Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  media spats

Why Is Paul Colichman’s Porn Blogger Fighting With the Miami New Times Over George Rekers?

Is it wrong that I’m totally loving the bitter spat between Unzipped and the Miami New Times? As I can tell, it started with the George Alan Rekers saga and has devolved into Regent Media’s porn magazine-cum-website-only brand feuding with the Village Voice weekly. (Warning: Some links NSFW.)

The latest punch thrown comes from Unzipped — a porn blog — accusing the Times, a brand that “once stood for journalism,” of now being “just a website with big old black cocks in green lace,” for running a photo gallery from a Miami erotica convention. There was also the Twitter war between @UnzippedMedia and @MiamiNewTimes, and the investigation into whether the Times‘ Rekers boyfriend bylines Penn Bullock and Brandon K. Thorp were trying to shop their story to Rolling Stone instead of their employer.

So why are these two brands fighting with each other, when we should all be high-fiving for helping take down that bigot Rekers? Because according to Unzipped‘s blogger Zach Sire, Bullock and Thorp owe it to readers to reveal the source that gave them access to escort Jo-Vanni Roman’s email account. Which is a stupid thing, because journalists being forced to reveal their sources would, uh, stop journalism in its tracks. Writes Unzipped:

And yet, here it is four Miami New Times stories and three days later, and the alternative weekly hasn’t answered two simple questions:

1. How did Bullock and Thorp know who Roman and Rekers were?
2. How did Bullock and Thorp know to be at the airport at the exact same time as Rekers and Roman, with a camera?

To be sure, Bullock and Thorp don’t have to reveal who their source(s) was, but in one of their four stories over the past three days, one would think that a fundamental part of their reporting would be to at least acknowledge that they had a source. Instead, they tell whimsical tales. The articles read like diary entries. To paraphrase what one of my readers wrote in a comment earlier this week, it feels like their entire story should be written in italics.

So why does this matter? Well, put your schadenfreude aside (and don’t get me wrong, the destruction of Rekers—with facts and proper reporting—is a potentially wonderful thing) and consider this: What if Bullock and Thorp were say, I don’t know, fucking Jo-Vanni Roman, and that’s how they got their scoop. At this point, and until they put the origins of their reporting into some kind of context, we don’t know how they got their information.

That’s a lot of speculation, given that we’ve secured some pretty great sources without having sex with them. (Well, not all of them!) But whatever keeps the Rekers story alive, I’m down for. Fight fight fight!


  • 81 Comments
    • Lanjier
      Lanjier

      What does the unzipped blogger have a problem with? The complaints don’t have any substance, as far as I can tell. He castes aspersions about standards in journalism without telling us what standards were violated. I just don’t get the complaint.

      May 19, 2010 at 12:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NG
      NG

      Zach Sire is sure one to talk, huh? Didn’t he recently post stories about a gay porn gossiper supposedly terrorizing gay porn actors without verifying himself whether there was any validity to the story?

      May 19, 2010 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      The origion of their reporting is irrelevent. If it is true, that is all that matters. Remmebe,r Woodward and Bernsteine kept the identity of “Deep Troat” a secret for decades. The guy from Unzipped obviously has another agenda. Even the way he says that Rekers being brought down is “Potentially” a good thing. POTENTIALLY?! When would it NOT be a good thing to bring down an anti-gay bigot who was a huge opposition to gay rights? Again, this Unzipped blogger is probably being paid off by Rekers or is one of his former rentboys.

      May 19, 2010 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aj_larder
      aj_larder

      NO “NG” NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA THAT YOU’RE REALLY DEMON LUEZER SAID INTERNET STALKER.

      YES CAM GEORGE REKERS IS PAYING OFF GAY PORN BLOGGERS.

      The comments on this blog make question the future of humanity.

      May 19, 2010 at 2:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @aj_larder:

      Get off your high horse fool. My comment was because unless he IS being paid off then there is no logical reason for him to attack the basis of the story. Anybody versed in journalism knows that accepting the thrust of the story negates any questions about it’s sourcing. The story is true, Rekers hasn’t sued, the hooker says it is true. This blogger isn’t questioning the conclusion but is trying to lob weak attacks at the reporters as to how they broke the case. This is EXACTLY the same tactic that the right wingers defending Rekers used….not similar, but the exact same tactic. So sorry if you don’t like the fact that i’m accusing a gay porn blogger of taking money from Rekers, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

      It wouldn’t be the first time people in gay porn were yes men for the anti-gay right, or have you forgotten about Jeff Gannon, former prositute and blog shill for the Bush White house, or Cpl. Matt Sanchez gay porn star and prostitute who was shilling for the right wing until they found out about his “Other Job.”

      By trying to attack this story unfairly, this guy is shilling for the anti-gay bigots. Self respecting gays should not do anything that would give him attention or money.

      May 19, 2010 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NickadooLA
      NickadooLA

      @Cam: This is all over little more than a bruised ego. Zack Sire was upset that New Times failed to credit Unzipped for revealing “Lucien’s” true identity and instead gave credit to Gawker. A tweet battle ensued between Zack and New Times. (yawn)

      May 19, 2010 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NG
      NG

      AJ, you really need to get a grip.

      You’re paranoid delusions are out of control.

      May 19, 2010 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @NickadooLA:

      You’re kidding?! Well hell, then just put up the proof that he ran with the story first and ask for a correction. Sheesh, what a load.

      May 19, 2010 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NickadooLA
      NickadooLA

      @Cam: Actually he did. That’s how this escalated in the first place. (The Gawker piece in question actually credited Unzipped as their source). New Times essentially replied by suggesting that since they’re real journalists and that linking to a lowly porn blog would be beneath them.

      Hence, Zack Sire’s full frontal assault on the journalistic integrity of New Times.

      Again, it’s all pretty damned silly.

      May 19, 2010 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aj_larder
      aj_larder

      @NG: Paranoid delusional pot, Kettle calling!

      Isn’t it time for you to tweet about having Huevos Rancheros with your menagerie of made up boyfriends, lovers, and business partners from the bathroom of poor elderly mother’s welfare apartment in Lowell MA? LOL.

      May 19, 2010 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NG
      NG

      @aj_larder: This is fascinating. I wrote about Zach Sire citing fiction as fact and here you are factualizing about me being the person I wrote as being a fake and fraud.

      Whew. And it’s only Tuesday.

      What the fuck is huevos rancheros, by the way.

      Never mind, it a rhetorical and I already looked it up. Playing the racist card, too?

      WOW.

      May 19, 2010 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lanjier
      Lanjier

      Wonderful comments, Cam and NG. Thanks for swinging that baseball bat for truth and integrity.

      May 19, 2010 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scoop
      Scoop

      Well, to be fair, lets not forget about socialite slut wanna-be, Mia Salome, from The Miami New Times. She pissed kerosene all over this story via her Twitter – when if she had just kept her mouth (which was probably full of huge black cock)shut, this whole thing might just have gone away a bit sooner than it has.

      Personally, I hope this story never dies. There’s still untruths here to uncover – although admittedly, no one will talk about it now. They just want it to go away.

      May 19, 2010 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • onCloud9
      onCloud9

      @Scoop: Who is Mia Salome?

      May 19, 2010 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @NickadooLA:

      Thanks for the history lesson in this one. Although it was very douchy of them not to link back if he was the one who gave them the info. If he is the one who helped them break it they should at least include some mention if that is what really happened. However, he should just attack them directly, i.e. go after them for credit in the story etc… he shouldn’t be attacking the foundation of the story, it could play into the hands of the wingers out there looking for any excuse to discount it.

      Thanks again for the info!

      May 19, 2010 at 6:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr.Woo
      Mr.Woo

      This whole Rekers affair: Yawn.

      May 19, 2010 at 6:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scoop
      Scoop

      @Scoop: Who is Mia Salome?

      This is her Twitter Profile – which links her to the Miami New Times. Her real name is Maria Salome – Or at least that is what she goes by at the paper. Her position is in, yes, you guessed it – Marketing! lol. See Zachary Sire’s twitter for her hateful marketing tactics and remarks.

      Her Bio: Hi, it’s me Salome. New addition to the New Times’ multimedia marketing team and part time South Beach socialite.

      In other words – she’s probably new to Miami and is available for massages, with of course, a one hours notice (no text or blocked numbers please.)Or perhaps not. Who really knows about these type women?

      She self-inserted herself into this story for some unknown and unexplained reason. Another reason to further Penn and Bullock’s involvement in this story.

      May 19, 2010 at 7:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • a. mcewen
      a. mcewen

      Great. One of the best stories ever to come out of the gay media and it may be ruined by stupid bickering. Just rejoice, say good job to the two journalists and leave it at that.

      May 19, 2010 at 7:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • OnCloud9
      OnCloud9

      @Scoop: Haha, thanks! Way to go man.

      May 19, 2010 at 8:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      @a. mcewen: If it were only that simple. Sadly, I’ve been following this feud more closely than I’d like to admit, but the reality is, Zach Sire has raised a lot of important questions about these “heroic” journalists.

      @Cam: New Times, and Bullock and Thorp, knew “Lucien’s” identity. They didn’t need to thank Unzipped for uncovering it. Bullock and Thorp tried to keep Jo-Vanni’s identity a secret. They blurred his photo and gave him a fake name. Why?

      a) He’s most likely their friend and b) he’s most likely their source.

      Why would anyone conclude they’re all friends? They’re all long-haired gay skater twinks that live in the same city. What are the odds they’re NOT in the same social circle?!

      So escort Jo-Vanni calls his buddies back home and tells them all about his free trip to Europe with a creepy old who keeps quoting scripture. And his buddies, two live musical theatre critics in Miami (because if Miami is known for anything, it’s live musical theatre, right?) just heard the story of a lifetime accidentally fall directly in their laps.

      Why would this be a problem? Because Jo-vanni signed a confidentially agreement with Rekers. Rekers can sue the kid for everything he’s got, and likely will.

      While Bullock and Thorp may’ve “tried” to keep Jo-Vanni’s identity private, in their journalistic incompetence, they all but drew a map to his profile on Rentboy.com: They gave his age, his profile description, the search terms they used, and what page you could find him on.

      The fact that Bullock and Thorp’s version of how they broke the story seems to change about as often as Reker’s and Jo-Vanni’s stories is pretty fucked. They’ll likely get taken to the cleaners by Reker, as well.

      Don’t get me wrong, I like everyone else is happier than a shig in pit that a hypocritical douchebag like Reker was exposed for what he is, and I enjoy pointing and laughing along with everyone else…

      Sadly, however, there’s been enough bullshit going on in exposing this story that Reker has the potential to restore his image and put Jo-Vanni, Bullock, Thorp, and New Times into the poor house. And that sucks.

      May 19, 2010 at 9:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WalkderDC
      WalkderDC

      @Nickadoo:

      But none of that matters. It wouldn’t matter if they had hired the Prostitute and had him send an e-mail to Rekers offering his services. The issue is that Rekers engaged in a sexual activity with another man. The circumstances leading up to that don’t matter. The story is Rekers hypocrisy. If somebody broke a story that BP had paid off the govt. to look the other way while they ignored safety regulations on their oil rigs, it wouldn’t matter if that information came from a hooker that stole a memo from one of her John’s or if it was from a whistle blower. The fact of the story is, Rekers, one of the largest anti-gay attackers in the country is a self hating homo.

      May 19, 2010 at 9:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      @WalkderDC: None of that matters to the spectators like us enjoying the sport. Sadly, it matters to all who are actually involved, and I don’t think they’re aware of how bad things can get for them…

      With the exception of Rekers, who won’t necessarily come off smelling like a rose. But how many of those unwiped assholes ever smell like roses in the first place?

      May 19, 2010 at 10:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      We can all bitch about how “catty” Zach Sire might be reacting to his bruised ego, but the reality is they all need to be paying attention to every word he posts and prepare themselves for the shit that’s gonna go down.

      Like it or not, Sire is doing his homework. Bullock and Thorp? Not so much.

      May 19, 2010 at 10:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brandon K. Thorp
      Brandon K. Thorp

      Hiya.

      Queerty: Thanks again for covering this story, even into its weirder digressions.

      Nickadoo: Thanks to you, too, for paying such close attention. I’d like to address a few of the points you’ve raised here.

      Firstly, how has our story changed? Here’s how we got the scoop: A former associate of Jovanni’s, who happened to have access to Jovanni’s email account, met Penn in a Wilton Manors bar. The two became Facebook friends. A few weeks later, Jovanni’s ex-associate recognized the name of Jovanni’s new client, and told Penn about it. That’s all.

      No, we didn’t know Jovanni before researching this story. Not even a little. We do not live in the same city, nor do we travel in the same circles. (Most of our friends are writers; most of Jovanni’s friends are I-don’t-know-whats.) Jovanni lives in extreme Western Kendall, whereas Penn and I live in Wilton Manors. There are a dozen cities between our two homes, including Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, Dania, Hialeah, Opa-Locka, North Miami, Miami Gardens, Coral Gables, and probably more. The one time we went to interview Jovanni at his apartment, it should have taken us about 90 minutes to get there. (We got lost, so it took longer.)

      No, we’re not too worried about legal reprisals from George Alan Rekers. We didn’t take any chances with our reporting. Everything from our note-taking to our recording to our phrasing was done with keen, and even obsessive, attention to state and federal law. Each time we wrote a story, it passed through two editors, one copy editor, and a high-powered legal team before hitting the web. Journalism-by-committee doesn’t always lead to great literature, as we now know, but it does help a body sleep at night.

      Some other housecleaning: We kept Jovanni’s identity secret because he would only do an interview on condition of anonymity, and his identity was revealed, at least partially, because one of our attempts at misdirection backfired rather stupendously. (We directed readers to the second page of “Rentboy” results, where Jovanni’s profile had appeared prior to the Euro-trip. But for the week prior to our story’s publication, the profile appeared on the first page. By some hellish coincidence, it slipped back just as we went public.) Also, I must confess to considerable naivete: I really didn’t think people would go after Jovanni so intensely. Then again, I didn’t think the story would hit The Colbert Report less than 48 hours after publication.

      If there is anybody in the world not yet bored with these aspects of the Rekers story, I’d be happy to answer their questions. To the rest of you — thanks for reading, and I bid you a lovely night.

      Regards,
      - BKT

      May 19, 2010 at 11:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Nickadoo

      What is your relationship to Zach Sire, besides twitter?

      May 19, 2010 at 11:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 3 · Cam wrote, “The origion of their reporting is irrelevent. If it is true, that is all that matters. Remmebe,r Woodward and Bernsteine kept the identity of “Deep Troat” a secret for decades.” … but “Deep Throat” just told them where to look – remember the line, “Follow the money”?

      While it is probably just QUEERTY’s sloppy editing, the statement in this article if literally true indicates criminal behavior: “Bullock and Thorp owe it to readers to reveal the source that gave them access to escort Jo-Vanni Roman’s email account. Which is a stupid thing, because journalists being forced to reveal their sources would, uh, stop journalism in its tracks.”

      If the source literally gave Bullock and Thorp access to Roman’s email account and they poked around on their own, those two have committed a serious crime that could land them in jail for years. If the source simply told them what was in it, it might end up with the usual conflict between protecting a source and testifying about a crime, which every so often lands a reporter in jail for contempt – even if you find the user name and password for someone’s email account, accessing it is still illegal just as it is illegal to go into a house simply because the owner had hid the key under the doormat, you looked there, and found it. You don’t get a “get out of jail for free” card if you do that and are a reporter looking for a story.

      May 20, 2010 at 1:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      @Cassandra: Zach Sire and I wouldn’t be able to pick each other out of a lineup.

      But we’re in the same age range and live in the same city. What are the odds we don’t share the same social circle?

      Congratulations for finding that link. Imagine what a lawyer could do with that information.

      May 20, 2010 at 1:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Conerned Twink
      Conerned Twink

      @NG:

      Oh Hey NG-

      I want to thank you too for your awesome contribution to this converstation. You really are insightful and obviously very intelligent.

      Quick question: I was wondering if you’re the same NG as this NG / Nelson Garcia, who’s a convicted pedophile (and scary, nasty-looking dude to boot):

      http://www.wikisposure.com/NG

      Signed,
      Concern Twink

      May 20, 2010 at 2:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Nickadoo

      In Post 20, you wrote:
      “a) He’s most likely their friend and b) he’s most likely their source.

      Why would anyone conclude they’re all friends? They’re all long-haired gay skater twinks that live in the same city. What are the odds they’re NOT in the same social circle?!”

      Now, regarding Zack, you state:

      “But we’re in the same age range and live in the same city. What are the odds we don’t share the same social circle?”

      Based on the same information, you implied that Bullock and Thorp of conspired with Jo-Vanni.

      And now you are here defending what is at best petulant and unprofessional behavior on the part of Zach Sire. By your own standard, isn’t it “most likely” that you are Zack’s friend and that he is your source?

      I’m just not getting the impression that you are modeling the level of transparency you expect of others.

      This is the problem is running around telling other people what they are supposed to do and say, Nickadoo, people start to wonder about what you are doing and saying.

      May 20, 2010 at 2:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      @Cassandra: As I said, congratulations on making that link with a modest click of a mouse. Imagine what a lawyer could do with a similar lead.

      May 20, 2010 at 3:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lanjier
      Lanjier

      @Brandon K. Thorp

      Brandon. Thank you for your comment, and for all of your wonderful and brave reporting. The gay community owes you and your partner a deep debt of gratitude and respect. I can’t see the slightest breach of any ethical duty to anyone, and see that your journalistic performance was stellar. Thank you.

      May 20, 2010 at 7:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @Brandon K. Thorp: I don’t know if you guys have been viewing all the posts here on Queerty St. I for one wish to thank you guys for tearing down that vile reprehensive scumbag Reekers. As usual there are BQs here need to find something to bitch about. This man was a cancer on the Gay community for decades, his vile hatefilled campaign caused countless Gay teens to be tossed out of their homes, to sell their cocks for cash, and most likely commmit sucicide by their lemming like Parents adhering to the dispicable words of this scumbag as if they were written in the bible. You got the story and Reekers is now wallowing in the shit bed he made for himself. He will never again have the ear of elected officials with significant powers to create and enact legislation to have severe negative effects on Gay lives. You guys did a tremendous service to every member of the Gay community. Keep on doing what you are doing and ignore the haters……………

      May 20, 2010 at 9:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 26 · B said…

      If the source literally gave Bullock and Thorp access to Roman’s email account and they poked around on their own, those two have committed a serious crime that could land them in jail for years.
      _____________

      That isn’t the case B. If you are allowed access by somebody who is a user, there is no crime. If 5 tennants are renting a house, and one tennant lets another person in. The other 4 tennants cannot accuse that person of breaking and entering.

      May 20, 2010 at 10:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brandon K. Thorp
      Brandon K. Thorp

      Cam: You may be right, but we didn’t want to take any chances. We were willing to look at nothing but screen-shots, and we got approval from the legal team before doing even that.

      PlaysWell: Thanks for your kind words. We’re happy the story happened, and we’re almost as happy that it’s over with, at least our part in it. Real life may now resume.

      - BKT

      May 20, 2010 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheInsider
      TheInsider

      @Lanjier: Obviously you don’t know jack about journalism.

      May 20, 2010 at 11:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheInsider
      TheInsider

      @Brandon K. Thorp: You or your partner said in one of your first postings that you preferred all questions be addressed to you guys via private e-mail, that you didn’t have time to be answering stuff here due to deadlines. Now you are here all the time, obviously reading and commenting on anything. Why the change?

      May 20, 2010 at 11:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheInsider
      TheInsider

      @Nickadoo: Well stated. There is obviously much more here than has been said. And obviously the reporters are nervous, for now they are answering comments quite frequently. Still, their story varies all the time, and some issues remain unclear. I could not even find Thorp’s bf’s name among the New Times credits, either as a staff writer or contributing writer. So, why then is he even in the story? Because he knew Jo-Vanni? Or simply because he is Thorp’s bf? Too bad this whole affair remains so murky, because it has stained the procedures. And obviously someone else agrees with this: the New Times’ own sister publication in Broward did not want to run the story, and neither did other national outlets like Rolling Stone.
      Time to go back to journalism school kids.

      May 20, 2010 at 11:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheInsider
      TheInsider

      @Brandon K. Thorp: Here’s how we got the scoop: A former associate of Jovanni’s, who happened to have access to Jovanni’s email account, met Penn in a Wilton Manors bar. The two became Facebook friends. A few weeks later, Jovanni’s ex-associate recognized the name of Jovanni’s new client, and told Penn about it. That’s all.

      1) who happened to have access to Jovanini’s email. Sure, just like that.
      2) met Penn in a Wilton Manors bar. This is important. Then, why didn’t the Broward New Times pick up the story?
      3) The two became Facebook friends. So the reporter and the source were now pals?
      4) recogzized he name of Jovanni’s new client. How? Who knew Rekers in the first place? Most of gay youth probably did not.
      5) with so many omissions, holes and questions, the job by your editors was at the very least sloppy and mediocre.
      Keep digging Unzipped, keep digging. The truth shall set you free.

      May 20, 2010 at 11:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scoop
      Scoop

      Since I haven’t received a response back from Michael Lacey – And seeing that Mr. Thorp is responding to questions here – I’d like to repost this in hopes of his comment(s)

      Thanks in advance to your clarifications.

      Has Executive Editor of Village Voice Media, Michael Lacey, personally and thoroughly vetted the background relationships and associations of his two reporters – Bullock and Thorp – as they might have existed prior to this story breaking, when and where it relates to Rentboy Jo-Vanni Roman or the current elephant in the room – The “authorized user” of Roman’s email account?

      Or has this story simply become such a huge and epic media bonanza of exposure for one of his alternative newspaper publications, that he is simply accepting of their word – that prior to publishing, there existed no relationships or associations which could now, or in the future, taint these reporters reputations and credibility through their actions to expose a hateful lying bigot?

      Let’s for just a moment, entertain – reasonable conclusions.

      How many of YOU have an authorized user on your personal email account? Probably some of you do, but probably MOST of you do not. And when it IS the case, it’s usually something boyfriends and girlfriends might have and share with each other sometimes, married couples sharing only one email account and computer, and relationships such as that.

      If you are an authorized user on someone else’s email account, then you are most certainly without question going to be pretty tight with that person. And, you are most likely going to be of like age, and probably roll with the same type crowd and people. And it also probably goes without saying that you are going to be familiar with your friend’s – friends.

      So with that being said, and reasonable to conclude – to believe that this “authorized user” was not aware of Roman’s trip, his itinerary or Roman’s client prior to his departure to Europe with the Bigoted lying queer, George Rekers, is simply unbelievable to me.

      And why was this “authorized user” so conveniently in Roman’s email contact list, as Bullock and Thorp claim, at just the right time to identify Rekers as the loathsome, pathetic gay hater who was overseas with his friend Roman? What really are the chances of that? A million to one? Maybe more?

      How many of YOU, knew who George Rekers was, before this story broke? I see no hands raised in the room –so I’ll proceed.

      Yet, we’re asked to believe, by Bullock and Thorp, that this “authorized user”, obviously, a very close and trusted friend of Roman, immediately knew who Rekers was by name, or by email moniker, and realized the enormous implications and impact of him being with a gay male prostitute and decided on his own, to action this story to the press.

      But not to just any press or to just any reporters. Gay reporters who happen to be boyfriends, and who claim they never knew of Roman or this “authorized user” before this “authorized user” brought this story to their attention. How likely is it that this “authorized user” would go to THEM, as opposed to the mainstream press with this story? And how likely is it that this “authorized user” would know of Bullock and Thorp and Roman would not?

      And if you were an “authorized user” on someone else’s email account – how likely would it be that without the email owner’s knowledge or permission, you would take it upon yourself to turn over private and privileged email communications between you and another person to the press, which just might cause an awful lot of unwanted embarrassment and humiliation – not only to your friend, but to his family and friends alike?

      How likely is that really?

      And in Bullock and Thorp’s latest “creative explaining” found here http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-13/news/how-george-alan-rekers-and-his-rent-boy-got-busted-by-new-times they describe things that they could not possibly know. Like, for instance, their description of Roman sitting on a baggage cart at a Miami International Airport arrivals terminal and seemingly looking worried. That would be impossible and improbable, simply due to the layout, design and security of the facility. And of course, where’s the picture of that? Wouldn’t that be a great shot for your story?

      Since Bullock and Thorp claim that Roman had no knowledge of what was about to transpire, why would he look worried, as they state he was in their latest article? And what, at that point in time, pretell, would he have to be worried about? – If you believe what Bullock and Thorp state in their latest article.

      Reasonable conclusions suggest to me, and I know to a growing number of other people as well, that Bullock and Thorp have more explaining to do. Not the kind of explaining which they have offered up so far – but explaining with a bit more honesty attached to it.

      So I’ve decided to ask the Executive Editor of Village Voice Media, Michael Lacey, for some clarity here. After all, of all people, he should be the one person capable and willing to clarify all of these uneasy feelings people are beginning to have about this.

      Specifically, Did he personally and thoroughly vet the possibility of pre-existing relationships and/or associations between his reporters and Rentboy Jo-Vanni Roman? Or friends and acquaintances of Rentboy Jo-Vanni Roman – prior to or after the publishing this story.

      It seems like a fair question, since his editors note in his comments section defend the actions of his reporters.

      May 20, 2010 at 11:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoeyB
      JoeyB

      @Scoop: Thanks man, definitely makes me think twice now about this whole sordid affair. Stinks big time.

      May 20, 2010 at 11:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @TheInsider: Do you not know the damage that scumbag Reekers did for decades to the Gay community? Do you not realize that he had the ear of the Attorney General of the state of Florida??? For decades he published books, gave lectures, testified in courts of law, et all in an effort to cause as much harm on the Gay community as possible. A community he unfortunately belonged to!! How many parents read his books and took his word as gospel, subjecting their kids to basic torture by adhering to his sick methods of “preventing Gay teens”???? How many kids were tossed out onto the streets? were forced to sell their cocks for cash??? committed suicide???? What the fuck motivates you???? Brandon and Penn deserve our thanks and gratitute for the tremendous service they did to the community……………

      May 20, 2010 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @Scoop: See number 41 applies to you also……….

      May 20, 2010 at 11:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brandon K. Thorp
      Brandon K. Thorp

      @Scoop, @The Insider, etc:

      Greetings to you. Many of your questions are based upon a misreading of our story (the bits about the geography of Miami Int’l Airport, for example), or else assumptions that you might not recognize as such. Nevertheless, I’d be happy to clear up some of these questions for you.

      Not here, though. A comments section at Queerty is a fine place for a friendly discussion and exchange of information. It is not, however, the best place for a serious interview, or for the kind of citizen journalism in which you seem interested. No comments board is. If you would like to arrange an on-the-record interview, you may certainly seek me out via email, or by phoning my office at the James Randi Educational Foudnation.

      Thanks,
      - BKT

      May 20, 2010 at 12:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lanjier
      Lanjier

      @the scoop

      What is your nonsense complaint? You are not making any sense! Say it in ten words or less, asshole.

      May 20, 2010 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scoop
      Scoop

      @Brandon K. Thorp:

      I would agree, that, the comments section of a blog is a poor choice for a published writer to answer a reader’s questions and to make comment about a story which you were involved in. Then again, it was you who elected to come here and answer selective questions from some – while choosing to ignore questions from others.

      It would appear, at least to me – a simple, unimportant citizen journalist, that my questions have made you feel uncomfortable, and that any public acknowledgment of them, by you, in the form of an explanation or answer, could possibly put you at some time down the road in a position of rebuke or even embarrassment.

      Since I am, a simple, unimportant citizen journalist, I would have no vehicle to publish the detailed “on the record” interview for which you are suggesting to me.

      Perhaps if there are any real journalists out there reading this, they might step up and take you up on your “on the record” interview, which could include my previously written commentary, which both you and Michael Lacey have chosen to publicly dodge and ignore.

      May 20, 2010 at 1:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 33 · Cam wrote, “That isn’t the case B. If you are allowed access by somebody who is a user, there is no crime. If 5 tennants are renting a house, and one tennant lets another person in. The other 4 tennants cannot accuse that person of breaking and entering.”

      You missed the point. An accurate analogy is that, if you gave a friend a key to your house (e.g., to keep as a spare in case you lost yours), and that friend made a duplicate and gave the duplicate to a third party who then entered the house, that third party could easily be accused of a crime. This specific QUEERTY article (I suspect due to poor writing) literally stated that these reporters had accessed Rekers email account, which means (as written, not necessarily as intended) that they logged into Roman’s email account and poked around.

      Also, if you gave a friend a key to hold and he used it to get into your house, he could still be charged – as long as there is credible proof that he did not have permission to enter. Without credible proof, he still would have committed a crime, but would probably not be prosecuted due to the reasonable doubt standard needed to get a conviction.

      If Roman had given permission for the reporters to look at his email, specifically his dealings with Rekers, and if Roman had promised Rekers that he would be discrete, Roman could be in serious trouble for breach of contract, although that is purely a civil matter. My guess is that he didn’t do that and his friend (most likely) was untrustworthy, and possibly guilty of a crime. The potential mitigating factor is that, as a safety precaution, Roman could have told his friend to look at his email account, etc., if Roman was seriously injured by a client or worse (or simply disappeared mysteriously). His friend could claim that not seeing Roman or talking to him by phone for over a week triggered that.

      May 20, 2010 at 2:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      Maybe I am missing something here. George Alan Reekers wreaked havoc on the Gay community for decades. His vile reprehensive words and deeds did actual harm to our community. He wasn’t just a loudmouth at meetings, or a blogger. He was able to pick up the phone and get through to the Attorney General of the state of Florida. He was paid anywhere from $60,000 to $120,000 for his vile, lie filled, “testimony” in the custody case where a Gay wished to adopt two kids, save them from the nightmares of being bounced around the foster care institutions. The Judge dismissed his “testimony” as basicaly the rants of a biased lunatic. Because of the investigation of Brandon and Penn, this scumbag has been taken down and not only he but other vile beings such as him will find it much more difficult to be embraced by officials who wish to create and enact legislation which will harm the Gay community. Can someone please tell me why anyone who identifies as a member of the Gay community would wish to create even the slightest bit of doubt as to the vailidity and legality of the process of Reekers being exposed???

      I also find it very intersting that suddenly there are a significant number of new posters on these threads on Queerty St. concerning anything related to this case suddenly populate these threads and tend to never pop up on any other threads…….

      May 20, 2010 at 2:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoeyB
      JoeyB

      @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: Conspiracies! bwa hahahaha…

      May 20, 2010 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheInsider
      TheInsider [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: You still do not get it, do you?

      May 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheInsider
      TheInsider [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Brandon K. Thorp: No, I do not think we misread the story. None of these doubts would have surface had the story been written in a direct, clear and concise way, in which sources were stated or at the very least, how they collaborated, none of this would have happened. You still do not answer the questions I and others have raised, and I tend to agree with Scoop, they make you guys uncomfortable for whatever reason.
      Some people here refuse to see that, because of the positive outcome against Rekers, that does not mean procedural questions arising from doubts can be asked. Here is a suggestion that may help clarify the controversy and dispel any myths: how about providing an account in your paper, not on a blog, of how Penn met the source and provide e-mails that document that first exchange? Otherwise, it sure looks like you were all buddies or more salivating at the opportunity for a big break.

      May 20, 2010 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Wow, it has become a virtual sock drawer here, just full of puppets all parroting the same noise from UnZipped.

      It is interesting that my request for transparency from Nickadoo received only an empty dismissal, and then suddenly, several new ids pop up to say the same things Nickadoo said.

      How conveeenient.

      Unzipped in fast becoming the next Perez Hilton. Hey, maybe that’s the reason for all this mess – the hope that if unzipped is obnoxious and anti-social enough, someone will offer them a multimillion dollar buy out.

      May 20, 2010 at 3:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheInsider
      TheInsider [Different person #2 using similar name]

      @Cassandra: What an asinine comment. Duh.

      May 20, 2010 at 3:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @TheInsider: Funny, want to ask you the same thing!!

      May 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: Calling them as I see ‘em…………

      May 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @JoeyB: First day with my new fingers :-p ……#54 was directed towards you………

      May 20, 2010 at 3:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brandon K. Thorp
      Brandon K. Thorp

      Scoop:

      Pardon me. I don’t believe I’ve ever intimated that you were “simple” or “unimportant.” If I gave that impression, I apologize.

      For the record, I am perfectly happy to come here or anywhere and answer questions posed by the genuinely curious. But I do not believe you are genuinely curious. I believe your mind is made up. And if you’ve ever had a debate with a party whose mind is made up w/r/t a position with which you disagree — say, a 9/11 Truther or an astrologer — you’ll know that such discussions are fruitless, joyless, and endless. Such a discussion, in a public setting or elsewhere, is no fun at all.

      That’s why I suggest an interview. Interviews have beginnings, middles, and endings. Let’s do one, and you may publish it wherever. On a comments board. I don’t care.

      When you schedule our interview, though, please bear in mind the following: Any meaningful proposition must be falsifiable. In other words, you must ask yourself: What would convince you that you’re wrong? You’ve read our whole story — mis-reading much of it — and still you insist on our criminality. Plainly, words alone will not sway you. What will? What if you heard all of our recorded conversations with Jovanni — including the first one, where he hung up on Penn for fear of public exposure? Would you assume the whole recording was staged for your benefit?

      I think so. But if I am wrong, and if your opinions have not calcified completely, I ask you to call me, please. We’ll set up an interview, and afterwards you may feel some satisfaction.

      I thank you again for your attention to the story.

      And Insider:

      Sorry. We can’t publish anything from the initial source, because he has requested total anonymity — even from Jovanni. (Jovanni, being a smart fellow, figured it out on his own. And he was pretty pissed.) Publishing his communications with Penn would violate the spirit of our agreement.

      As to the rest of your request: We have already published an account of how Penn met the source. It was at a bar in Wilton Manors. Do you really believe you’ll be satisfied with more details? That the source had once dated the ex-boyfriend of the friend that Penn was with that night? (Or something like that.) That the bar was called The Manor? That Penn was drinking a Heineken?

      What you want is a name. Barring that, you want the reason the fellow had access to Jovanni’s email account in the first place — and you want to know why someone entrusted with such vital personal information would rather talk to a journalist than explain to Jovanni the massive fustercluck in which he is about to become embroiled. But I can’t tell you that. Those details would compromise the source’s anonymity.

      Please do write me with further questions. I have spent far too much time on this board now, and unless someone says something really maddening, I’ll not post here again.

      Good day to you all.
      - BKT

      May 20, 2010 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 46 · B
      No. 33 · Cam wrote, “That isn’t the case B. If you are allowed access by somebody who is a user, there is no crime. If 5 tennants are renting a house, and one tennant lets another person in. The other 4 tennants cannot accuse that person of breaking and entering.”

      You missed the point. An accurate analogy is that, if you gave a friend a key to your house (e.g., to keep as a spare in case you lost yours), and that friend made a duplicate and gave the duplicate to a third party who then entered the house, that third party could easily be accused of a crime.
      ____________________

      No, B that isn’t the case. If the second party had the rights to the house, then he can give the key to whomever he wanted to. The third party was given the key by somebody who had apparent authority to let them in. They cannot be faulted for not knowing the exact nature of the agreement between the first two. Seriously, I get that you have latched onto this, but there is no crime.

      Now, if the FIRST person had given the key to the SECOND person, with the agreement that the second person never make a duplicate key nor let anybody else in…the THIRD person is still free and clear, but the first person could go after the second person CIVILY for breaching their agreement. Again, there is no criminal liability.

      May 20, 2010 at 4:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CharlesinCharge
      CharlesinCharge

      @Brandon K. Thorp: Ah, correction dude: A theater critic. Question: Why didn’t you guys then work with one of the investigative reporters from your newspaper and have him sign as well? This was ambition run amok or naivete?

      May 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CharlesinCharge
      CharlesinCharge

      Did I read this correctly?

      Barring that, you want the reason the fellow had access to Jovanni’s email account in the first place — and you want to know why someone entrusted with such vital personal information would rather talk to a journalist than explain to Jovanni the massive fustercluck in which he is about to become embroiled. But I can’t tell you that.

      No wonder this has turned into such a mess.

      May 20, 2010 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Penn
      Penn

      This is Penn, co-writer of the Rekers. To clarify, we never directly accessed Roman’s email. We got screenshots of the emails from a person to whom Roman had given his email password.

      May 20, 2010 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 57 · Cam wrote, “No, B that isn’t the case. If the second party had the rights to the house, then he can give the key to whomever he wanted to. The third party was given the key by somebody who had apparent authority to let them in. They cannot be faulted for not knowing the exact nature of the agreement between the first two. Seriously, I get that you have latched onto this, but there is no crime.”

      Cam, that is simply not the case and everyone should know it. If I came home and found someone who had no reason to be there, I’d call the police and if he told them that someone gave him a copy of a key, the police would probably drag him off to the hoosegow and let him tell it to the judge. Example: you loan a contractor a key for a bathroom-remodel project. If he copies the key and gives the copy to a reporter (maybe in return for a “small token of appreciation”) who wants to rummage around your bedroom to see whether there are any sex toys in the dresser, and you catch the reporter, that guy is going to have some explaining to do, and “his contractor gave me a copy of the key” is not going to keep anyone out of jail. If the reporter tells the police, “the contractor told me it was OK”, the police will say, “sure he did” as the handcuffs go on, and the jury is going to think it was simply a transparent excuse or maybe both would be charged.

      May 20, 2010 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 60 · Penn wrote, “This is Penn, co-writer of the Rekers. To clarify, we never directly accessed Roman’s email. We got screenshots of the emails from a person to whom Roman had given his email password.”

      … that will keep the two of you out of jail (as I said, QUEERTY’s article was poorly edited and what went on was ambiguous), unless a judge orders you to identify the source, in which case you will have to argue about the applicability of shield laws.

      It boils down to a simple question: did your source have permission to read Roman’s mail or was he merely given an envelop containing user names and passwords for safe keeping, perhaps with instructions to turn the information over to the police if something bad happened to Roman while “at work”? I could see where Roman might not want to keep copies of his passwords where is roommates (if any) or family members might find them.

      I don’t think anyone is denying that Rekers knew Roman given the recording of a discussion between him and you two. How Rekers got in touch with Roman is less clear (it is possible to bypass rentboy.com’s home page if a search engine found a link to Roman’s contact page or if some other web page had such a link).

      May 20, 2010 at 6:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Penn
      Penn

      Whoops. I see Brandon has already addressed that point. Sorry for the redundancy. Carry on!

      May 20, 2010 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lanjier
      Lanjier

      What is the complaint about Thorpe and Penn? What were they supposed to have done that was wrong? Will someone just answer that simple fucking question?

      They did nothing wrong! They are protecting a source! And who cares what the name of the source was, Rekers admitted he hired through Rentboy.com! How is the source even relevant when Rekers says admits he hired Jo-Vannie. How could these people be so stupid!

      May 20, 2010 at 7:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @Penn: Memo to you and Brandon: Do yourselves a favor and simply ignore the posters on these threads who are tossing hate your way. As stated before there are suddenly a whole lot of new tags here on Queerty St. that strangly only seem to appear when a thread has anything to do with Reekers. Not trying to get all conspiracy theory like here. However I can not for the freaking like of me figger out how a legitimate Gay person who has the ability to read and somewhat comprehend what they have in fact read and have read more than a sentence about Reekers and his vile, reprehensive miserable campaign of hate against the Gays to not want to give anything but thanks to you and Brandon. You tore that scumbag down and put a hurt on him that will prevent him from ever having the influence he had again. Those who have a problem with this whole drama can only have some other agenda, maybe someone who you may have scooped on this story or possibly being tools of the right. It is fairly well known that Maggot Gallagher and her minions find their way into this site whenever there is a thread about her and her wicked campaign. It’s fairly simple to create an profile on Queerty St. and post at will. You guys done real good! Any legitimate Gay person with an IQ higher than a ferret should be able to see that you expose of the total fabrication of a life of Reekers has done tremendous good for the Gays………..Don’t let anyone take that away and don’t waste your time trying to explain anything to those who really have no interest in the actual facts of the case…………..Again, you guys rock ~ good luck in your careers (and as a pretty hawt couple :-p)

      May 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Maybe it is time for a boycott of Unzipped.

      May 20, 2010 at 7:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lanjier
      Lanjier

      You guys are heroes.

      I hope it was Rekers coming on this post to fill it up with nonsense. It would be just like his “scholarly” papers — a lot of bullshit to obfuscate the truth. All that bullshit works great on the conservative christian monkey brain, but it doesn’t work here. The source, blah blah blah, Miami social circles, blah blah blah, email accounts, blah blah blah. Fuck off, douche bag.

      May 20, 2010 at 8:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 64 · Lanjier wrote, “What is the complaint about Thorpe and Penn? What were they supposed to have done that was wrong? Will someone just answer that simple fucking question?”

      Given that they clarified that they did not break into Rekers
      account (QUEERTY inadvertently suggested that by using the word “access” which typically means logging in), they didn’t do anything illegal. What people reasonably would like to know is whether the source had permission to read Roman’s email. According to Thorp, “Jovanni, being a smart fellow, figured it out on his own. And he was pretty pissed.” If Jovanni Roman was “pretty pissed”, we can surmise that this person did not have permission to access the account, and thus most likely committed a serious crime.

      Lanjier also wrote, “They did nothing wrong! They are protecting a source! And who cares what the name of the source was,” The District Attorney might care if Roman files a criminal complaint, and the D.A. could subpoena both reporters and ask for the source’s name, in which case there would be a legal argument regarding the shield laws.

      Lanjier also wrote, “Rekers admitted he hired through Rentboy.com! How is the source even relevant when Rekers says admits he hired Jo-Vannie. How could these people be so stupid!”

      Do you have a citation for that? The last statement from Rekers that I saw said he claimed to have used Google. Roman claimed he only listed himself on rentboy.com, and Rekers didn’t deny it in a phone conversation with Roman, but Roman was apparently very upset so the lack of a denial doesn’t really mean much. It’s possible to follow a link from another site to a contact page on rentboy.com without seeing rentboy.com’s home page, and without “agreeing” to anything. Whether such a link exists and whether Rekers somehow stumbled on it is not known with any degree of certainty.

      May 20, 2010 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      @Cassandra: Ha! You caught me. I’m Zach Sire. No, I’m Zach Sire’s Rentboy. Actually, I’m Zach Sire’s mother.

      The fact of the matter is, Zach Sire and I don’t know each other from Adam, but we do share mutual friends (small world, gay L.A. is). Regardless, our relation or non-relation bares absolutely nothing about my trying to explain what caused this silly war between Unzipped and New Times. (I’ll repeat: SILLY. I said it in one of my earlier posts, and you glossed over that).

      The reason for the sudden influx of Unzipped defenders, I would imagine, would have more to do with the fact that Unzipped linked to this post this afternoon.

      For the record, I hope Sire’s suspicions are wrong. I hope Bullock and Thorp did everything within the law. I hope Rekers languishes in obscurity until he dies and burns in the fiery pits of hell for eternity.

      I’m glad Rekers was exposed, and I’m happy Bullock and Thorp exposed him. But it was their “considerable naivete” (Thorp’s own words) that exposed Jo-vanni. Let’s all hope the journalistic incompetence ends there.

      May 20, 2010 at 9:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @B: Please once and for all explain why in countless posts you have been hoping for a bad outcome for Brandon and Penn. Am so very curious why you are posting on a Gay site and is seems you care not that a vile despicable scumbag has been rendered powerless to do any more harm to the Gay community but you seem so much more interested in seeing a rightwing wet dream of possible investigation into their breaking the story which led to Reekers down fall. And you whole convoluted clusterfuck of how Reekers used the Googles and may have found a link to a page and so and on and so on is pure doublespeak garbage seeking to give creedence to the stream of lies pouring out of Reekers vile hatefilled mouth….That piece of shit vile dispicable scumsucking bastard is a self hating fag. He went to Rentboy and found a cock for hire. Plain and simple. If you are going to defend that vile scum go take your agenda to any of the thousands of sites who would be more than willing to swear allegience to your twisted agenda and welcome you with open arms.

      May 20, 2010 at 10:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KeepDiggin'
      KeepDiggin'

      Wow, this is just too much! Penn and his bf must be feeling really nervous! They are constantly responding on here and rather defensively. Yet they never really answer the questions. It seems every time they comment, they stir the pot even more, and more questions pop up!
      If I were the editor of that publication New Times, I would be really concerned about what he and his team of lawyers and editors and “reporters” – are theater critics reporters? – have done. Because now, the story is no longer on Rekers. It is on the reporters´lies. Keep it up Unzipped! And Queerty, keep reporting!

      May 20, 2010 at 11:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeffree
      jeffree

      Wow: lots of smoke but no fire…..
      Lots of first time posters here, 2.
      What this seems to boil down to is a school yard squabble about who stole whose lunch-money –that is who scooped who & who got credit for what.

      Bruised egos make for a greater fight than scraped knees, I know that much.

      Yeah, there are valid questions about sources, ethics and legal issues, but *NONE* of those can be solved here. The parties concerned gain little by airing their beefs in a public forum.

      At this point our focus IMHO should be on making sure Jo-Vanni is safe/OK, and that Rekers doesnt get a second act as a advocate for reparative therapy and against same-sex couples adopting.
      The bruised egos pale as priorities now.

      It *is* interesting that Longstroke Rekers still hasnt –to my knowlege– filed a suit and that his threats have led no where.
      Time will tell.

      May 20, 2010 at 11:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • a. mcewen
      a. mcewen

      @Scoop: How many sites did you go to repeating the same nonsense?

      May 21, 2010 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • a. mcewen
      a. mcewen

      @TheInsider: I would suggest that the two reporters pay you and scoop no attention. they did good work. period.

      May 21, 2010 at 12:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 70 · PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS wrote, “@B: Please once and for all explain why in countless posts you have been hoping for a bad outcome for Brandon and Penn.”

      Don’t expect an explanation from me for your misconceptions and poor reading comprehension. I wasn’t hoping for a bad outcome for either of them. I don’t have any sympathy for Rekers either, but that is not a reason to accept sloppy reasoning (e.g., some unjustified jumping to conclusions).

      I just happen to know that willfully accessing a computer without permission can land you in jail. Both Brandon and Penn need to know that – they may have done nothing illegal, but they may be at risk if a D.A. goes after their source.

      http://www.sfgate.com/barrybonds/ has an example of the risks (the San Francisco Chronicle managed to keep its reporters out of jail even though they were sentenced to 18 months in federal prison, but it wasn’t easy, and California’s shield law didn’t help because it was a federal case).

      Also read http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224700368 for the fate of the guy who guessed Sarah Palin’s password and posted screenshots of her email on some websites. He’ll probably get a couple of years in prison (the maximum possible sentence is more like 20 years).

      The Rekers scandal caused some embarrassment for some worthy running for governor in Florida, due the worthy stupidly hiring Rekers to say what the worthy wanted to hear. You can be sure that he is one pissed off politician, and he’d probably love to see the person who leaked the story sent to jail. What do you think he might do if given half a chance?

      May 21, 2010 at 12:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 70 · PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS wrote, “And you whole convoluted clusterfuck of how Reekers used the Googles and may have found a link to a page and so and on and so on is pure doublespeak garbage seeking to give creedence to the stream of lies pouring out of Reekers vile hatefilled mouth”

      You opinion of Rekers does not change how the web works, and terms like “doublespeak garbage” do not change the obvious fact that you are completely ignorant of how search engines and web sites work. If you want to get started, try reading http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ (it’s simpler than the latest specifications). If it looks like gibberish to you, you are in over your head. Also look at http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html for an overview of how Google works.

      May 21, 2010 at 1:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 72 · jeffree wrote, “It *is* interesting that Longstroke Rekers still hasnt –to my knowlege– filed a suit and that his threats have led no where.”

      What’s “interesting” about it? Maybe Rekers talked to a lawyer and was told that suing was not in his best interests, regardless of the truth of the allegations.

      Read http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#4 for a discussion of why suing for defamation may not be a good idea. While the truth of a statement is an airtight defense, there are other defenses that are possible even when the statement is completely false. If you lose, however, many will think it is because the defamatory statements were true when you could in fact lose for other reasons. Awards are often small – to small to cover costs. So it can be difficult to get a lawyer to take the case on a contingency fee basis. The publicity of a trial can also help cement the statements in the public’s mind, making the trial counterproductive, even if you win.

      May 21, 2010 at 2:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scoop
      Scoop

      If you were an “authorized user” on a friends email account – how likely would it be, that without your friends knowledge or permission, that you would take it upon yourself to turn over private and privileged email communications between him and another person to the press – knowing full well that your actions and the information which you were handing over to the press, was as explosive as C4 and which without question, was going to cause an awful lot of unwanted harm, embarrassment and humiliation – not only to your friend, but to your friend’s family as well?

      Under what circumstances would anyone do that to someone? Without warning. Without asking. Without permission or authorization?

      May 21, 2010 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 78 · Scoop wrote, “Under what circumstances would anyone do that to someone? Without warning. Without asking. Without permission or authorization?”

      I think the answer is related to the behavior of some on this thread, who hate Rekers so much that they think anything done to destroy him is justifiable and don’t want to have bogus arguments against Rekers pointed out (which means the bogus ones end up burying the valid ones).

      Their hatred is counterproductive. It’s a “culture war” and smart generals do not hate the enemy. Rather, they focus on winning with minimal losses to their side, and know better than to shoot themselves in the foot just so they can fire a shot in the enemy’s general direction.

      May 21, 2010 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • porno
      porno

      selam

      May 24, 2010 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Loreuroto
      Loreuroto

      Hi:

      I just now registered on http://www.queerty.com.
      I’m intending to take a look around a little bit and encounter interesting individuals and learn a couple of points.

      I really hope this message isn’t in an inappropriate section. Please forgive my offence if it does.

      ——————–

      EDDY KNOX
      Forging Machine Operator

      Dec 28, 2010 at 6:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.