Regarding the errors in your post — I addressed them in my original comment.

I don’t usually write long posts. But due to the subject matter, I needed to validate my point-of-view with facts, otherwise I would have gotten hammered with hundreds of comments (which, as I stated earlier, was not my intention with this post). Clearly you come from the other school of thought where uninformed opinion is only what matters. Your (very long) post on the weasels makes this point very well.

Don’t know what to tell you about the title. That’s my style. It’s classic direct marketing technique and it works. Look at my other recent posts (that have generated far more traffic, by the way): Buy a Car and Get a Gun; Marketing in the Nude; Dark Side of Social Media…

I get that the not-so well known expert was you.

My comment was addressing the line in your post: ” to draw traffic to her blog and to “stir the pot” with some well known figures in the world of social media”. That was never my intention — it was just to bring it to the attention of those involved and use it as a cautionary tale.

Your post was overly long, rambling and incoherent, and I could not understand your point. That was my point, and I am pleased you now understand that.

Prior to writing my post. I left a comment on your blog to that effect, to which you did not respond. Here is the first sentence of that comment:

“Have re-read this several times and don’t understand what Joseph, Chris and company have done wrong, unless it is to support a cause that appears not to have dotted all the regulatory i’s for eBay.”

Doesn’t sound antagonistic to me.

I found the headline of your post, and the way you promoted it on Twitter, to be manipulative and sensationalistic. It is not possible for that statement to be incorrect. It is an expression of how I feel about it.

I was not building a rebuttal as you call it. I was genuinely confused by your post and given the strength of the headline and high profile of the players, trying to understand what of such dire consequences had happened and how Verdino, Jaffe and Brogan had contributed to its occurrence. That nothing “happened” and that there were no dire consequences only confirms my contention that the piece was sensationalistic.

And the “not so well known media expert” I was referring to was me, not you.

I never claimed they were victimized by a charity. What I clearly stated was: And at least two of them are victims of their own advice.

Jaffe and Verdino have both gone on the record as stating clients need ask the right questions of people who claim to be social media experts before allowing them to represent their brand.

Yet, they let their ‘brands’ be represented by an ebay newbie with no feedback in an auction that looked fraudulent because it did not adhere to the rules of the community.

I never said they were ‘taken in’ nor did I even question the validity of the charity in the body of the post. The opening paragraph acknowledges this is a good cause and everyone participating is doing a great thing.

And I most certainly did not use the post to draw traffic to my site. If I had wanted to do it to raise my personal profile, as you allege, I have access as a guest blogger to a site read by marketers with far more traffic than Brogan, Jaffe, Verdino — actually all of the experts’ blogs — combined. Frankly, I’m glad you haven’t heard of me. I prefer to keep a low profile, something that cannot be said of most in this space, including you.

Suggest that next time you build a rebuttal based on facts rather than your distorted (and incorrect) ranting.