> When you say ethics, do you really mean integrity? Or did you mean the veracity of the post or the ethics of going based off complete word of mouth and otherwise?

I mean both things. The fact that Chris originally agreed to delete the post, and only restored it because of Google cache, makes me doubt the veracity of the post. It also makes me wonder about the integrity of the post author. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of destroying someone's reputation based exclusively on word of mouth. It seems like many of the stories Chris related should have generated documents, or other evidence, that could have been linked and were not. Plus, Chris has a history of writing some regrettable things. See especially his comments about $1. While Chris later took back these remarks, it does mean my trust in Chris's website is at an all-time low. I want to clarify that I don't think Chris is a bad person, particularly. I've conversed with him on Twitter and by voice chat in the past, and he comes off as an OK guy. But it does mean I'm extremely uncomfortable with him destroying the reputation of others, based only on his say-so.

> Do you think that he is trying to pass off his blog as an authoritative and reliable source for blindness industry happenings?

I think he's trying to have it both ways. On one hand, he wants to be at the center of fighting what he calls the "ADA trolls". On the other hand, whenever someone calls him on anything he writes, he uses the fact that he's not a journalist as a shield to hide behind. You can't have your cake and eat it too! Either you're a force working for good and should be taken seriously, or you're just "a crackpot stoner". Also, I'm not entirely sure it matters what he says at this point. When it comes to writing a character Assassination, the only thing that matters is that the readers will take it seriously. The fact that Chris didn't intend to start a virtual lynch mob doesn't matter much, if one actually starts.

I much prefered it when his blog was primarily about the history of Freedom Scientific. He is an expert about that, and I don't care much what tone it takes; he's not ruining the lives of people in the present day. It was just a fascinating retrospective.

I do object to Gonzo journalism as a style, when what it's doing is destroying someone else. I think human beings deserve to be treated with a bit more dignity than that. Especially when they're small business owners, rather than public figures. And even more especially when "take my word for it" is the only evidence presented.