A Message to Our Readers

[JessicaAnn]

I am sorry that you found my statement offensive. Everyone has a right to question, to speak their minds, etc., my only problem is with people who weren't involved in the initial and subsequent contacts between this person and our staff saying we should have done this or that. We did what we thought was best at the time. In hindsight, we now see that was not enough.

The members are just involved in this as the staff ... after all it was the members of this forum who had the wool pulled over their eyes. The members of this forum are just as involved as the staff--we're the ones who make this the community that it is. If you didn't have us, what would you have?

 

[strannix]

Thanks, Katey. FWIW, I appreciate that statement, even if I think you're too generous to the senior staff - if they share your sentiment they will come and express it themselves.

And, there are a lot of reasonable questions folks have offered here that haven't been addressed.

 

[Elvis]

elvis

are you sure you arent the edge (again)?

I'm positive. The person in question posted here under four total names, and has an IP address that is possibly in the Chicago area, but routed through New York.

I'm also going to take a few suggestions, and say that on behalf of the content staff for Interference, we are sorry for:

a) although checking, not checking as much as possible.
b) letting this go on so long.
c) letting ourselves be misled, and in turn letting each of you be misled.

Many of our interviews are conducted over the net, as are many interviews in the press today, and up to this point we've never had a problem - and they've all been genuine. We, at this point, will be verifying not only identity, but responses, in future interviews in a more traditional method, ie. the phone, postal mail, etc., in order to make sure something of this nature never happens again. We should have done that with this.

Joel

 

[Laura M]

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if Elvis was fooled or not and the staff were all misled like the posters here were. (I highly doubt that but still) He let people here especially those who believed this edge stuff down.

This is just an internet forum. There are always other places where the posters here can go. The thing that makes this site is the nice folk. It would still be good at a less fancy forum if the same people were still there.

There is a lot more important things going on in peoples lives at the moment than this. I'll leave you to it Elvis. I feel sorry for anyone who actually sticks by you and believe you were jsut as fooled as everyone else.

 

[ThatGuy]

Too little, too late, dude.

 

[Elvis]

And, there are a lot of reasonable questions folks have offered here that haven't been addressed.

Many of our own questions to 'official' sources haven't been addressed... in some cases, blatantly ignored.

 

[strannix]

my only problem is with people who weren't involved in the initial and subsequent contacts between this person and our staff saying we should have done this or that.

Well, you know what? Obviously, those people are right. So while I hate to get personal, if you have a problem with it, it's just that - your problem.

 

[ThatGuy]

Many of our own questions to 'official' sources haven't been addressed... in some cases, blatantly ignored.

Shouldn't this tell you something?

 

[JessicaAnn]

Many of our interviews are conducted over the net, as are many interviews in the press today, and up to this point we've never had a problem - and they've all been genuine. We, at this point, will be verifying not only identity, but responses, in future interviews in a more traditional method, ie. the phone, postal mail, etc., in order to make sure something of this nature never happens again. We should have done that with this.

Joel

As someone who works with reporters to coordinate interviews for clients, I would have to say that conducting interviews via email is more the exception than the rule. Typically print and internet reporters like to conduct their interviews via phone (if not in person) in order to verify the information.

In the last seven years that I have been doing PR, I have maybe coordinated two or three interviews via email. It's just not the way things usually work ... even with celebrities. It certainly would have raised a red flag in my book.

 

[Elvis]

I'll leave you to it Elvis. I feel sorry for anyone who actually sticks by you and believe you were jsut as fooled as everyone else.

Unfortunately, and truthfully, I was indeed swept away with the tide with everyone else. I did start to doubt certain things at a point and got very suspicious, but was not about to deal with that in public. Aside from IP addresses, cookies, and other information gathered... I have now created a method in which to more properly identify where someone TRULY is located at the time of posting. IPs can be forged, routed, etc... and are not completely trustworthy when it comes to location. For instance.. most AOL IPs say a person is in Virginia, even if they are really in California. I personally use my home IP (by method of VPN) even when I am travelling out of the country.

Joel

 

[BAW]

I have a question about something that was posted in the @U2 thread.

Why did a staff member tell an Interference member that they had indeed spoken to the Edge by cell phone but now claim this:

but to clarify, this must have been again bad communication on my part I dont have Edge's cell phone I do have the cell phone contact for their publicity person which is what I meant I guess I said it wrong I owe you an apology and wanted to do it in public for you, my deep apologies on my end there..sorry

Is the Interference member remembering things incorrectly or do we have a staff member who exaggerated certain things and is now lying to cover her ass?

 

[LuminousTimes]

Many of our interviews are conducted over the net, as are many interviews in the press today, and up to this point we've never had a problem - and they've all been genuine.
Joel

So you are saying that the exclusive interview with U2 was done over the net. Okay. So, I assume they contacted you because if you contacted them this could not have happened. Don't you think you should question an internet interview that is initiated by U2 instead of your staff members or sources?

 

[strannix]

Many of our own questions to 'official' sources haven't been addressed... in some cases, blatantly ignored.

With all due respect, I don't see the relevance. It's quite clear to most everyone, whether you'll admit it or not, that nobody "official" had anything to do with this. I'd ignore you, too.

 

[beegee]

the problem here is that the people who doubted were treated like shit.

i had two different conversations with two different mods. those two conversations were like night and day. you could never convince me that the higher ups here knew nothing. i also overheard a private conversation at the convention that convinced me that at least one of your staff is quite power hungry, and might be the type to bend the truth just a bit.

why weren't we told you had an IP out of chicago? you KNEW.

 

[Elvis]

Too little, too late, dude.

You push for an apology. I make an apology, quite openly, and then you're rude like this?

We're not hiding the fact that whatever the scenario with this, we didnt follow through as much as we should have, and this should have never gone to 'print'.

The time we waited to post a statement was because we were in process of trying to figure out exactly what happened, as well as get to the bottom of things. I had posted earlier in a now closed thread that when we had more to say on the issue, we would... and we have.

 

[U2SavesTheWorld]

Elvis;

Honest question:

Have you seen this?

Such a shame

 

[Elvis]

I have a question about something that was posted in the @U2 thread.

Why did a staff member tell an Interference member that they had indeed spoken to the Edge by cell phone but now claim this:



Is the Interference member remembering things incorrectly or do we have a staff member who exaggerated certain things and is now lying to cover her ass?

I'm a bit confused by your post...

one of our staff members has has contact with someone who works with U2, on their cell phone.

 

[Elvis]

the problem here is that the people who doubted were treated like shit.

i had two different conversations with two different mods. those two conversations were like night and day. you could never convince me that the higher ups here knew nothing. i also overheard a private conversation at the convention that convinced me that at least one of your staff is quite power hungry, and might be the type to bend the truth just a bit.

why weren't we told you had an IP out of chicago? you KNEW.

I'd love to know what you overheard, and the details. Please PM me or email me.

As far as IP addresses... please see my earlier post about this.

 

[ThatGuy]

You push for an apology. I make an apology, quite openly, and then you're rude like this?

Re-read your own post. Essentially you're saying, "Because I'm being forced to by lots of angry people, I am sorry for the following things ..." Nice, but ultimately meaningless. It's like I tell my four year old, you can say you're sorry all day long after I've asked you to, but it sure means more when I don't have to ask.

And please don't accuse me of being rude. Your actions over the past week (and beyond) have insulted too many people for that to be believable coming from you.

 

[Elvis]

Elvis;

Honest question:

Have you seen this?

Such a shame

I just did, and yes... it is a shame. Because the content team errored in how this was handled however does not mean people should leave the community. Yes, thats my opinion... but I doubt many people stopped watching the CBS network because they had false documents relating to George Bush?

There is a large and tight community here, and I understand that's even more reason for people to be upset. I'm upset about all of this as well. Time and openness will really be the only think that mends these wounds.

 

[Katey]

Is the Interference member remembering things incorrectly or do we have a staff member who exaggerated certain things and is now lying to cover her ass?

Nope I have apologized to the person in who I had this conversation with on the phone, I have never claimed to have cell phone communication with the Edge, I might have come across wrong to them so I owed an apology to them for that.

 

[BAW]

I'm a bit confused by your post...

one of our staff members has has contact with someone who works with U2, on their cell phone.

It appears that one your staff members (Katey I assume) told an Interference member that she had indeed spoken by cell phone to The Edge. When this allegation was posted in public, your staff member changed her story and claimed to actually have a PR rep's cell phone number.

From the the @u2 forum:

It takes time to craft good spin and even better to just wait it out until people lose interest and have something else to talk about...which will happen in about 5 weeks time.

The longer he stays quiet, the more he looks to be directly involved, not just fooled. Speaking of which, does anyone actually believe Elvis could be fooled by an online prankster? He'd know better to check and verify more directly. In fact, if I were him, I'd only be satisfied with a phone call. And guess what, I was told by one of the ones under fire here that she DID speak to Edge on the phone, had his cell number even...and SHE told me that on the phone lol.

Hmmmm.

This was the staff member's response:

but to clarify, this must have been again bad communication on my part I dont have Edge's cell phone I do have the cell phone contact for their publicity person which is what I meant I guess I said it wrong I owe you an apology and wanted to do it in public for you, my deep apologies on my end there..sorry

 

[strannix]

I'm willing, upon reflection, to accept the apology of Elvis.

But credibility does not return so easily. I really think, Elvis, that you should consider being more transparent about how you were misled, and why you were so slow to act. I'm not sure "privacy" concerns wash any longer - since this was an obvious (to everyone but yourself, it seems) hoax, there's no one's confidence to betray.

 

[Elvis]

Re-read your own post. Essentially you're saying, "Because I'm being forced to by lots of angry people, I am sorry for the following things ..." Nice, but ultimately meaningless. It's like I tell my four year old, you can say you're sorry all day long after I've asked you to, but it sure means more when I don't have to ask.

And please don't accuse me of being rude. Your actions over the past week (and beyond) have insulted too many people for that to be believable coming from you.

I didnt feel forced. I did so because I wanted to - Because concerns and feelings were expressed.

 

[ThatGuy]

I didnt feel forced. I did so because I wanted to - Because concerns and feelings were expressed.

That's interesting. You were closing thread as recently as yesterday seemingly for that very same reason.

 

[Elvis]

I'm willing, upon reflection, to accept the apology of Elvis.

But credibility does not return so easily. I really think, Elvis, that you should consider being more transparent about how you were misled, and why you were so slow to act. I'm not sure "privacy" concerns wash any longer - since this was an obvious (to everyone but yourself, it seems) hoax, there's no one's confidence to betray.

In the last month, I've been away from home (another state or country) for half of that time (two weeks).... that would have a major part in my 'slowness' of dealing with the situation.

 

[Elvis]

That's interesting. You were closing thread as recently as yesterday seemingly for that very same reason.

ThatGuy, in knowing that this message and thread would be posted today, I opted to address things here, and today.

 

[ThatGuy]

In the last month, I've been away from home (another state or country) for half of that time (two weeks).... that would have a major part in my 'slowness' of dealing with the situation.

I have heard that there are ways to access the internet when one is not at home. Perhaps I have been mislead.

 

[Laura M]

This is so bad it's funny

It appears that one your staff members (Katey I assume) told an Interference member that she had indeed spoken by cell phone to The Edge. When this allegation was posted in public, your staff member changed her story and claimed to actually have a PR rep's cell phone number.

From the the @u2 forum:



This was the staff member's response:

Sure, Katey has just said

Nope I have apologized to the person in who I had this conversation with on the phone, I have never claimed to have cell phone communication with the Edge, I might have come across wrong to them so I owed an apology to them for that..

and after that Elvis is saying

I'm a bit confused by your post...

one of our staff members has has contact with someone who works with U2, on their cell phone.

Lies, lies and more lies.

 

[brook]

... but I doubt many people stopped watching the CBS network because they had false documents relating to George Bush?

CBS quickly admitted their error when people began to question things and issued an immediate retraction and apology (the whole event lasted less than a week). This would be an entirely different deal if (assuming that you indeed have been duped all along) you had immediately posted a message that while you still believed that this was The Edge posting - valid doubts had been raised by a number of people and you were working to either dispel those doubts or confirm them.

Instead, you and members of your team kept insisting all was well and when people continued to raise questions, they were either trivialized our outright ignored. (I've yet to have a single question I've raised answered anywhere, except in this thread - after I quoted myself to ask it twice.) Thread after thread requesting information were locked without comment, while the poor mods were left twisting in the wind... while over a week went by with no comment or update from you. The fact that you are still stating in this thread that this might still be The Edge is only harming your effort to put this to rest.

You are a victim of your own success. This is now a very large forum and a lot of people are here - and not all of them are going to blindly believe everything you say. This is also a paid site and people expect your staff (albeit volunteer) to behave professionally. People will have long memories on this event.

I'm sure Interference will continue to thrive because it's the community after all that keeps these folks together. I know how hard it is to leave a community like this one. I just hope that you learn something from this.