Print

[ira01]

As I see it, there are 4 possibilities: ... (4) the reporter did not understand what Cory told her, and/or what she wrote was screwed up during editing.

Actually, I have been misquoted often enough, especially when dealing with financial matters, that I would put my vote on #4. Something as simple as stating one had received $4,000 in payments could be quoted as saying $4,000 in interest. If you read the old issue of PLANSPONSOR where I am quoted about Savings Bonds, the author totally messes up that information and those who know how they work would think I am a complete idiot.

You may well be right (although that would certainly speak poorly of the author).  However, I don't think that Cory could have even received $4,000 in payments in less than a year on his $8,500 investment, unless he had a huge number of PIF's.  Maybe if someone can figure out his Prosper identity, we'll learn more.

[traveler505]

It is posssible for a lender to have loaned out almsot $8500 in July-September of 2006, and to have received about $4000 in payments (not interest) since then.  One such lender is:

http://www.lendingstats.com/lenders/newhall

(I'm not saying that Cory Moore is newhall, since there are various other aspects of the story that don't match up, like all of the loans being $50.  My point is that the article likely both misstated the date on which the real Cory Moore joined Prosper and mischaracterized the $4000 as interest rather than payments.)

[beerbud1]

I sent an e-mail to kathy Chu and got this automated response:
I will be out of the office the week of December 24th. If you need to reach me
immediately, try my cell phone at [number removed].

Thanks,

Kathy Chu
Reporter
USA TODAY

[leporello]

I sent an e-mail to kathy Chu and got this automated response:
I will be out of the office the week of December 24th. If you need to reach me
immediately, try my cell phone at [number removed].

Thanks,

Kathy Chu
Reporter
USA TODAY

I got the same response. If I don't hear back from her a couple days after the New Year, I'm calling her.

[beerbud1]

I sent an e-mail to kathy Chu and got this automated response:
I will be out of the office the week of December 24th. If you need to reach me
immediately, try my cell phone at [number removed].

Thanks,

Kathy Chu
Reporter
USA TODAY

I got the same response. If I don't hear back from her a couple days after the New Year, I'm calling her.

We should all call her, and make her aware of the reality of Prosper. The story should be fair and well-balanced.

[leporello]

I sent an e-mail to kathy Chu and got this automated response:
I will be out of the office the week of December 24th. If you need to reach me
immediately, try my cell phone at [number removed].

Thanks,

Kathy Chu
Reporter
USA TODAY

I got the same response. If I don't hear back from her a couple days after the New Year, I'm calling her.

We should all call her, and make her aware of the reality of Prosper. The story should be fair and well-balanced.

I think it would be self-defeating if she got MANY calls. Please let's not all call her. I will volunteer to be the first to call her, unless someone else (Trav, ira01, xraider, mark12547?) wants go first, but I think she should hear from several of the more experienced and eloquent among us over a week or so. If she gets 50 calls in one day, it will make the Forces of Good look bad.

[Tokyo Joe]

I don't think she needs to be reached "immediately" over this.  Email her after the holiday...  I don't think her # ought to have been posted, either...

[HollowOak]

I wish to draw all of y'all's attention to the restrictions on posting personally identifiable information, especially someone else's, in The Lobby.

[beerbud1]

I wish to draw all of y'all's attention to the restrictions on posting personally identifiable information, especially someone else's, in The Lobby.

Sorry!

[HollowOak]

I wish to draw all of y'all's attention to the restrictions on posting personally identifiable information, especially someone else's, in The Lobby.

Oops, I was asleep at the switch.

Does PII include email addresses? I had to do a little digging to find the reporter's email address, so I don't know if the intent was to get that email address crawled.

I think the golden rule is not to let The Lobby be a  source for obtaining someone's PII.

[beerbud1]

I don't think she needs to be reached "immediately" over this.  Email her after the holiday...  I don't think her # ought to have been posted, either...

Sorry!

[ira01]

I wish to draw all of y'all's attention to the restrictions on posting personally identifiable information, especially someone else's, in The Lobby.

Oops, I was asleep at the switch.

Does PII include email addresses? I had to do a little digging to find the reporter's email address, so I don't know if the intent was to get that email address crawled.

I think the golden rule is not to let The Lobby be a  source for obtaining someone's PII.

Somehow I don't really consider the email address of a reporter who has already made it publicly available (unless Mark found it somewhere other than the internet) to be PII.  And ditto for a phone number that the reporter chooses to put in her autorespond email.  Next someone will claim that "Cory Moore" is PII.  Starting to sound too Prosperish for me.

[Mark12547]

I wish to draw all of y'all's attention to the restrictions on posting personally identifiable information, especially someone else's, in The Lobby.

Oops, I was asleep at the switch.

Does PII include email addresses? I had to do a little digging to find the reporter's email address, so I don't know if the intent was to get that email address crawled.

I think the golden rule is not to let The Lobby be a  source for obtaining someone's PII.

Somehow I don't really consider the email address of a reporter who has already made it publicly available (unless Mark found it somewhere other than the internet) to be PII.  And ditto for a phone number that the reporter chooses to put in her autorespond email.  Next someone will claim that "Cory Moore" is PII.  Starting to sound too Prosperish for me.

An auto-respond email doesn't get crawled so a phone number in it has more limited exposure. I don't think it is appropriate to have it in a crawled forum. (At my work, a "can't wait" contact is used in auto-response messages should be the department number or an alternate department email address, or some other contact that would be answered by someone at my employer during regular business hours, not a personal number.)

Since the author publicly solicited replies (as well has having a spot under the article to post replies), and since her business email address is in a spot on USA Today's web site that can be found fairly easily and that has already been crawled, a stronger case can be made for allowing that business email address here, but I would still consider it a gray area.

[Epictetus]

I was misquoted in an article on Prosper once, even after I had corrected the error prior to publication with the magazine's fact-checker who calle to verify my part, the fact-checker, evidently, being simply that, and not not an error-corrector.

Much reporting and magazine journalism is sloppy and haphazard.

[beerbud1]

I wish to draw all of y'all's attention to the restrictions on posting personally identifiable information, especially someone else's, in The Lobby.

Oops, I was asleep at the switch.

Does PII include email addresses? I had to do a little digging to find the reporter's email address, so I don't know if the intent was to get that email address crawled.

I think the golden rule is not to let The Lobby be a  source for obtaining someone's PII.

Somehow I don't really consider the email address of a reporter who has already made it publicly available (unless Mark found it somewhere other than the internet) to be PII.  And ditto for a phone number that the reporter chooses to put in her autorespond email.  Next someone will claim that "Cory Moore" is PII.  Starting to sound too Prosperish for me.

Thank you for coming to my defense.