apologize to you and Jo both for overreacting with such emotion and snarkiness.

Vox, you say here about "the real secret garden" and I don't know what you mean.

By the way -- you'll have to overlook typos and errors, as I'm using an unfamiliar keyboard.

Mimi said...

Mayberry says "My, my how times have changed! Just this past spring, all the principles of this little brouhaha about stealing one person's post from a message board and blogging about it without the courtesy of asking the OP, were working in a little investigative group. The purpose? So we could discuss theories and share bits of information away from the prying eyes of any Kimkins spies. (I didn't mean for that rhyme, it just happened!)

Again, this problem is NOT about blogging to get the word out about Kimkins! It's about taking someone's else's research from a public, but relatively closed-off forum, and blogging about it without giving any thought that this might cause problems with the OP's inside source at Kimkins. This blogger claims to have her own inside source, so why steal the material?? In any case, co-owner of the board where this all started is the blogger known as Yust Yucky. But, when she was in the investigative group back in March 2008, she had an entirely different take on using material found by someone else.

Yust Yucky said: Let's all keep in mind that one of the fun
-- and motivating -- aspects of investigative blogging is "first dibs." If
you're the one who found something, you have the right to blog about it first
and break the story. Common courtesy. If there's something somebody else has
discovered, and you're eager totalk about it on the boards or blogs, please
let's all remember to discuss it with the person who made the discovery --
there've been times when somebody found something but in order to maintain
secrecy passed the "dibs" to somebody else. And a lot of times, more than one
person was working on the story, and found other aspects that are related but
unique -- each person has the right to blog or publicize the information they
themselves have found, but like I said, let's keep common courtesy in mind ahead
of the excitement in spreading the word about whatever's been found. I myself
have been guilty of blabbing because the news was so cool, and that's something
I'm ashamed of and hopefully have learned my lesson! (Screenshot available at: http://s249.photobucket.com/albums/gg235/Mayberryfan/?action=view&current=Yucky_stolen_thunder.jpg )

Common courtesy. That's all we were asking for."

wow, I had forgotten all about that. You are absolutely right, and I am absolutely wrong and have been hypocritcal.

Chalk it up to being a moody beyotch, or having short attention span, or just generally senile, but still, it's hypocritical.

There's no need to take it out on anybody else, ok? Especially a certain member of the Chickenator group at Yahoo, because you could very well endanger her and her husband by revealing her posts in that group. So feel free to yell and have a fit about the rest of us, but that one member, no, it's not worth placing her at risk in an effort to get satisfaction for you and Jo's wounded egos.

Thanks.

Mimi said...

Oh, I didn't know it was about protecting Jo's source -- certainly I understand that sources need to be protected.

But if Jo was concerned about her source, why did she post a copy of what the source had sent her?

For the umpteenth time, you both know that Fascinated is not a secret board, and admins have no idea who all the members are. That is something that was made clear very early on, and it's been mentioned several times to be careful what you post because you don't know who is really reading that board.

Mimi said...

Hey, thanks for publishing my comments! I didn't know if you would or not.

By the way, when I referred to what you or Jo said about the Fascinated board, here's what I was referring to: a comment Jo made in email --

"a repository for the bloggers to snag info without doing the work themselves."

Opinion is one thing, but fact is quite another thing entirely -- and the fact is, that statement is absolutely untrue. And you and Jo know it, must know, because you've both been there since the early days of that board and you both know good and well that's not how it is.

Ok? Can you at least admit that?

Mayberryfan said...

Yucky,
I appreciate your thoughts and thank you for sharing them. I have NO intention of endangering anyone involved in the previous group. I am not out to HURT anyone, well except for Heidi Diaz, and only by legal means. I understand the need for the blogger in question to be hidden. I gave you my word that I will not reveal what you revealed to me, and I won't. You can bank on it.

As for the comments you list here from Jo, it has been explained that she made them in an emotional state. There are more issues there than you know and they have absolutely NOTHING to with any of this. They are personal. Please do your best to understand and let it go. I've said before, this wasn't intended as a pejorative against all the anti-KK bloggers. After all, I happen to be one of many in that group. Perhaps you don't consider me as part of that group, and you have a right to your opinion.

I will take your word that Prue is a good person. I didn't realize who she was at the time, but she sent a nice comment to me when my uncle died recently. We just see this particular issue differently.

In PM's to you and on your board, I have said that there are no hard feelings. It's time to let this go. Best of luck with your group. I hope you dig up some great stuff that can be used to get Kimkins closed down forever and protect people from the likes of Heidi. That is what were all working for, after all.

As for what v0x meant, you'll have to ask v0x.

Thanks again and let's let this go, okay?

Mimi said...

Hi. Sorry I am slowly catching up. Lots of interesting distractions.

Re this matter of what you and Jo said about the Prudentia blogger, and certain other antiKK bloggers (since you have clarified to the effect that not all the antiKK bloggers were included in the "raw meat" scenario), and also what you and Jo said about the Fascinated board -- am I to understand from your comment here dated July 18th that as of that date you had "let it go"?

And that you and Jo have as of that date recanted those statements and have agreed that those statements were unfounded, unfair, and untrue?

Not to be nit picky, just want to make absolutely sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Thanks.

Mimi said...

"I hope you dig up some great stuff that can be used to get Kimkins closed down forever and protect people from the likes of Heidi. That is what were all working for, after all."


Well, thanks, but as I've ranted about er uh I mean as I've opined about several times over the past few months, IMO there is nothing left to dig up.

A lot of us still sleuth, of course, just in case, but basically what seems to be the situation is that all evidence that can be found, has been found. And screenshot and saved and filed and organized and sent off to the proper authorities in quadruplicate.

The main task these days is the weed pulling project and continuing efforts to spread the word about the Kimkins scam and the dangers of the Kimkins diet.

But as far as digging stuff up, IMO that work is finished and has been finished for quite some time. Sorry to burst your bubble there :)

And thanks for acknowledging the fact that getting Kimkins closed down and protecting people from the likes of Heidi is what WE are ALL working for.

But just because WE are ALL working for that, doesn't necessarily mean that SOME of US are ALSO working for other stuff, right?

Ya know, like, oh, say, fame or fortune or something like that.

Because, hey, being an armchair activist fighting consumer fraud and spreading the gospel of healthy eating is not a 24/7/365 kinda job, right?

There's always room for Jell-o : )