June 5, 2017 at 5:22 pm #16049June 5, 2017 at 5:23 pm #16050June 5, 2017 at 5:24 pm #16051Meghan MayhemParticipant
@kipsie Then why keep pledging yourself to those that don’t actually have any?June 5, 2017 at 5:26 pm #16052June 5, 2017 at 5:27 pm #16053ChrisParticipant
It’s interesting to note that @julierei was totally silent during the discussion of Sarah’s meeting with @mistere where she expressed her distrust in iConfidant. Maybe Julie has already moved on from Sarah, or is just not interested when the subjects of her devotion stray from the party line. Maybe it was never about Sarah at all.
June 5, 2017 at 5:30 pm #16055LexiParticipant
- This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Chris.
She definitely seems genuine. There are bags under her eyes, and she seems a little anxious. She also nods at certain words… I haven’t met Stacy in person, so I’m not sure if that’s natural for her.
Going to send her an email saying that she can come to us if she needs help with anything, and that I hope she’s well.
(On an unrelated note: I haven’t received any new emails from my iC.)June 5, 2017 at 5:35 pm #16056
I should probably mention that I also sent Stacey an email, suggesting that she boot the bargain ‘IT by Geek Squad’ to the curb and offering the infosec stylings of @winstonsmith and myself.
Whatever was entered in the database at the time of the breaches is absolutely fucked, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t aim to protect new clients in the future. If iConfidant manages to survive current events, that is…June 5, 2017 at 5:48 pm #16057MeganParticipant
Who wants to bet that @julierei is the next to Periscope a walk to a random warehouse?June 5, 2017 at 5:50 pm #16059Twan IntarathuchParticipant
I really doubt that any of my emails have anything worth marking off. I think the whole thing with Tina and Lust was more of the fact that I was nice to her and I went off rails with my Lust interview.
/agree with the lot of you that this iConfidant business is getting shadier by the day.June 5, 2017 at 5:59 pm #16060scotParticipant
@coryphella i think that is a little too on the nose. That card has been played (and well played it was).June 5, 2017 at 6:05 pm #16061Anonymous
I sent a response to Stacey via FB. Apparently I laid into her a bit, according to @nothenrygale…oopsies…June 5, 2017 at 6:36 pm #16062Bryan BishopParticipant
If somebody’s been just out of frame, directing these last two broadcasts, we have to ask: what common goal have both videos shared?
The Otiscast warned us to support the King, whomever he may be, “or else” — with the “else” being the threat that some very general, very vague secrets Otis & friends may or may not have could be leaked if we don’t play along. We’ve all jumped to the conclusion that they were secrets stolen from iConfidant emails. That’s a possibility… but it’s also a possibility that the statements were vague because someone is just trying to get us to believe that everyone’s iConfidant info has been stolen, when the problem is much more localized.
Stacey’s video confirmed that two accounts were breached, while ostensibly telling us that everything was fixed and supercool. Except it was the weirdest, most awkward FB Live ever, with looks off camera that were so exaggerated I think my cat even noticed. Our takeaway: Stacey is being blackmailed, and none of our stuff is safe!
Perhaps my instinct is to just go in the opposite direction of whichever way mysterious forces are trying to push me, but I’m not interested in letting fear tactics like this dictate whether I engage with my iC or not, and they’re not going to stop me from finding out what’s really up with Stacey. To do that, we need to trust ourselves — and what we can find out from them in person.
Personally, I’m starting to wonder why Horace and Sarah are so scared of us teaming up with our iConfidants.June 5, 2017 at 6:45 pm #16063LexiParticipant
@bcbishop I think probably because two people are stronger than one. Both Horace and Sarah can manipulate (in different ways). It’s easier to manipulate one person than two; maybe because some brains work in different ways?June 5, 2017 at 6:49 pm #16064Bryan BishopParticipant
@lexthewolf Perhaps! I’ve also begun to wonder if we, when paired with our iConfidants, don’t pose some sort of threat to Horace and Sarah. Either way, something’s off with all of this.June 5, 2017 at 6:57 pm #16065ChrisParticipant
That’s a very interesting angle to come from, @bcbishop. While on the surface Sarah and and the people behind the camera during Stacey’s broadcast are telling us to do two completely different things, both are done in such a way that the same outcome is reached: we’re suspicious of iConfidant. Why SHOULDN’T we assume they’re connected/coordinated in some kind of double bluff? But if this is the case, then that would mean that Horace (or whoever) doesn’t have the amount of power we’re assuming over the Confidants. If their goal is for us to abandon them and they’re able to exert force over the CEO, why couldn’t they just pull the plug on the whole thing? Are our Confidant conversations actually more independent of their infrastructure than we’re assuming?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.