Originally Posted by solipsism
Let’s go over it one more time… someone who wanted to remain 100% anonymous and only asked to be paid a nominal fee of a couple hundred dollars lied and completely made up this entire thing? Someone who showed me in his AT&T call records more than two calls from Apple representatives (Texas phone numbers, confirmed to be Apple Customer Relations) on the exact dates he said they called trying to resolve the situation after he had emailed Steve Jobs? Someone who repeatedly emailed me and the BGR staff to correct the last line in my story since it wasn’t accurate? Someone who has now had his name revealed to the public via a tasteless article from AppleInsider, and is now being called by reporters non-stop asking about this article and whether his exchange is true or not? They still wouldn’t admit this was fake? No, you know why? Because it wasn’t fake.
I'd think BGR is referring to AI outing Jason Burford at firstname.lastname@example.org
OK, could be. But in the original story BGR offered to show the world the email headers as proof, then he posted them within 24 hours. Despite what BGR said, BGR offered Burford up from the get-go, because there was no way to offer the headers without offering the whole header, including both the addressees. And Burford was the generator of the story that shopped it in the first place. Literally, Burford sold his anonymity when he sold the story, and access to the emails, to BGR.
So yes, I reject the entire wanting to remain anonymous aspect. Especially so as Burford shopped the story around before he found BGR who would pay for it. Once Burford made the offer in the open market, he irrevocably made himself part of the story, quite explicitly. Nothing slimy about reporting that once BGR published the sold story.
And I really am having a hard time believing that last email's reattribution as being from Burford rather than (fake) Jobs.
Retire, relax, enjoy your family. It is just a phone. Not worth it.
It completely reads wrong, the (fake) Jobs was never worked up and Burford was awfully agro in most of them. The ONLY way it makes sense and is at all believable is if the original story where (fake) Jobs wrote that was to be the true one. I really think Burford/BGR lost their nerve when Forbes carried the "not from Apple" report, and that really hot-button email was going to get them fried. Now they are just trying to stay above water in the blogosphere by claiming "truth" until people lose interest, and hope that Apple lawyers leave them alone because they removed the worst attribution themselves.