When this blog began it was exciting to get our first comment although it was a bit deflating to find it was a negative one. Here is what it looks like on our side of the fence:
This was not exactly the kind of feedback we wanted, but the philosophy here is that the comments belong to the readers so provided they aren’t abusive we print them.
Check out the IP address under the email address the commenter used to sign up with. Readers don’t get this see this but back end administrators on the site do. For those unfamiliar with the basic principles of how the internet works, an IP address is a unique identifier used to route traffic to a specific device. This is important.
The next day we got another comment and it was even more negative. Oh no!
Different name, different email. Same IP address. Going by what we know about how IP addresses work it’s a good chance these are in fact the same person. Unless you want to believe that somehow a commenter from yesterday posted something and then their service provider changed their IP address. It happens from time to time. What stretches any and all credibility is to imagine that by coincidence our second commenter, who also happens to have a negative opinion, was somehow assigned the IP address previously used by another totally random commenter. In about 24 hours or less. This is absurdly unlikely.
Interestingly we can find out all kinds of information related to an IP address. They are owned by people and there are open records available on who owns them and where they are located geographically.
Oakville Ontario? Who do we know in Oakville Ontario?
No, of course not. That’s absurd. To imagine that the editor of the biggest horror magazine in the world debases himself like this and spends his time attacking his critics behind fake names is just silly. I mean, what would be the point?
Well, one might be another fallacious rhetorical tactic called poisoning the well. This is where someone tries to impeach the source of the information instead of the information itself. It also creates the false impression that 2 people with no personal interest in this blog, myself or Chris Alexander are giving negative feedback. It creates an illusion of disagreement, of unpopularity that can influence readers.
Fortunately yesterday Chris Alexander posted on the blog and we can put these nasty rumours to rest by taking a look at his post from the site administrators perspective. Remember, pay attention to that IP address:
All 3 of these posts share the same IP. Either the same insanely improbable random transfer of IP addresses happened 3 days in a row with 3 different people with negative opinions who all happen to be from Oakville…
Or Chris Alexander decided that rather than actually respond to our request for comment on and put his side of the story out there like the editor of a world class publication is supposed to he’d rather make fake blog comments in an absurdly transparent attempt to harm the credibility of this site. It’s a pattern of deceptive conduct that is especially disturbing because of the privilege Alexander wields. That his instinct is towards deception and smearing critics instead of basic transparency should concern readers.
Can we really go on trusting what Chris Alexander has to say anymore when he has demonstrated a callous disregard for civilized discourse and a flippant willingness to deceive in order to benefit himself? Does he realize the office he holds is not his personal playground but an obligation to the Fangoria readership to uphold at least an appearance of professionalism and integrity?
Perhaps he’ll address this in the comments section.