What I'd do in that case is fail the ones who were (by his admission) already failing anyways. In a room with only a bit over 30 students (which is what this guy had), if you can't get people to settle down and shut up during class, that's your own fault. After the first midterm, you should be able to call each and every one of them by name. This is from experience. The classes I taught varied between 38 and 275 students, and in the 38 student class, I knew who each and every one of them was by mid-semester, including the two who only showed up for midterms. Saying things like "Dave, if you turned off the video game and payed attention in class, you might actually pass the next midterm" gets the laptop switched off fast in a room that small. In the 275 student class, I knew the names of all of the top students, and all of the problem students, and when kicking someone out for being disruptive, always used their name to do so - it points out to them that they're not anonymous, and they're not getting away with anything.

Very true, but back when I was teaching, every instance of cheating that I bothered reporting was upheld by the administration, and in one case resulted in a deportation. The ones I didn't bother reporting were because their cheating led to them failing anyways. (In one case, five times, with two mandatory one-year academic suspensions in-between. The sixth time he was in the class, I forced him to sit where he couldn't see any other students during the exams, and took his phone away - he got 80%. He knew the answers, he just wasn't willing to read his own @#%* test paper.) Well designed and set up exams and assignments tend to make cheating range between "more difficult than it's worth", and "likely to cause you to fail". And even then, failing a whole class, including students you've admitted don't deserve it, as revenge against a few (or even several) cheaters is inappropriate.

Well, we can eliminate possibility two right off the bat, since the prof admitted in an interview that some of the students in the class were actually good students and doing well academically, and he failed them all anyways.

Also, other details skipped in the top-linked article: The class size is somewhere just above 30 (likely less than 40), the prof is non-tenured, at least one of his cheating accusations was already investigated and overturned as without merit, and there apparently multiple complaints about him from past students already.

He's not even in a tenured position - in this case, he's more likely looking at a permanent leave of absence. Here's an article with more details: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/27/professor-fails-his-entire-class-and-his-university-intervenes

From the articles I've read about it, the prof even admits that some of the class were honest, hard working, and doing well academically in the class. He threw a temper tantrum because some of the other students were mean to him, and failed all of them, good and bad.

Also, at least one of his cheating allegations was investigated and overturned by their university's administration. This sounds mostly like sour grapes.

I taught at a university for about ten years before moving off to private industry (sessional prof jobs pay poorly) and I've run into almost every behavior he complained about in the article and more, but never even once would I have considered punishing the students who were actually showing up and doing the work for the behavior of the ones who don't.

This guy picked the wrong way to deal with his problems, and the university administration is right to overturn his grading. Especially since he even admits that not all of the students deserved it. The USA is full of lawyer-happy lawsuit maniacs, and this is a situation where the university would be absolutely buried in litigation, which it would rightfully lose, if they didn't overturn it and assign grades based on academic performance.

No.... Jellyfish are carnivores. They eat plankton, crustaceans, and small fish, which will be among the things that die off due to acidification

Well, the plural of Ox (the big smelly cow-like animal) is Oxen.

Perhaps this is a hint that something about this whole thing stinks?

1. Just tell them you only have Linux, they'll hang up immediately.

I tried that when they called me many years ago (back when windows XP was new... and they had the same recorded opening message back then) and the guy on the phone told me that no I didn't, my computer was a Microsoft Windows Computer, because that is what everyone has. He literally would not believe me that I wasn't using Windows. He actually got angry with me. It was kinda funny really.

Another good trick to use is to pretend you're trying to follow their instructions, and that it's just not working.

Tell them your virus scanner is giving you alerts, they'll think you're a really good target. If your phone has a 'mute' option, ask them to hold on for a second because you've got another call. Come back within a minute or two, and if they're still there, lead them on again. Never let on that you aren't actually following their instructions, never let on that you know it's a scam. As long as they think they've got you hooked, they'll keep trying. As soon as you reveal that you're not buying into their lines, they'll cut bait and look for someone else to scam.

That's the big difference between the major scammers like this, and the ordinary telemarketers who just want to sell you things you don't need while you're trying to eat dinner - the scammers are allowed to hang up. The regular telemarketers aren't, and you can spend an hour telling them all about the coffee cup sitting on your desk.

I suspect you've edited that transcript, as it appears to be missing the five minutes straight of laughing.

First, your math is way off if you've got your comment/threat numbers that far backwards.

Second, if you actually watch her videos, instead of just the clips of them interspersed through thunderf00t's angry ranting, you'll find that yes, she actually does debunk them, and covers the "numbers game" you're taking about with your "a million male characters die for every female character" thing. "Random ninja being shot/chopped down in a fight" is not the same thing as "mostly naked woman splayed out on a bed with a knife in her as a prop". Those random ninjas? They're wearing masks and could just as easily be very flat chested women. Yes, that's sarcasm. I'm not suggesting that anyone actually believes that they're female, but really, there's no way of knowing, and their gender isn't related to why they're being killed, and the game would be the same if they were male, female, or genderless robots in costumes. The sad part? If they were intended to be female ninjas that you're mowing through? Instead of the full ninja armor/pajamas they're wearing, they'd be mostly naked.

Now take that nude female corpse on the bed, not even killed by the player - killed by the antagonist as a "see how evil he is?" prop. How many male victims are portrayed in the same way? No, the answer isn't "millions", it's "nearly never".

Your constant claims that she won't address these points are sounding like Fox News complaining that Obama won't fight the ISIS groups that he's currently bombing the shit out of.

In a large number of jurisdictions, "uttering a threat" and "uttering a death threat" are capital crimes completely separate from harassment, and as capital crimes, charges can only be filed by the authorities, and not by the affected target. This was a major case in the city I used to live in, as someone was given death threats repeatedly from the same source, reported it to the authorities, who ignored it, and then the person making the threats followed through on them. (cue rapid ass-covering on behalf of law enforcement and the psych ward of the hospital that had certified the threat-maker as stable and not a threat to anyone, even after they knew about the threats)

A sane, rational, non sociopathic human being with the capacity to feel empathy for others? Don't pull the " YOU CAN'T JUDGE ME!!!!111one1! " crap, it's pointless, and stupid. Every human being judges every other human being they encounter, every time they encounter them. You're judging the person you're responding to by trying to claim they aren't suited to make judgements about others. And yes, if you get off on looking at mutilated, naked, dead women, I'm judging you to be unsuited to belong in civilized society. So will any other sane, rational, non sociopath. Deal with it.

There are plenty of "perfectly legal" actions which are flat out disgusting and immoral. If the only defense you can come up with for disgusting hateful behavior is that "it isn't specifically illegal!", then you're admitting that you've already lost the argument.

It's not even arguable - it's absolutely not a safe thing. The street I used to live on was littered with bits of cars that fell off, and then the owner didn't even bother going back to get. Hub caps, mirrors, door handles, mufflers, once a whole rear fender. Basic maintenance, or even "taking care not to run into things" is an alien concept to a lot of drivers, most of whom will be the first one to get angry and confrontational if you suggest that maybe they need to take better care of things.

And the Flying Car advocates want these people flying over top of my house?

No thank you. There's enough things to worry about dying from than some idiot's fender falling on me while I'm walking down the street.

No, the undesirable side effects would be dressing like a clown, and having waaaaay too many legs.