Mixmag - "Methoxetamine = roflcoptr" - *MUST READ*

[Albion]

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.

I hate this whole conclusive evidence business.

Can't we go Gene Hunt on his ass? We've got a personal dislike and a hunch. Cope's got fingers in more pies than a leper on a cookery course and we all kinda know it.

 

[Myshkin]

Part of me would love to string both Cope and Beaumont-Thomas up right this instant, but we have to at least strive to be fair.

I agree that there's more than enough here to raise some very important questions, but it seems it's not enough for the editorship of Mixmag, who evidently don't take the prospect that their publication has been used to irresponsibly promote sombody's methoxetamine-peddling website at all seriously.

 

[Albion]

Part of me would love to string both him and Beaumont-Thomas up right this instant, but we have to at least strive to be fair.

I agree that there's more than enough here to raise some very important questions, but it seems it's not enough for the editorship of Mixmag, who evidently don't take the prospect that their publication has been used to irresponsibly promote sombody's methoxetamine-peddling website at all seriously.

Well they didn't exactly laugh us out...They took it seriously in that they didn't like having this conversation and would not like to have another along similar lines...

As far as they're concerned they've tied up the loose ends and won't need to say any more on the matter. Which is what I would try to do if someone was questioning the integrity of my enterprise. I would, however, have words with Beaumont-Thomas, like 'why the FUCK is an entire community up in arms about an article you published under Mixmag's name.? You could have brought the whole company into disrepute. Naughty boy, don't do it again etc, let's just pray on your job that the shit doesn't hit the fan for real'.

As in I suspect they had words, Beumont came clean, and they've drawn a line under it all to save everyone's careers. Mr Dick might not have heard of Cope Russell when he wrote that email before speaking to Beaumont-Thomas, but I sure as hell bet he knows who he is now.

The fact he's called Dick doesn't help with my mental image of Mixmag's CEO. It's an unfortunate name for someone in a diplomatic situation like this...

 

[knock]

but it seems it's not enough for the editorship of Mixmag, who evidently don't take the prospect that their publication has been used to irresponsibly promote sombody's methoxetamine-peddling website at all seriously.

To be fair, what the MixMag editor says in a public email and what is said privately to Beaumont-Thomas might be two different things. Who's to say he's not had a dressing down? We might never know because a public admission may have consequences we can't foresee or don't care about in the same way.

EDIT: Beat by JSPete.

 

[Myshkin]

You're probably 100% accurate in your assessment, or at least getting there. From the statement's tone and content it would certainly seem that way. Obviously there's somebody's career (or at least their credibility) hanging in the balance, to say nothing of Mixmag's reputation.

I wonder if some of the other publications to which Beaumont-Thomas contributes would be so prepared to assert his innocence in the face of the evidence presented here? It's a tantalising question but one that we'd have to risk further publicity for Rolfchopper in order to answer.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

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

I hate this whole conclusive evidence business.

We're not in a court of law here. The burden of proof is a lot less stringent. I'm not asking for a court to convict Cope and Beaumont-Thomas of conspiracy I'm asking for an Inquiry into highly questionable journalistic standards.

And I think there's enough evidence for that.

 

[Myshkin]

Undoubtedly, and to be fair I have reasserted that.

All I'm saying is that there ain't enough evidence to force Beaumont-Thomas or Mixmag to hold up their hands, so alternative routes must be sought.

 

[ponch]

Send some of these to their work place/parents address?

NSFW:

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

Surely its possible to take that e out of rofl in the thread title? Wouldn't that help with the google thing? Or not?

 

[Myshkin]

It would. I can get on it right now, because the original purpose (which I think was to avoid publicising the Rolf site) has gone by the wayside now.

And yeah ponch - the porn will do it as well as anything else would. :D

 

[Albion]

You're probably 100% accurate in your assessment, or at least getting there. From the statement's tone and content it would certainly seem that way. Obviously there's somebody's career (or at least their credibility) hanging in the balance, to say nothing of Mixmag's reputation.

I wonder if some of the other publications to which Beaumont-Thomas contributes would be so prepared to assert his innocence in the face of the evidence presented here? It's a tantalising question but one that we'd have to risk further publicity for Rolfchopper in order to answer.

Beaumont-Thomas is likely quite regretful about the whole messy business. Well he ought to be, since he's a journalist who got called out for being bad at journalism. I assume he's pursuing a career, and he might have fucked himself over in a pretty damn shameful way, especially if Mixmag used him as a scapegoat (which they could have done at no expense to their reputation ("it was our journalist's fault, not ours, we have let him go and shall make efforts to maintain journalistic standards in future" etc etc). I think mixmag did the kindest thing and let the guy keep his job with the condition he practices professional journalism from now on...Which I'm sure he will do since nobody wants to lose their jobs and everybody wants to be in the boss's good books.

Maybe I'm too optimistic here. But at the end of the day, it was his mate Russell that coerced him into it, and it's Russell who's selling MXE to the MTV demographic. He really deserves to have his business crippled and his name ridiculed to all who care to listen. Unless he turns his business around.

 

[Myshkin]

I have little doubt you're exactly right there Pete. Sounds far and away most plausible explanation.

I do think Beaumont-Thomas comes off even worse than Cope in this affair - Cope wants to earn a dollar and promote his business, which is only to be expected. Even if Beaumont-Thomas has been genuinely duped by his friend (and I highly doubt it) then he should know better than to write a sensationalist puff-piece about it under the guise of reporting. Especially as it seems (or seemed until this point) that he's pursuing a career away from the gutter press and its lack of standards and integrity.

On the plus side, Google's looking better now. Try "roflcoptr drug".

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

NME sam

 

[Myshkin]

Look down. Like, three places.

 

[Ghostface]

Great work, and excellent posts by SHM, Transform, Vader, Tambourine et al.

link to an article on vice

http://www.vice.com/read/we-interviewed-the-man-who-invented-roflecoptr

 

[Albion]

Look down. Like, three places.

This is great news. Perhaps the title should be changed to something a little more alerting now it's nearly the top hit?

like...READ FIRST...or WARNING or something foreboding yet intriguing.

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

Oi !

 

[Myshkin]

This is great news. Perhaps the title should be changed to something a little more alerting now it's nearly the top hit?

like...READ FIRST...or WARNING or something foreboding yet intriguing.

I agree. What exactly should I put? I'd do 'MUST READ' but it seems a little coercive and forceful. Might work though.

 

[jancrow]

Yo, is there any way you can put something immediately enlightening, for example Vader's excellent post from the start of the other roflfuckr thread, at the head of this one so that the very first thing people see when they click on it from Google is an indication that this stuff is unlikely to have them zipping around the dancefloor like John Travolta? Or even rofling?

I just thought that that post was an extremely clear guide to the stuff.

 

[Myshkin]

I have considered that. The thread follows the narrative of the affair from its inception, so sticking the post itself in there might interrupt that. I think it's important to present that information though, and it was a good post, so maybe a highly conspicuous link in the first post of this thread?

I'll get on it.