-Then there’s the fact that the guy is only offering to make changes, but not to take it down along with his claim of interviewing me, and inferring some sort of association.
[/quote]
That’s a sly move. He might be trying to squeeze enough new info out of you for an ‘exclusive’ or, as you said, inferring an association by updating the plagiarized article just enough to make it look like they interviewed you in the first place.
-Then there’s the fact that the guy is only offering to make changes, but not to take it down along with his claim of interviewing me, and inferring some sort of association.
[/quote]
That’s a sly move. He might be trying to squeeze enough new info out of you for an ‘exclusive’ or, as you said, inferring an association by updating the plagiarized article just enough to make it look like they interviewed you in the first place.
[/quote]
Yeah, that thought popped into my head as well.
So he emailed me confirming its removal. According to the guy who did the original (actual) piece on me, it happens all the time, and he says that Google somehow works it out and removes it on its own (not too clear on this, but whatever).
Kinda sad commentary when swiping stuff like this is so commonplace. It’s not like there is such a high demand for interviews with natty pros that they turn people down… like ever -lol.
[quote]lemony2j wrote:
Apologies for the derail but jskrabak I’m guessing that’s you in your avi? You are looking pretty shredded mate that’s impressive, do you have a log?[/quote]