I had actually moved past the issues at IPR. Then I got another forwarded email from their list of someone who had read the article that was censored from IPR and did not agree with the stance the editor took:

"To the editor and publisher of IPR:

Hello, I read & reviewed the article "Alex Jones clashes with Libertarians at a 2cd Amendment protest" several times and read the comments that were posted. I feel Trent Hill was very unprofessional in his treatment towards the author of this article, and after the article was revised ( although uneeded) it was crystal clear that this article was most certainly not an editorial .This incident has forced me to consider looking for a different Alternative news media.I feel that Bias was present during the review process of this article and it should be peer-reviewed rather than having just Trent Hill’s opinion dictate this matter.

Thank you,

Eoghan O’Connor"

In response to this, Thomas Knapp a member of this party and a a writer at IPR said the following:

"Hypothetical question: Does Neil have a LOT of sock puppets, or are there really that many idiots who a) can't tell the difference between straight news and editorials and b) are especially concerned about one article about a minor event on a minor site?

For some reason, I'm leaning toward the former answer."

So apparently, either I have nothing better to do then to sit around for hours making sock puppet accounts to email IPR, OR the people who sent them feedback that was contrary to their agenda must be idiots. (Once again, I wouldn't of even be talking about this now if they hadn't seen fit to insult this person.)

So in response in a further lack of professionalism, Trent Hill the current editor of IPR said:

"The former, I suspect. I think it's hilarious."

So I responded:

"What I find hillarious is that you guys really think that IPR was important enough for me to take the time to sit around developing sock puppet accounts. You guys made a mistake. And it doesn't look good for your reputation."

In further exchanges, Trent further clarified what he felt Mr. Knapp felt here:

"I dont think Tom meant that you were fabricating other accounts, but rather that you had lots of little "sock puppets" to do your bidding."

So now his arrogance has reached all time heights. It can't just be possible that someone disagreed with his "expert" opinion on whether or not my article was an editorial. It must be that I have brainwashed sycophants who also have nothing better to do then to sit around emailing IPR. I tend to think this was a poor choice on his part.

So in response I said:

"Interesting. So now automatically any readers at IPR who don't agree with you must be mindless sock puppets? Do your readers know you feel this way about anyone who disagrees with IPR's policies?"

Again after further exchanges, I replied to him with this:

"Ok? So in that time did you get the idea that the best way to handle negative feedback was to insult your readers for not agreeing with you? If so I question the value of all this expirience you claim to have."

And this:

"You said that you want people to email you. Many people did, so your answer to that was propose two options. One that was A. Insulting and libelous to me directly. And B. One that was insulting to the readers.

Does the owner of IPR know that you conduct yourself this way during customer service?"

Trent Hill responded with:

"Neil,

I havent called any of my readers anything. Your listeners, about 10 of whom have emailed, are not likely to have been readers of mine. I've certainly never heard from any of them before, never seen their names, and I can't match any of their IPs to frequent visitors.

Regardless, if they can't distinguish between editorial and news, then I will tell them the difference in no uncertain terms."

So after he agreed with Mr. Knapps insulting sentiments, and then went on to make them even more insulting by saying it was not that I made sock puppet accounts it must be that anyone who disagrees with them is a mindless sock puppet, (Or idiot, moron, etc.) we see that it seems that at IPR the only feedback they want is that which suits their agenda. That sounds familiar to me. Reminds me of why many of us got into independent media in the first place.

And now, he just lies and claims he "didn't call anyone anything".

Lies by editors. We have seen that before too.