I saw her videos when they were first starting (I believe it was number 2). If anyone was fooled into thinking those videos were legitimate they are just gullible.

The video I saw even had "Episode #[2?]" preceding the content. If that alone isn't enough of a giveaway, how about the relatively sophisticated editing, sound, the girl-next-door-model actress and actors, and the obviously contrived drama?

The videos might be relatively entertaining (I don't know, since I never made it through a full one), but I think the creators of this show should have been upfront from the beginning.

Posted by: Rendition on September 11, 2006 5:28 PM

Guys, I'd wager that the vast majority of those "gullible", "clueless sucker[s]" were simply engaging in belief simultaneous with disbelief. Surely you are familiar with this disposition of our species. Religion, art, romance, humor, sport, advertisement, ceremony -- all, at their finest, about displaced or framed credulity. And, hey, kudos to those geeks -- a cultivated tendency to play back at an actress by acting "sincere" ought to land them bigger prizes in the future than await those of us whose preferred game is to mock them.

Posted by: J. Goard on September 12, 2006 1:50 PM

Well, one of the three "sleuths" who dedicated himself enough to investigating the truth/falsity of this 16-y.o. girl by participating in a sting operation was -- a 36-y.o. computer programmer from Tulsa. That's who's watching these things, and the younger horny nerds -- that's forgivable, since they're too young to have learned that if something looks too good to be true for a nerd, it probably is. But the older guys, yikes.

Posted by: Agnostic on September 12, 2006 8:28 PM

And here I am, 52 and linking to stories like these. Unseemly, I suppose.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on September 12, 2006 11:06 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?