tigerloaf » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:06 am
I
So Joana Morais it appears that you have got your very ample (hopefully) knickers in a real twist about someone daring to post something from your blog without your permission!
Truth to tell, you are making a right song and dance about it all over the Internet and in the process making yourself look a complete moron (but I will get to that bit in a minute or two).
Let's first have a look at the complaint you are making so vociferously on Twitter and Facebook shall we?
In essence then, what seems to have got up your nose is that the reputable authors, Summers and Swan, have dared to take a few lines from your blog and used them in their book.
That action really does seem to have got you irked doesn't it? I might have wondered why that might be but you have told us haven't you?
Your little rant on Facebook has made it clear why you feel so irked by the fact that a few lines of your blog have been published in THIS PARTICULAR book. You give us three reasons don't you?
You tell us that you don't like the book itself because it doesn't (now that the authors have reviewed all the available evidence) automatically determine the McCanns guilty. These authors have dared to voice their own opinion that (as the Portuguese Authorities have stated and the SY team have re-inforced), there is no evidence that the McCanns are guilty of anything. In your horribly warped idea of reality that means the book is simply "biased". There is no opening in your blinkered view of the world for people to disagree with you. In fact your little Facebook rant makes you sound very much like the increasingly insane Lizzy Taylor from Toronto whose recent outing in bizarre 1960's garb was hilarious and not the wonderful charity advert she presumably believed it would be. People like you and her who cannot accept that others can genuinely come to conclusions which differ from your own are petulant and rather ridiculous. Your calling the work of Summers and Swan "biased" simply because you cannot come up with genuine criticism of it is no surprise at all.
And then you move onto the second reason why you don't like being quoted in THIS PARTICULAR book. You seem to think that just because you refused to answer the "suspicious questions" that the authors sent to you, they have no right to include in their book a few short quotes from your blog. I wonder why you should think that the questions posed were in any way "suspicious"? Can you explain that claim? The truth is, I am certain, that there was absolutely nothing "suspicious" about the questions at all. They were, I am sure, absolutely standard questions posed by journalists when attempting to cover a subject as fully as possible, but having never actually been a journalist you probably would not realise that. If you wish to demonstrate that the questions were in fact "suspicious" as you claim, please do so, otherwise we will assume they were nothing of the kind.
And as any good journalist would do, when you refused to be interviewed by the authors of the book, they chose to look elsewhere for accurate representations of your views. Where better to find such representations than in your own blog. You would have had reason to be angered had they looked on this forum for citations regarding your views; that would indeed have been a biased action but they didn't. They tried the direct approach to you and when you refused to answer those questions they went to the next most accurate source, your own blog. No reason to be annoyed about that then. It is good journalistic practice even if you don't seem to understand that fact.
But the third reason is what has especially irked you. They have included YOU, yes Joana Morais, daughter of the famous artists and one-time lover of the infamous Levy in a chapter of their book devoted to McCann Haters. Such affrontery in the face of someone who self-promotes herself as a citizen "journalist". Perhaps, instead of simply lashing out in predictable fashion at being called a "McCann Hater", you should treat this as a wake-up-call to what the real world (and not the sad and pathetic online hate fest which you helped create on Facebook, Twitter and in the blogosphere) thinks of people such as yourself who fly in the face of the law, in the face of clear statements from both the Portuguese and British authorities and who prefer to act like lynch mobbers in harassing and libelling the parents of a missing little girl. The fact that people such as yourself cannot accept the legal presumption of innocence till guilt is proven is a mark of shame that you carry. When you carry out your campaign of harassment against innocent people then you are rightly called HATERS. When you associate actively, openly and freely with those on Twitter and on Facebook who post vile, obscenity about these parents then you can not be surprised that you find yourself labelled in the same way as the scum. And when, as you have done, you provide a haven for posters of hate and abuse then you are doubly guilty.
The attempts made by such as yourself to disassociate yourself from the obscenity-flinging scum simply don't wash. You are a part of that, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. The label "McCann Haters" is not simply an "epithet" created by anyone at all. It is an accurate description of the foul people who, with your encouragement, your promotion and your active help, harass the parents of Madeleine McCann. Again, I would urge you to open your eyes and look at yourself as the world sees you.
I did promise at the beginning of this post to explain why you are making yourself, Joana Morais, look an absolute moron in regard to this specific complaint about the Summers and Swan book, "Looking for Madeleine". There are two separate reasons.
Summers and Swan have simply acted as professional journalists, approaching the subject they wished to interview (you) directly and when rebuffed going to the next best source, your blog, for accurate reflections of your views. These actions are both legally and professionally correct. Perhaps you did not notice, in your rush to react, but the quotes were accurate and limited in length, they were attributed correctly and with reference to the source. All of this means that the quotations were as the authors, the publisher and others with the most basic understanding of publishing, journalism and writing in general (even at school level) know, perfectly legal and proper. Why you are petulantly kicking up a stink about something which has been done with due regard to the law is a complete mystery to intelligent people reading your posts. Of course, your rant appeals to those who don't understand the basics of law, but that seems to make up a rather large proportion of the anti-McCann hate group and no doubt it makes you feel good to get their applause, likes and favourable comments. Nonetheless, sensible people see through the rant and realise how foolish it makes you look. I suggest you take a look at the sections of law dealing with "fair use". You might realise how lacking in understanding and how foolish you really are sounding.
Not only foolish but utterly hypocritical as well. You are known online not just for your blog but also as the administrator of a forum. The first phrase which comes to mind when thinking about the way in which you have reacted to the few quotations taken over from your blog to the Summers and Swan book is "You cannot be serious!" Yes, that famous line from that very famously petulant tennis player, John P. McEnroe.
In this case I am directing that comment at you, Joana Morais, "You cannot be serious!". You are complaining about the use of a few hundred words of text which has been taken from your blog without your permission and used by persons other than the original writer for their own intentions.
Seriously, how hypocritical and unaware of your own actions can you be?
As administrator and founder and owner of the Forum, The Maddie Case Files, you are responsible for almost 45,000 posts (that is almost exactly 95% of the publicly accessible forum) which defy copyright law and which do not in any way come within fair use regulations. Whilst complaining bitterly about the entirely legal use of a few sentences from your blog by Summers and Swan you are currently using hundreds of thousands of words from tens of thousands of complete articles without any permission from the authors or the publishers of those words.
You really do come across as a very petulant and (in my opinion) very spoilt woman who finds it hard to control her temper when she feels slighted even when there is no basis for that petulance. I recall your reaction to your former lover, Levy, who you turned on spectacularly. I wonder sometimes what kind of job you could ever hold down. There never has been a mention of any kind of work that you have ever done. Perhaps you have never left home and still cling to you mother's skirt? Perhaps you still think that if you cry loud enough everyone will agree with you?
Whatever the situation, the fact is that you have no basis in law, and no basis in morality to criticise the actions of Summers and Swan. Their actions are neither illegal nor unethical and as I pointed out, because of your association and support of the Haters they are not insulting either. Your posts are nothing more than foolishness. And the fact that you try to criticise these two authors over such tiny quotes when hosting on your own forum tens of thousands of copyright articles without any permission from any of the authors makes you a flaming hypocrite as well as a petulant fool.
ps I didn't interview or make contact with either Kate or Gerry McCann in the preparation of this post.
