If I'm wrong, so be it, but the chances of that aren't very likely.
We know that the gamergater position is based on lies, so it's most reasonable to assume that the lies are coming from that side; they've proven their willingness to lie, the whole thing is based on lies, it's lies all the way down.
After all that has happened it's almost disingenuous to point out that the review never happened, like a "white nationalist" pointing out minor arguments over how many thousands of Jews died in a particular camp.
Hmm, evasion, godwin... BINGO! Man, this thread has been pay dirt.
It's true that review never happened but a good deal of favoritism did.
Welcome to commercial journalism! Boy, have you ever picked the wrong place to make your stand.
the journalist does implicitly make a commitment towards their readers to perform their job with a certain level of professionalism and adherence to good journalistic practices
And that level is very, very low. Pretty much all sites inflate scores so that they will continue to receive review copies. As you say, whether genitals are involved is totally irrelevant. It's beyond hypocrisy to make this moment the stand against the lack of integrity in games journalism when there has never been any to begin with. Games journalism was born at a time when journalism in general had already become grossly commercial, and it set out to emulate it as closely as possible. The games magazines followed the format of the sports magazines, which were already about selling you shit. It would be shocking if it had not come out to be horribly corrupt.
The fact that sex was the tipping point proves just how pathetic the gamergaters are. If they could get laid, they'd be less jealous. They should spend less time hating, and more time hustling.
Its about corruption, about members of the gaming press having relations, both physical AND financial, with game developers they were promoting,
We already found out that this was a non-story, so why are you repeating it? zzzzzzz
When the news came out? THIRTEEN gaming sites issued THE EXACT SAME STORY about how they didn't need gamers and that gamers were "dead".
So you're offering as evidence your lack of understanding of how "news" works today? I guess you haven't heard of a wire service, either. Hint: It's how news is made.
Its REALLY simple folks,
Some people are making mountains out of molehills.
The FBI has also stated that some people named as hacking victims had in-fact hacked themselves. Didn't name names, but three names that come to mind are Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu.
They didn't name names, but you're completely willing to do so even though you don't know who did it, and it could have been someone on the other side completely. You are precisely the kind of person that you claim to be railing against.
Anti-gamergate is made up mainly of those rich middle class women who think that nerds who have been picked on their entire lives for being nerds are somehow opressing them.
[citation needed]
Gamergate is made up mostly of kids who fling slurs that would make a sailor bluch around on XBox live
They wouldn't blush or bluch, whatever that is, they would just shake their heads and wonder how those children became orphans, because surely children with parents would never behave like them.
We already know several of the serious ones were false flag fakes.
Where's the evidence? We've all seen the evidence that the original basis for this whole flap was a bullshit lie, so we know that gamergate is founded on bullshit. But we haven't seen any evidence that any of the threats were false flag fakes. If you have any, provide it. If not, stop lying like the liar you are.
And for the record, I think it's just super you are such a good reader. Good for you!
It's too bad that you're so defensive about your lack of reading ability that you had to cry about it here.
They stand to lose tens of millions unless they're smart about how they do a private release now.
They will release straight to DVD, and they will make a killing. Wait, that came out wrong
You can't take down a full movie theatre with one suicide bomber, you would need several (at least one for each screen, somehow synchronized to maximize damage).
So you attend several ahead of time and plant bombs while you're there, there's loads of places in the average theater where you could hide an explosive. Then you set them off by cellphone. It's not rocket surgery. That nobody has done this already proves just how few terrists there actually are active on merican soil.
You got it wrong. Getting elected is how to get the American media to control you.
You all got it wrong. Controlling the American media is how you get elected.
You're missing the point. They didn't choose not to show the movie because of a terrorist threat. They chose not to show the movie because it would cost them money. Regardless of what they say, they are not taking the threat seriously.
They are acting like they are, so the damage is done. They have promoted kowtowing to terrorists.
What they are taking seriously is the number of customers who would choose not to come see The Interview
That sounds to me like taking it seriously.
I made it 2/3rds deep before I realized I was wasting my life
And that you could have just read TINAG.
I read quickly, because I'm good at it, so I enjoyed Reamde. But if you're slow, you might need to try another author.
So much for the 'information superhighway'.
Wow, you just invalidated your entire comment. Thanks!
Fire up wireshark, sort by DNS and pick any well known website at random. why are there all these queries for dozens of others sites?
Because you're not running ghostery. HTH, HAND.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
