You know when newspapers print an article about someone and then when it gets proven the newspaper is talking rubbish, they hide an apology away on page 15. Well I don’t do that, although in this case it’s a matter of me not correctly checking how my posts read.<\/p>\n
Back in January I blogged: Those Who Seek Offence Will Find It<\/a>. In that post I complained that people who were seeking objectionable content should not complain about finding it. I also typed:<\/p>\n “Scylla Rhiadra used to be a very vocal critic of certain types of content in Second Life and would argue against its existence. Scylla was part of SL Left Unity and its offshoot of The Left Unity Feminist Network<\/a>. I’m not sure how active such groups are in Second Life these days or if Scylla is even still around. There are ways and means of making your points, but I don’t agree with AR parties for content that isn’t against the TOS.<\/em>”<\/p>\n My intent here was to cite Scylla as an example of someone, whom whether you agreed with her or not, made her points in a more sensible fashion than the article I was referencing in the blog post. However I can now see that it reads as if I was suggesting Scylla led AR parties, that was not my intent but it does seem to read that way.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Therefore I’m making this post to apologise to Scylla, who no longer uses Second Life. Whether I agreed or disagreed with Scylla, I always found her to be a constructive critic. People have different opinions on many matters, we can have wildly diverse opinions, but there are ways and means of making a point.<\/p>\n My intent in the linked blog post was to suggest that the way Scylla objected to certain forms of content was more sensible than how the article I’d read had objected. However I can now see that it doesn’t read that way and for that I apologise.<\/p>\n