I think that pretty much sums it all up.

I read your last article about companies being unfair to your site due to location, for the most part it seemed based on NGOHQ speculation and would have been better if you had provided quotes from actual PR reps as proof of the problem... mildly entertaining, but not really news.

I read the first page of this new article and then decided that reading the rest was pretty much pointless, you seemingly just want to piss off the PR folks. A four page rant about how they should do their jobs likely isn't going to work in your favor... especially if there are a lot of sites that post your news and if the companies you cared to deal with see it. I cannot understand why you would think that putting your foot in your mouth (and then shooting yourself in the foot) would help your site get review samples, but whatever and good luck with all of this nonsense.

Hi ARTbyTROY and welcome to our forums. I really appreciate your honest opinion and feedback and respect it. However, I’m afraid you got confused because this article has nothing to do with the other one. We started to work on it many weeks ago and the point in this article is to help PR’s and companies to understand and to see our side and point of view. This article is not only based on my experience, it also based on many other editor and members of the press. And yeah and it’s being based on a real stories/events/history.

This article is not to piss off people, it’s about letting them see our side so they could understand and learn from it. It’s not made for our private favor; it’s made for everyone’s favor! Including yours and it supposed to amusing and entertaining.

If I wanted to bash PRs, I would start posting some nasty logs and revealing some “top secret” information (Trust me I have a lot of these) But I’m not trying to do it. That's why we didn't mentioned names in this article. I assume your also working for a website and I inviting you to speak with me over IM. We are all supposed to be friends so we could help each other.

I bet you experienced some of this stuff that we mentioned in the article. We all can just ignore these issues and maybe bash because of it. But we want to make changes and make them understand by humor and history. If it will not help, then we can say at least we tried. But there are chances that it will influence someone (even one guy) and help us (media and the companies) so it’s worth to try. It’s better to try and to fail then do nothing. And again, that article is not just based on me and this site; it’s based on many other members of the press and true history.

Oh and about samples, we now have some nice resources to take care of it. We don’t need their favors anymore. Trust me, if I wanted to piss them off – I have tools, sources and information to give them the first digital world war. I’m sorry if we confused you that both articles are connected.

I and many others felt that this article had a lot of good points and it’s very amusing – that’s why we’ve published it.

Whether or not the PR article was written months ago or just yesterday really is moot, I saw it as a follow up article to your last since it did directly follow your last, surely others will too and draw the same conclusion.

I'll see you in IM.

Hmm... That article was uncomfortable for me to read. It sounded harsh and fiercely condescending. I'm not arguing against your right or prerogative to publish it but the content left a sour taste in my mouth. Would it not have been better just to send an abbreviated version of this article to the companies in mind? It seems you're taking an issue with companies you deal with into the public eye and I believe that's unnecessary. Thanks for your honesty (as always) but perhaps restraint was the better avenue in this case.

Some good points there and I think people should take this as it was meant to be. Just how NGOHQ feels about PR and the importance of proper PR and image on the forum.

I have been in touch with and represented boards in the past by contacting PR of different companies and diplomacy always got me a reply and respect.

On opinions about companies pro or con I can usually make my point without flaming. Opinions are welcome and usually result in a healthy debate which is a good thing. I think posting "company" sucks or "company" are noobs really doesn't hold much foundation and in fact has caused me to leave a few boards in the past.