Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindi
You don't have to use the words to make the accusation, Mark.
When you said "This is your last chance to prove your SEO really works" - you're calling me dishonest about my results.
When you posted "MAJOR RED FLAGS", "backdoor potential", and "XSS vulnerability" about my extension - you're calling me a scammer trying to steal from people.
When you questioned whether my rankings were for "real keywords" and linked Google's spam guidelines - you're implying I'm running a scam.
When TheLegacy posted that "Mark Prince reviewed the code" and found security issues that independent auditors (Killswitch, fris) confirmed DON'T EXIST - that's coordinated defamation.
And speaking of dishonesty - you said "Legacy is not my employee and never was" while his LinkedIn says "Chief Program Director at 2Much.net since Feb 2021."
So no, you didn't say "Mindi is dishonest" - you just spent weeks implying my work is fake, my extension is malware, and my business is a scam. Then when called out, you hide behind "I never said those exact words!"
That's called sealioning, Mark. And everyone here sees it.  |
You’re still mixing up criticism with accusations dumdum. They’re not the same thing.
Asking for traffic after ranking screenshots is a normal SEO question. It’s how results are evaluated everywhere in clients, agencies, case studies. That’s not calling anyone dishonest.
Same with the extension. Pointing out <all_urls>, over-broad permissions, and an actual XSS issue wasn’t an insult, it was a technical review. You said you fixed them after I pointed them out. If you took my advice, then... why are you still arguing with me? And fixing a problem doesn’t mean it never existed.
At no point did I call you a scammer, a stalker, or dishonest. I questioned claims and software design. That’s scrutiny, not defamation.
You released software publicly, people asked questions, an issue was found, and you claim to have fixed it. That’s how open review is supposed to work.