Give the man a break.
All he's guilty of is telling the truth about what he was doing.
If you read the article you'll see he seems just as lost in the garbage and lies that surround the subject in exactly the same way that most of the
It's unfortunate for him because of who he is.
The same kind of tabloid rubbish surrounds not only this subject but his personal life and unlike ourselves, who remain safe in our anonymity, he
won't be able to escape it..
You can read at least with respect to the boy Jason, unlike 90% of the world he actually seems to give a damn.
As far as publicity goes... good god... take a look at the world around you.
Like it or not we are the fringe science nut-jobs of the internet.
To associate with us a man needs to have one of two things.
Either serious brass stones to risk whatever success he has had or to have given up on the mainstream world he lived in.
From reading what the man has said you can guess which direction he's leaning towards.
I am sorry if this comes across as harsh but I see all too many people that look out only for themselves and this is one of the few places where
people should be able to rise above that.
As far as his endorsement of the site goes... well, that one will go the way of all publicity.
Both good and bad.
We can hope for another hundred guys like Isaac Koi or the moderators.
But realistically we would be lucky to get another one or two.
That and we have to offset our potential gains in 'productive and good' new members against the reality where Springer has to spend an extra hour a
day closing threads opened by new folk guessing who Robbie Williams is and Skeptic Overlord finds the server needs upgraded 6 months earlier than
expected because those nice new quad zeons that have been installed spend 90% of their time handling the thousand new threads a day materialising in
the skunk works.
As a matter of fact, it might be interesting to see what Skeptics take is on the whole unintentional celebrity endorsement thing.
Side note thing.
The effect of this unexpected publication on the current exposure of ATS can actually be measured quite accurately with reasonable server side metrics
which we can see from the stats page we have in spades.
All one needs to do is measure the number of referrals from the guardian article (as a primary - we cannot tell who will produce secondary links to
it) over the next few weeks and check for a potential correlation or deviance from the expected number of anonymous browsers and new sign ups over the
same period. (using a basic trend analysis of historical data)
The results might be interesting.