ponch
Bluelighter
Sorry Russell
-
🇬🇧 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
European & African
Drug Discussion
Welcome Guest!
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules -
EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari
Mixmag - "Methoxetamine = roflcoptr" - *MUST READ*
- Thread starter specialspack
- Start date
Mailmonkey
Bluelighter
this thread is like Dad's Army!
But what a fuckin army!!
Yeah, that dick bloke's rebuttal was tosh.
And all you diggers, I'm looking for a "notworthy" emoticon, you know you you are, this is great work.
%)
Transform
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
- Messages
- 4,804
Again, I don't think any of this needs any more publicity, I will be quite happy when mixmag investigate this properly and sort it out, along with a redirect from roflcopter to wikipedia/erowid.
Frankly, that meaningless statement has served to make me slightly more upset.
I've squeezed in a little more digging - I wonder if his parents know what their son does in their spare time, maybe they could have a word with him.
Perhaps a letter to his (very grand) childhood home might encourage them to crack down.
Russell, if you're reading this, I've a proposition. Please redirect your site to erowid or wikipedia's articles on MXE. Kindly do the right thing and don't resume selling with any relation to the roflcopter name.
Were the site to resume trading I would be upset and might not be able to keep a can on the details I've dug up. It'd be awfully inconvenient for you to have to change your online alias and have to explain to your parents why so many people think you're a drug dealer.
Frankly, that meaningless statement has served to make me slightly more upset.
I've squeezed in a little more digging - I wonder if his parents know what their son does in their spare time, maybe they could have a word with him.
Perhaps a letter to his (very grand) childhood home might encourage them to crack down.
Russell, if you're reading this, I've a proposition. Please redirect your site to erowid or wikipedia's articles on MXE. Kindly do the right thing and don't resume selling with any relation to the roflcopter name.
Were the site to resume trading I would be upset and might not be able to keep a can on the details I've dug up. It'd be awfully inconvenient for you to have to change your online alias and have to explain to your parents why so many people think you're a drug dealer.
Thanks Vader. I think it is a little easy to overreact in this thread so I appreciate your comment.
I'm disappointed with everyone's responses. Someone actually went to the effort to reply to you and engage with Bluelight... and all you do is insult them. Unfortunately the reactions just illustrate the 'feed the trolls' problem. Why should people engage with Bluelight if there is no attempt by Bluelighters to give any benefit of the doubt, to assume *everything* is a deliberate ploy.... *sigh*
I think it illustrates either a small group of friends who use that name and the writer's non-use of other sources for names.
One very likely explanation for all of this is that - given Cope is in the social network of Beaumont-Thomas - people who are friends of both of them were the sources of the stories in the article. There may be no malicious intent here. In fact the connection between Cope and Beaumont-Thomas makes it more likely that Beaumont-Thomas would know people who use this particular term, because he's more likely to be friends with people who are friends with Cope.
Lurk around a bit, enjoy, oh and yeh we don't allow vendor-type chitchat here so I've removed your e-mail addyIf you have any issues with that please PM me or one of the other EADD mods.
I'm also confused at this reaction. How is this person a vendor? I'm from Australia so am not familiar, but isn't BBC a fairly reputable media organisation relative to others?
In conclusion, I'm proud of the investigation and coming together of Bluelighters but I'm disappointed in the trolling of Mixmag's editor. People who want a dialogue are civil with each other and don't make assumptions of guilt when there are many other explanations.
IMHO...
sockpuppet
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2010
- Messages
- 449
^^^
Utter Bollocks.....
Excellent sleuthing.......
Don't trust the media and don't trust researchers - well intentioned or otherwise - that's my advice after decades around both.
Keep the heat on them!
Utter Bollocks.....
Excellent sleuthing.......
Don't trust the media and don't trust researchers - well intentioned or otherwise - that's my advice after decades around both.
Keep the heat on them!
Tronica I completely agree that the evidence is circumstantial. However there are reasons that I find myself almost angry at your response.
I appreciate that it may be difficult to get the bluelight community to engage with researches. However in my opinion this is with good reason! Look at the majority of media coverage of chemicals in the past x years! (BTW please don't use the term 'sigh' again. This is an emotional thread for many people, and to try and reduce it to a 'childish' matter patronizes many people here.)
I appreciate that it may be difficult to get the bluelight community to engage with researches. However in my opinion this is with good reason! Look at the majority of media coverage of chemicals in the past x years! (BTW please don't use the term 'sigh' again. This is an emotional thread for many people, and to try and reduce it to a 'childish' matter patronizes many people here.)
Tripman
Bluelight Crew
We don't permit people to use Bluelight to trade or as a personal advertising resource.
Sorry for the double post and swearing, but the trolling of Mixmag's editor...
The f***ing title on the Mixmag front page? How could any editor who had done research allow the title 'Is Roflcoptr(irregardless of the name) the new ket?' go on the front page of a magazine? It has been said for months that MXE is NOT KET!!!!!. It is inherently dangerous if compared to ketamine...
Russell Cope < Ben Beaumont-Thomas < Mixmag Editor
Tronica as a researcher I find it so hard to believe that you think attacks on the editor are unwarranted...
The f***ing title on the Mixmag front page? How could any editor who had done research allow the title 'Is Roflcoptr(irregardless of the name) the new ket?' go on the front page of a magazine? It has been said for months that MXE is NOT KET!!!!!. It is inherently dangerous if compared to ketamine...
Russell Cope < Ben Beaumont-Thomas < Mixmag Editor
Tronica as a researcher I find it so hard to believe that you think attacks on the editor are unwarranted...
Last edited:
Tronica, do we have to sit back and just let a pretty lame response/excuses be taken as fact. The response from the editor is piss poor.
If the headline read..."Is mexy the new Ket"........................and Russell Cope had set up a website called wwww.mexy.com ..............I doubt very much if this would of been such an issue with so many bluelighters, as indeed mexy is used as a term for MXE.
Roflcopter, has never never used and may only now be used courtesy of the mixmag article and the dodgy article.
Id love to find out how many folk mentioned ROFLCOPTER in the Global Drugs Survey.
im sure Mixmag will be able to help us here as they have access to the results. If indeed there are dozens mentions of Roflcopter, then i think we could perhaps start to believe the editors response a little.
I am quite sure there will might only be 1 mention, depending if Russell completed the survey.
If the headline read..."Is mexy the new Ket"........................and Russell Cope had set up a website called wwww.mexy.com ..............I doubt very much if this would of been such an issue with so many bluelighters, as indeed mexy is used as a term for MXE.
Roflcopter, has never never used and may only now be used courtesy of the mixmag article and the dodgy article.
Id love to find out how many folk mentioned ROFLCOPTER in the Global Drugs Survey.
im sure Mixmag will be able to help us here as they have access to the results. If indeed there are dozens mentions of Roflcopter, then i think we could perhaps start to believe the editors response a little.
I am quite sure there will might only be 1 mention, depending if Russell completed the survey.
is this trolling? Perhaps its strongly worded, You should of said "I do not concur with the editor".
Transform
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
- Messages
- 4,804
I believe the editor when he says he was little to do with it, doesn't know about any corruption behind it and doesn't think there is any.
Problem is, it's his job to ensure that articles are of suitable quality for publishing. He may not be lying deliberately, but my issue here is with his negligence.
I think what's happened is beaumont's written an article since that's his job, and submitted it. The fact that he made it one big advert needn't be mentioned to the editor.
Perhaps beaumont deserves some of our attention too.
Problem is, it's his job to ensure that articles are of suitable quality for publishing. He may not be lying deliberately, but my issue here is with his negligence.
I think what's happened is beaumont's written an article since that's his job, and submitted it. The fact that he made it one big advert needn't be mentioned to the editor.
Perhaps beaumont deserves some of our attention too.
tambourine-man
Bluelight Crew
^ I'd agree.
The editor's just responding in the way that most people do when they're caught with their dick in their hand... deny everything, and work it out later.
Having said that, the editor is also responsible for the irresponsible and sensationalist headline, so I have difficulty mustering up any sympathy. He may not have known about what was going on, but he's still a fuckwit for running the 'story'.
The five year old relationship between Russell Cope and Ben Beaumont-Thomas is what makes the whole thing so shitty. Either Cope has duped his friend Beaumont-Thomas, or the two of them were in it together.
How very salacious! :D
Regarding the BBC researcher, Tronica, this forum has a history with such 'investigators'. On seeing their post, I and another poster asked that their contact details be removed. We've had members in the past who have volunteered to talk to the media - even the esteemed BBC3 (oh, how we laughed) - and were well and truly shafted.
There's been plenty of threads where (despite being warned by other Bluelighters) members have been conned by journalists who initially gained their trust, then fucking annihilated them in print or on camera. Sadly, those threads have been lost to the prune, but would serve as ample warning for why we need to give these cretins a very wide berth.
Seriously, we should not permit anyone to further their business interests at the expense of our members, and we should not give the circling vultures any latitude simply because they brand themselves as 'media'. To do so would be naive and unnecessarily reckless. We should treat the media the same way we would treat any other group of people who have demonstrated a propensity for habitual bullshit and a willingness to step on people (read: our members) to feather their own nest.
In 9 years of reading this forum, I have yet to see a single media researcher who actually turned out to be honest about the programme they were making, yet I've seen plenty of members crying foul over how they were treated and manipulated.
The editor's just responding in the way that most people do when they're caught with their dick in their hand... deny everything, and work it out later.
Having said that, the editor is also responsible for the irresponsible and sensationalist headline, so I have difficulty mustering up any sympathy. He may not have known about what was going on, but he's still a fuckwit for running the 'story'.
The five year old relationship between Russell Cope and Ben Beaumont-Thomas is what makes the whole thing so shitty. Either Cope has duped his friend Beaumont-Thomas, or the two of them were in it together.
How very salacious! :D
Regarding the BBC researcher, Tronica, this forum has a history with such 'investigators'. On seeing their post, I and another poster asked that their contact details be removed. We've had members in the past who have volunteered to talk to the media - even the esteemed BBC3 (oh, how we laughed) - and were well and truly shafted.
There's been plenty of threads where (despite being warned by other Bluelighters) members have been conned by journalists who initially gained their trust, then fucking annihilated them in print or on camera. Sadly, those threads have been lost to the prune, but would serve as ample warning for why we need to give these cretins a very wide berth.
Seriously, we should not permit anyone to further their business interests at the expense of our members, and we should not give the circling vultures any latitude simply because they brand themselves as 'media'. To do so would be naive and unnecessarily reckless. We should treat the media the same way we would treat any other group of people who have demonstrated a propensity for habitual bullshit and a willingness to step on people (read: our members) to feather their own nest.
In 9 years of reading this forum, I have yet to see a single media researcher who actually turned out to be honest about the programme they were making, yet I've seen plenty of members crying foul over how they were treated and manipulated.
StoneHappyMonday
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 10, 2001
- Messages
- 18,084
Arguing on this board isn't going to progress the matter so I'm going to have a go at taking this further myself today. But before I do...
Mixmag lost a bit of the right to receive a civil response when they made a decision to go sensationalist in order to sell more copy. I wouldn't treat Murdoch's empire with kid gloves, why should I treat imitative (of the Sun) 'journalism' otherwise?
I didn't simply insult them. I thought I asked a couple of pertinent questions. You seemed to have missed them so I'll post them again.
I asked,
I think there's more questioning than insulting going on there. Don't you? So why are you ignoring this post and tarring me with the 'troll' brush?
You continue,
And the answer is because if these people were facing a prosecutor (which is the position we have assumed) then they'd have to engage with that prosecutor, who sure as hell would be trying to prove everything was a conspiracy.
And this is how good journalism is carried out is it? By interviewing one very narrow group of people who are in the same social circle? From which we can extrapolate grand headlines on our front cover generalising about how the rest of the country must obviously be feeling/acting the same?
Give-me-a-break. 8(
Let's have another try with some real journalists shall we?
Mixmag lost a bit of the right to receive a civil response when they made a decision to go sensationalist in order to sell more copy. I wouldn't treat Murdoch's empire with kid gloves, why should I treat imitative (of the Sun) 'journalism' otherwise?
I didn't simply insult them. I thought I asked a couple of pertinent questions. You seemed to have missed them so I'll post them again.
I asked,
I think there's more questioning than insulting going on there. Don't you? So why are you ignoring this post and tarring me with the 'troll' brush?
You continue,
And the answer is because if these people were facing a prosecutor (which is the position we have assumed) then they'd have to engage with that prosecutor, who sure as hell would be trying to prove everything was a conspiracy.
And this is how good journalism is carried out is it? By interviewing one very narrow group of people who are in the same social circle? From which we can extrapolate grand headlines on our front cover generalising about how the rest of the country must obviously be feeling/acting the same?
Give-me-a-break. 8(
Let's have another try with some real journalists shall we?
Danny Weed
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,899
No, I think it was all bullshit, made up lies.
Very well put SHM. I await your further investigations.
Tronica...have you been reading all of these post and the damning evidence? I actually cannot believe you almost sided with the Editor of mixmag. Fair play to him for responding. Although I guess he had too because there is some substance to the accusations made from within this thread. If there was nothing underhand going on, i doubt he would of bothered to respond.
Also can you not see that there is a VERY VALID harm reduction issue here. Front page and a 2 page spread of a magazine which will have a rather young, possibly not as drug-savvy as bluelighters audience.
Admittedly the amount of effort to expose what is going on here, is not all from an HR standpoint. The eagerness to prove something shady has gone on has possibly been increased as UK public have been exposed to some serious dodgy behavior from journalists which is currently all over our News bulletins.
Tronica...have you been reading all of these post and the damning evidence? I actually cannot believe you almost sided with the Editor of mixmag. Fair play to him for responding. Although I guess he had too because there is some substance to the accusations made from within this thread. If there was nothing underhand going on, i doubt he would of bothered to respond.
Also can you not see that there is a VERY VALID harm reduction issue here. Front page and a 2 page spread of a magazine which will have a rather young, possibly not as drug-savvy as bluelighters audience.
Admittedly the amount of effort to expose what is going on here, is not all from an HR standpoint. The eagerness to prove something shady has gone on has possibly been increased as UK public have been exposed to some serious dodgy behavior from journalists which is currently all over our News bulletins.
Yes well put SHM let's move onwards! I did make the age old mistake last night of going on bluelight after a couple of drinks...
Has anyone got thoughts on ways of publicizing the matter on top of contacting journalists? I thought about starting a twitter page but it could potentially play into the vendors hands.
Dan x
Has anyone got thoughts on ways of publicizing the matter on top of contacting journalists? I thought about starting a twitter page but it could potentially play into the vendors hands.
Dan x
Without granting more publicity to the offending site or there's very little that can be done.
Whilst I'm firmly of the opinion (based on the evidence provided in this thread) that Beaumont-Thomas is culpable and by extension Mixmag (at least with regard to the accusations of negligence if nothing more) I agree with Tronica that there's no one piece of conclusive evidence here. It would be extremely difficult to obtain any such evidence, however, as that would involve either a confession from one of the alleged conspirators or a leak of some private commuication, neither of which will likely be forthcoming.
What we do have is an overwhelmingly compelling body of evidence to confirm Russell's friendship with Beaumont-Thomas, the former's ownership of a site under the name 'Roflcoptr' and the name 'Roflcoptr' seemingly appearing out of the blue in the Mixmag article. As has been pointed out, at best it's shoddy journalism, which makes Mixmag's statement all the more unsatisfactory, to the point where (predictably) many people felt insulted by it.
So while we have a number of what appear to be smoking guns (hell, we've got a whole smoking arsenal here) we don't really have anything conclusive enough to categorically confirm it was advertising. As long as that's the case then it's going to be very difficult to take this any further without causing more sensation or hitting more brick walls.
Which is not to say nobody should try; it'll just need a lot of thought and careful planning rather than any rash action.
Whilst I'm firmly of the opinion (based on the evidence provided in this thread) that Beaumont-Thomas is culpable and by extension Mixmag (at least with regard to the accusations of negligence if nothing more) I agree with Tronica that there's no one piece of conclusive evidence here. It would be extremely difficult to obtain any such evidence, however, as that would involve either a confession from one of the alleged conspirators or a leak of some private commuication, neither of which will likely be forthcoming.
What we do have is an overwhelmingly compelling body of evidence to confirm Russell's friendship with Beaumont-Thomas, the former's ownership of a site under the name 'Roflcoptr' and the name 'Roflcoptr' seemingly appearing out of the blue in the Mixmag article. As has been pointed out, at best it's shoddy journalism, which makes Mixmag's statement all the more unsatisfactory, to the point where (predictably) many people felt insulted by it.
So while we have a number of what appear to be smoking guns (hell, we've got a whole smoking arsenal here) we don't really have anything conclusive enough to categorically confirm it was advertising. As long as that's the case then it's going to be very difficult to take this any further without causing more sensation or hitting more brick walls.
Which is not to say nobody should try; it'll just need a lot of thought and careful planning rather than any rash action.
tambourine-man
Bluelight Crew
We could make an animated gif of him doing something unsavoury? :D
ponch
Bluelighter
A sustained effort to get websites with URLs that look like they could be roflvendor pages on to the first page of google. Said websites are a redirect to factual harm reduction information? The vendor redirecting their url to wikipedia/BL/erowid etc is very unlikely to happen so may be the next best thing.