"You have a blog, don't you?.. "

When one blogs, what does one do with this form of "reporting".. I know many a real journalist who attempts to make clear events that they reported on in simplistic terms for the media.

Others use it to document experience..

Others for fictions.. and others for fashion..

There are as many expressions of blogging as there are persons, but when you are an avatar, in for example "Second Life" a blog can be a sales informer of new products created, or services provided. Experiences and concerns of the metaversical, for interactive arts, or in the case of Prokofy Neva to polarize, accuse, flame and harrass.

With the situation of this "infamous" avatar, its about complaining about bans.. the inbuilt flaws of everything within the experience of the metaverse and to even accuse the possible dead for being "not dead" and a completely different gender to boot.

It was in December, my avatar was nearly a year old when I had the displeasure of reading "Prok's" blogg.. at first I was confused wether or not this was a woman or a man.. but such things do happen.. and then it turned out, this avatarly "transgendered" (by her own words) individual could report on something, take a few "logical" lines and then go COMPLETELY and totally "Batshit Crazy" on what it all means.. as if inspired by an open script for an actor... she doesn't feel exactly complete, kind of tying off the loose ends with newly discovered, but never completely explained MOTIVE. Red flag.

For me this is a clue to what Prokofy Neva is exactly. Still uncertain, the banter that followed accused me of being a "pedofile enabler" for defending people to have the right to OWN child avatar skins (explaining or attempting to explain that the skins had underwear on the skin layer, so that the child avatar would never be naked or just be flesh) It seems that the hook of visiting the blog was a post by Crap Mariner on the topic of "Eric Ruiter "(?) (I'm just working this out by memory so forgive my uninformed spellings of the names involved) I thought the post was "bitchy" but I was remotely amused, but at the same time, some of the accusations were so dramatic, I thought that it CERTAINLY must be a parody... It turned out, it wasn't..

To side on the idea that creators must have the freedom to create, and protect their creations, for example those child skins that Prokofy Neva claimed were offensive (??) and returned the vendor to the owner and promptly AR'd them.. thinking that it was because these skins must have been "naked" or "horribly sexual" or anything.. (in lingere perhaps??) NO, it wasn't they were in modest swimsuits.

I was so puzzled and other people tried to explain their ground, although the idea of the thread was not about children or child avatars... but about "Massively".. I think it was titled "Massively Stupid".. some would just partake in the idea that ALL child avatars should be against the TOS... Prok proclaimed that to even have a child avatar or a skin such as the one on in the topic or any ones for that matter were "enabling the rape of real children, by allowing pedeofiles to engage in sexual fantacy.." (not Prok's exact words but the jest of where she was "coming from".

So it was at this point the accusations took place.. name calling, but this supposedly was a NORMAL day on Prok's blog. Even still I was accused of trolling the topic and being an "alt" because of my avatar's name. And thus not knowing anything about the person or character I looked it up at her/his request.

It seems according to various sources, if you look it up, as I will not post them or link them here, that the OWNER of the avatar, Prokofy Neva was or is currently working for the United Nations. That was my SECOND red flag, and then the previous debates I read awoken the recognition of what exactly Prok was.. especially with the "opinion" she had on Esco Axelrad's mix media art work (thinking she could shead some light on the topic of what is "acceptable" and what is not on PG land, or Mature land ect.. )

Prok supposely "enjoys" art, Prok, supposedly has a "sense of humour".. but this cheeky image brought out only Prok's bile.

Other things came out, for if this cheeky, funny, political image, with broken dolls and chained man with a baby doll body in nappies with the watchful eye of Charles Manson (perhaps posing as Jesus or an accidental mistaken identity as "Jesus") .. perhaps Prok didn't get it.. and yet her OWNER supposedly "GETS" Frank Zappa..(I feel Esco brings a sort of visual humour which would be akin to a Frank Zappa)

According to Prok's owner, she once met Frank Zappa.. and that he was an "unoffical" cultural embassador to one of the Eastern Block countries.. thus my third red flag, but probably the fourth since she ignored the fact that the idea of "communist" is clear cut as against any form of capitalisim but doesn't seem to address that "captialisim without or against or without supporting the free market BECOMES not only communist like, but fascist by "popular demand".. but this populare demand isn't about freedom because it means that the choice becomes limited when some companies are successful, take for example ENRON (who's "success" and subsquent, "fail" took everyone down)..

Back to Frank Zappa: This does not surprise me as Frank Zappa as I know him, was a maker of film sound tracks.. and he was very well connected, surpassing most people.. and helped instigate a bit of civil rights issues. I feel one of his best lines ever was in a song of his where he says... "I'm not black, but there are a whole lot of times I wish I could say "I'm not white""

You see, it all fits in though, because although I really liked Frank's earlier work, it was this work that my very own mother saw in New York City cira 1967 to a live audiance of about 4 warm bodies, one of them being hers. Her reaction to "Suzy Creamcheese" to this very day.. totally confuses her.

Now I suppose my perspective being from that of the Metaphysical (not cluttered by a de-education of what is possible and what is not) and there is a certain profile that Prok fits. Someone who claims "freedom of speach" covers VERBAL ABUSE.

Today isn't any different from that stupid day in December when I read that blogg..someone just posted about "free speach" being only what the Lindens say it is.. thus supporting Prok's ideal, that in free speach one can say whatever they wish and verbally abuse people if one chooses. They can damage people's reputation by false accusation and yet never have to pay the consiquences, because she states, she is a PUBLIC figure and isn't bound by these rules.

Well, all I can say about the PJira, is.. congradulations, at least one person in charge doesn't see your "pseudo intelectual" 10 pages on why I am much smarter and far more educated than any of the Lindens at Linden Lab, as holding water. At least there is SOME satisfaction that somewhere justice can't be bent to the will of one, snotty "elite" who sees themselves as not having to follow the rules because they apparently never had to BEFORE.

I wonder if I should renew my premium membership?