Podcast from December 11, 2016

Alright, here’s another podcast. I have to warn you, it will be analysis for the most part, so think for yourself if you really want to read this. Let’s begin. Get comfortable and bring some cookies.

Okay, what are the advances with Barbie investigation?

1)One anon has been accepted to devotee groups (people attracted to amputee women are called “devotees”), he had posted Barbie’s pictures and we’re waiting for the answer. We can really do nothing else but wait.

2)American anon was unable to translate the video because the sound is horrific. Even after removing as much noise as we could, it’s impossible to understand anything except separate phrases. And these phrases can’t broaden current picture. Alas.

News about Barbie end here. Yes, no big advances were made, but anons are putting big hopes in made steps so let’s hope they’ll pay off.

And now for the analysis. I warned you in the beginning.

Today I have posted my article, compiled mostly of all known information about Barbie (this article is pinned, you can read it), in this group. Thanks to my admin pals for letting my work see some light in their community. I think it’s a huge promotion, and there’s some audience influx, again, thanks to the admins.

There’s one situation though: looking through the comments I noticed that some people mentioned that material has been taken from this group, one person has even shown a post from there by copying it to the comments section. I got interested and found this article, and was surprised to see all the materials from the starting post and first podcast were in this post. In addition, the author of this post never contacted or asked me if he could use some material. You can check the date of the last edit of the post and date of my first podcast in this group. I made a comment under that post but I doubt anyone will see it, so to hell with it. I’m trying to contact the author (who was in my podcast comments, by the way), so there might have not been any ill intent.

I’ll let you know that I’m NOT against using material from this group, everything I write here is information that can and should be available to everyone. But I can’t stress this enough – please indicate source of your material and leave a link to this group. I’m not being greedy but I would not like, fruits of my efforts, if you can say so, (and providing coverage is some effort alright, let me tell you) to be stolen and shown as somebody else’s work. What can I really say about this post? It’s pretty superficial, I’d say, it looks rushed, even though the author did look through the thread: a magazine, where Barbie did modeling is being mentioned, it’s story is also told, and, I gotta give it to them, the material looks pretty solid in this part. However there are some flaws: Sharon’s story was already known and it was mentioned in the thread, however it’s not being mentioned in the early version of this material. Again, he’s jumping to conclusions, because the real magazine Barbie was filmed at was unknown and unconfirmed, and it’s still not 100% confirmed to this day. However we did make one similar conclusion about the girl feeling herself like a doll due to her hand being amputated (I’ve talked about it in one of the previous podcasts, you can take a look).

I can only give one advice (if I’m even privileged to give any) – you really should take a closer, more in-depth look, or something, next time.

All things considered I’m not trying to elevate my opinion and my way of handling info. If you want to know the truth, I think my podcasts are amateur work at best.

So, that’s about it.