No doubt you already know, but a Sybilline is an oracular utterance in Greek hexameter. While no reasonable person would expect you to post in classical Latin or Greek, I’m noting a distinct lack of oomp pa pa oomp pa pa in your comments. Please correct this. You work at the UN, right? You’ll discredit the whole organization unless every future comment you make under that nym bounces like a carnival pipe organ!
You should probably check my first post.
It was a fairly rare Latin source.
So, yep.
I could do the ancient Greek for you, but this audience isn’t up to it.
p.s.
I’m actually battling the chans, this entire thread is something else that you don’t know about.
David ran an article about GG starting the hashtag in a desperate bid to stay relevant, and that’s the only article I remember on the subject
Ok, wait.
Earlier you said I’d confused you with another poster, which is probably true.
You did confuse me with someone else earlier when you called me “Little miss “douchenozzle””.
However, I said I confused the two events about shirts, since you’ve derailed this thread so far, I forgot which shirt we were referring to, which I have since then corrected.
Then you quoted my post and asked me about Shirtgate and if “this site was involved” and whether or not I harassed the man in the center of it, so I provided links to both the only article David’s written on the subject on this site, as well as my twitter information so you can verify I didn’t harass anyone about their apparel.
But now you’re answering for another poster and claiming that the shirt thing (which is just bizarre to me) is about you?
Ok, explain.
I don’t understand this shirt thing, I’ve no interest in this shirt thing, so why are you answering for someone else here?
Because you didn’t label that post as being to anyone in particular (even though you quoted me, so I figured it was for me anyways), so I figured we were all allowed to chip in our two cents USD, as this is a public discussion board and not your personal debating soapbox or chat room.
So, you asked questions, I provided answers to you. I fail to see how this is Not Okay.
Victorious Parasol
8 years ago
I’m no lawyer, and I don’t even play one on television, but….
Fifth Sibylline claimed that “everyone laughed at Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn” and when challenged to prove it, stated that the paper was retracted afterwards.
By reading the news and reading what Quinn posted recently about dropping the case.
You’re the one who says someone in the Senate is bankrolling the lawsuit. You’re the one with the insider knowledge claim.
If someone hadn’t already emailed the Dark Lord — oh, and Fifth, that’s a common joke nickname for him we have here, if you don’t wanna type that you can call him Mr. Futrelle — I’d do it and beg him to put you out of our misery.
Then you quoted my post and asked me about Shirtgate and if “this site was involved” and whether or not I harassed the man in the center of it, so I provided links to both the only article David’s written on the subject on this site, as well as my twitter information so you can verify I didn’t harass anyone about their apparel.
Ok, so some of you did Tweet him, but you didn’t consider it harassment, cool.
I asked you to prove everyone laughed at them. If only person didn’t laugh at them, you are wrong.
You’d have been better off just saying you were being hyperbolic.
Also, the UN has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn’s case. You are the one who brought up the UN and then lied about it.
ETA: Lied about who dragged the UN into this.
Fifth Sibylline
8 years ago
However: “Although Quinn spoke to the UN on the day the report came out, she says she has “no real connection to the report other than being mentioned in it as an example.” She did not know the report mentioned her until she received it the morning before her testimony.
Not the most authoritative citation, but hey. Not an attorney.
You do know that’s because she read it, and as a smart techy was really embarrassed about it, right?
She had to sit there in front of a panel after a read time of about 2~hrs representing it…
She also pressed for it to be retracted after the session.
That’s kinda the point I was making…
Scildfreja
8 years ago
I took your suggestion and went back to read the thread again – though, goodness, if nothing else you certainly don’t write like any UN employee I’ve met. I like having lots of paragraphs too!
But there are times when white space is bad, y’know?
So I went looking at your statements, and then followed some of your links and suggestions. A Pope Hat / Google search for the topic comes up with no relevant hits (care to point to the actual article you mean? Dropping references and making other people do the leg work is a common obfustification tactic, after all), and there are no other news sources showing that she is dropping the case for legal reasons. Instead, here’s her full statement:
I’ll revert to my first point made to you – I’ll even tell you what it is again, since I don’t think it’s nice to make people hunt for information when I’ve already got it. I don’t believe you. You’re a liar, mudding the waters. I’ll trust her statement saying that she is calling it of due to harassment over your statement that she just can’t afford it, and there’s no case (you said both of these things).
Gimme a link that shows how she doesn’t have a case – no vague references, no M[redacted]s, a link to a statement from a law professional of repute. Pope Hat is fine, he’s a good egg.
Then you quoted my post and asked me about Shirtgate and if “this site was involved” and whether or not I harassed the man in the center of it, so I provided links to both the only article David’s written on the subject on this site, as well as my twitter information so you can verify I didn’t harass anyone about their apparel.
Ok, so some of you did Tweet him, but you didn’t consider it harassment, cool.
Okay, so you have absolutely zero reading comprehension. Cool.
Allow me to be blunt: I was the only person here who responded to you. I have never tweeted about Shirtgate. In fact, I pointed out that my twitter account was made after Shirtgate had already died out.
That doesn’t mean you can assume that a) the rest of the community did tweet about it and b) that the context of those tweets was harassment of the scientist involved. Because that requires some fucking Olympian levels of reach.
Did he get a post here, or was it all out-site?
You asked if “this site” was involved in shirtgate, I showed you the extent of the site’s involvement.
Had David written another article about it for another site, he would have advertised it here, as he knows we like to read his articles for other publications as well.
Or you could bring up your conspiracy theory bullshit with David personally instead of badgering me to do your fucking research for you.
Fifth Sibylline
8 years ago
Also, the UN has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn’s case. You are the one who brought up the UN and then lied about it.
Citation please.
IF you are counting “and everyone laughed”, it’s not a material claim.
The material claims are:
#1 Time to Session
#2 Arrangement of Session
#3 Delegates to Session
#4 Material Sources
Um, so yeah.
You can continue throwing poo and hoping it sticks or do a bit of research.
It’s really funny you’re all assuming I’m attacking ZQ/AS here – I’m not. I’m attacking the people behind them.
TiredTexan
8 years ago
I don’t have insider knowledge of any kind. I simply read about the case as it occurred. Google is my friend, and the information I provided is available in numerous news articles online.
So, now you’ve called me an unethical, dirty lawyer, called Zoe a liar by saying you know she dropped her case for reasons other than she herself disclosed, accused Zoe of filing unsupportable claims (although her case had already been adjudicated in her favor), and are now desperately barfing up wild accusations to cover your foolishness.
At this point you just seem sad and desperate.
Rabid Rabbit
8 years ago
Since the topic came up, could someone either explain or point me to an explanation of the whole numbers thing, or the ninja numbers? I’ve seen it done here before, but I’ve never understood it.
I could do the ancient Greek for you, but this audience isn’t up to it.
Fifth Sibylline
8 years ago
@Scildfreja
You provided a Mirror Newspaper Link.
This is equal to providing a New York Post link.
They are not credible.
Please invest in some better research abilities and come back to me.
@PI
You’ve managed to totally miss the point while providing evidence for your guilt.
I don’t care about shirts: you do.
We all know why.
Alan Robertshaw
8 years ago
@ Victorius P
Wow, a lot happened here while I was out having dinner.
That sounds like something a dog would say when his owners have just returned home to find the bins rifled through and the cushions torn to shreds. 🙂
Victorious Parasol
8 years ago
I note that previously Fifth Sibylline wrote, “There’s a reason everyone laughed at ZQ/AS @ the UN – their paper was rubbish, it was yellow-cake levels of rubbish, and worse still: it ignored all the hard-working people who actually spend 8+ years of their lives working on solving violence against women.”
No mention then that neither Zoe Quinn nor Anita Sarkeesian had contributed to the paper that was later retracted. No mention in that post that Quinn had pressed for retraction until just now, which happens to be after when I’d posted a link to a story stating that Quinn was one of the paper’s biggest critics.
I’ve known other Beltway Bandits (including a K Streeter), and they generally are much more effective and efficient at making points, even in a casual writing setting such as this.
Rabid Rabbit | February 11, 2016 at 9:10 pm
Since the topic came up, could someone either explain or point me to an explanation of the whole numbers thing, or the ninja numbers? I’ve seen it done here before, but I’ve never understood it.
Like the rating numbers, or the counting game numbers?
AFAIK:
The rating numbers are just a troll annoyance tactic to “rate” flounces. As far as I’m aware the rating system rates the initial flounce (the more explosive or dramatic the better) and the overall entertainment value of the troll, and takes a point away for every post made after the flounce was announced.
The counting numbers game is also an annoyance tactic, that just encourages posters to post numbers in sequential order in an effort to make the troll frustrated enough to want to leave because no one’s engaging with them anymore. It didn’t quite work here.
Since the topic came up, could someone either explain or point me to an explanation of the whole numbers thing, or the ninja numbers? I’ve seen it done here before, but I’ve never understood it.
It’s a game we play when trolls are being obnoxious. We start counting. One number per post. If someone messes up, we reset to the last multiple of 10 we passed (we call it a save point) and start counting from there with the next 1 (e.g., if we made it past 30 and then two people post, say, 33, we reset to 31 and go from there).
I mean, we used to talk about bra fittings but those of us who don’t have breasts couldn’t participate.
Fifth Sibylline
8 years ago
So, now you’ve called me an unethical, dirty lawyer, called Zoe a liar by saying you know she dropped her case for reasons other than she herself disclosed, accused Zoe of filing unsupportable claims (although her case had already been adjudicated in her favor), and are now desperately barfing up wild accusations to cover your foolishness.
Wow, you’re really doubling down on this, right.
Oh, wait.
I simply read about the case as it occurred.
The same doc’s I’ve been reading?
How’s about instead of the libel, you tell me how many times both appellants put in for changes and to what effect?
Boy, don’t do this.
I have no sympathy for the narcissist. I don’t like your old money friends scooting the courts, that’s all.
But hey.
I do respect the old blood who took the time to personally come and defend someone’s honor who wasn’t even impinged.
Because, as any real lawyer knows:
You never give the real reason for dropping a case, it’s called NDA usually.
In fact, as any real lawyer knows: anything the client says post settlement is always nonsense, because we’ve made damn sure they won’t break NDAs, settlement clauses or any other numerous ways we have of making your freedom of speech meaningless.
What.
A.
Joke.
Fucking hilarious, Mr Texas.
Victorious Parasol
8 years ago
@ Alan
Or as would be the case here, cats knocking over breakables. 😉
Fifth Sibylline
8 years ago
And yes.
Read that in a Django White Hatted KKK Texas old boy accent.
Cause, boys, that’s about as accurate as that little piece of threat was.
Fifth Sibylline | February 11, 2016 at 9:11 pm
@PI
You’ve managed to totally miss the point while providing evidence for your guilt.
I don’t care about shirts: you do.
We all know why.
What point? You haven’t made a single goddamn point. All you do is jump around like a rabbit on a sugar high. You asked me if anyone harassed the scientist, and I said “I haven’t, here’s proof”. You asked if there was an article about it on WHTM, I said “only one, here it is”.
Then you turned around and said “Great! YOU’RE ALL GUILTY OF HARASSMENT!” Which is a fucking reach.
And I only brought up the shirts because you did in an attempt to say we were “dogpiling”, and I got two events confused, and admitted that I did, and now you’re acting like it’s some sort of “guilty conscience” bullshit.
I didn’t participate in anything involving Shirtgate, so you insisting that I must be a harasser because I accidentally brought up shirtgate in confusion as a result of your gibbering is no skin off my teeth.
We Hunted The Mammoth
No doubt you already know, but a Sybilline is an oracular utterance in Greek hexameter. While no reasonable person would expect you to post in classical Latin or Greek, I’m noting a distinct lack of oomp pa pa oomp pa pa in your comments. Please correct this. You work at the UN, right? You’ll discredit the whole organization unless every future comment you make under that nym bounces like a carnival pipe organ!
You should probably check my first post.
It was a fairly rare Latin source.
So, yep.
I could do the ancient Greek for you, but this audience isn’t up to it.
p.s.
I’m actually battling the chans, this entire thread is something else that you don’t know about.
You did confuse me with someone else earlier when you called me “Little miss “douchenozzle””.
However, I said I confused the two events about shirts, since you’ve derailed this thread so far, I forgot which shirt we were referring to, which I have since then corrected.
Then you quoted my post and asked me about Shirtgate and if “this site was involved” and whether or not I harassed the man in the center of it, so I provided links to both the only article David’s written on the subject on this site, as well as my twitter information so you can verify I didn’t harass anyone about their apparel.
Because you didn’t label that post as being to anyone in particular (even though you quoted me, so I figured it was for me anyways), so I figured we were all allowed to chip in our two cents USD, as this is a public discussion board and not your personal debating soapbox or chat room.
So, you asked questions, I provided answers to you. I fail to see how this is Not Okay.
I’m no lawyer, and I don’t even play one on television, but….
Fifth Sibylline claimed that “everyone laughed at Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn” and when challenged to prove it, stated that the paper was retracted afterwards.
However: “Although Quinn spoke to the UN on the day the report came out, she says she has “no real connection to the report other than being mentioned in it as an example.” She did not know the report mentioned her until she received it the morning before her testimony.
Not the most authoritative citation, but hey. Not an attorney.
Which we got
Are you sitting down? Okay.
By reading the news and reading what Quinn posted recently about dropping the case.
You’re the one who says someone in the Senate is bankrolling the lawsuit. You’re the one with the insider knowledge claim.
If someone hadn’t already emailed the Dark Lord — oh, and Fifth, that’s a common joke nickname for him we have here, if you don’t wanna type that you can call him Mr. Futrelle — I’d do it and beg him to put you out of our misery.
Also, MORE OOM PA PA
https://youtu.be/C5Uw6s1UNQY
Then you quoted my post and asked me about Shirtgate and if “this site was involved” and whether or not I harassed the man in the center of it, so I provided links to both the only article David’s written on the subject on this site, as well as my twitter information so you can verify I didn’t harass anyone about their apparel.
Ok, so some of you did Tweet him, but you didn’t consider it harassment, cool.
Did he get a post here, or was it all out-site?
I asked you to prove everyone laughed at them. If only person didn’t laugh at them, you are wrong.
You’d have been better off just saying you were being hyperbolic.
Also, the UN has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn’s case. You are the one who brought up the UN and then lied about it.
ETA: Lied about who dragged the UN into this.
However: “Although Quinn spoke to the UN on the day the report came out, she says she has “no real connection to the report other than being mentioned in it as an example.” She did not know the report mentioned her until she received it the morning before her testimony.
Not the most authoritative citation, but hey. Not an attorney.
You do know that’s because she read it, and as a smart techy was really embarrassed about it, right?
She had to sit there in front of a panel after a read time of about 2~hrs representing it…
She also pressed for it to be retracted after the session.
That’s kinda the point I was making…
I took your suggestion and went back to read the thread again – though, goodness, if nothing else you certainly don’t write like any UN employee I’ve met. I like having lots of paragraphs too!
But there are times when white space is bad, y’know?
So I went looking at your statements, and then followed some of your links and suggestions. A Pope Hat / Google search for the topic comes up with no relevant hits (care to point to the actual article you mean? Dropping references and making other people do the leg work is a common obfustification tactic, after all), and there are no other news sources showing that she is dropping the case for legal reasons. Instead, here’s her full statement:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/gamergate-zoe-quinns-statement-full-7349480
I’ll revert to my first point made to you – I’ll even tell you what it is again, since I don’t think it’s nice to make people hunt for information when I’ve already got it. I don’t believe you. You’re a liar, mudding the waters. I’ll trust her statement saying that she is calling it of due to harassment over your statement that she just can’t afford it, and there’s no case (you said both of these things).
Gimme a link that shows how she doesn’t have a case – no vague references, no M[redacted]s, a link to a statement from a law professional of repute. Pope Hat is fine, he’s a good egg.
Or shut up.
Okay, so you have absolutely zero reading comprehension. Cool.
Allow me to be blunt: I was the only person here who responded to you. I have never tweeted about Shirtgate. In fact, I pointed out that my twitter account was made after Shirtgate had already died out.
That doesn’t mean you can assume that a) the rest of the community did tweet about it and b) that the context of those tweets was harassment of the scientist involved. Because that requires some fucking Olympian levels of reach.
You asked if “this site” was involved in shirtgate, I showed you the extent of the site’s involvement.
Had David written another article about it for another site, he would have advertised it here, as he knows we like to read his articles for other publications as well.
Or you could bring up your conspiracy theory bullshit with David personally instead of badgering me to do your fucking research for you.
Also, the UN has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn’s case. You are the one who brought up the UN and then lied about it.
Citation please.
IF you are counting “and everyone laughed”, it’s not a material claim.
The material claims are:
#1 Time to Session
#2 Arrangement of Session
#3 Delegates to Session
#4 Material Sources
Um, so yeah.
You can continue throwing poo and hoping it sticks or do a bit of research.
It’s really funny you’re all assuming I’m attacking ZQ/AS here – I’m not. I’m attacking the people behind them.
I don’t have insider knowledge of any kind. I simply read about the case as it occurred. Google is my friend, and the information I provided is available in numerous news articles online.
So, now you’ve called me an unethical, dirty lawyer, called Zoe a liar by saying you know she dropped her case for reasons other than she herself disclosed, accused Zoe of filing unsupportable claims (although her case had already been adjudicated in her favor), and are now desperately barfing up wild accusations to cover your foolishness.
At this point you just seem sad and desperate.
Since the topic came up, could someone either explain or point me to an explanation of the whole numbers thing, or the ninja numbers? I’ve seen it done here before, but I’ve never understood it.
@Scildfreja
You provided a Mirror Newspaper Link.
This is equal to providing a New York Post link.
They are not credible.
Please invest in some better research abilities and come back to me.
@PI
You’ve managed to totally miss the point while providing evidence for your guilt.
I don’t care about shirts: you do.
We all know why.
@ Victorius P
That sounds like something a dog would say when his owners have just returned home to find the bins rifled through and the cushions torn to shreds. 🙂
I note that previously Fifth Sibylline wrote, “There’s a reason everyone laughed at ZQ/AS @ the UN – their paper was rubbish, it was yellow-cake levels of rubbish, and worse still: it ignored all the hard-working people who actually spend 8+ years of their lives working on solving violence against women.”
No mention then that neither Zoe Quinn nor Anita Sarkeesian had contributed to the paper that was later retracted. No mention in that post that Quinn had pressed for retraction until just now, which happens to be after when I’d posted a link to a story stating that Quinn was one of the paper’s biggest critics.
I’ve known other Beltway Bandits (including a K Streeter), and they generally are much more effective and efficient at making points, even in a casual writing setting such as this.
@Fifth
No, you get the fuck out of here.
Like the rating numbers, or the counting game numbers?
AFAIK:
The rating numbers are just a troll annoyance tactic to “rate” flounces. As far as I’m aware the rating system rates the initial flounce (the more explosive or dramatic the better) and the overall entertainment value of the troll, and takes a point away for every post made after the flounce was announced.
The counting numbers game is also an annoyance tactic, that just encourages posters to post numbers in sequential order in an effort to make the troll frustrated enough to want to leave because no one’s engaging with them anymore. It didn’t quite work here.
It’s a game we play when trolls are being obnoxious. We start counting. One number per post. If someone messes up, we reset to the last multiple of 10 we passed (we call it a save point) and start counting from there with the next 1 (e.g., if we made it past 30 and then two people post, say, 33, we reset to 31 and go from there).
I mean, we used to talk about bra fittings but those of us who don’t have breasts couldn’t participate.
So, now you’ve called me an unethical, dirty lawyer, called Zoe a liar by saying you know she dropped her case for reasons other than she herself disclosed, accused Zoe of filing unsupportable claims (although her case had already been adjudicated in her favor), and are now desperately barfing up wild accusations to cover your foolishness.
Wow, you’re really doubling down on this, right.
Oh, wait.
I simply read about the case as it occurred.
The same doc’s I’ve been reading?
How’s about instead of the libel, you tell me how many times both appellants put in for changes and to what effect?
Boy, don’t do this.
I have no sympathy for the narcissist. I don’t like your old money friends scooting the courts, that’s all.
But hey.
I do respect the old blood who took the time to personally come and defend someone’s honor who wasn’t even impinged.
Because, as any real lawyer knows:
You never give the real reason for dropping a case, it’s called NDA usually.
In fact, as any real lawyer knows: anything the client says post settlement is always nonsense, because we’ve made damn sure they won’t break NDAs, settlement clauses or any other numerous ways we have of making your freedom of speech meaningless.
What.
A.
Joke.
Fucking hilarious, Mr Texas.
@ Alan
Or as would be the case here, cats knocking over breakables. 😉
And yes.
Read that in a Django White Hatted KKK Texas old boy accent.
Cause, boys, that’s about as accurate as that little piece of threat was.
Now, let’s go kill some Nieeefroos.
@David.
You got a really classy establishment here.
What point? You haven’t made a single goddamn point. All you do is jump around like a rabbit on a sugar high. You asked me if anyone harassed the scientist, and I said “I haven’t, here’s proof”. You asked if there was an article about it on WHTM, I said “only one, here it is”.
Then you turned around and said “Great! YOU’RE ALL GUILTY OF HARASSMENT!” Which is a fucking reach.
And I only brought up the shirts because you did in an attempt to say we were “dogpiling”, and I got two events confused, and admitted that I did, and now you’re acting like it’s some sort of “guilty conscience” bullshit.
I didn’t participate in anything involving Shirtgate, so you insisting that I must be a harasser because I accidentally brought up shirtgate in confusion as a result of your gibbering is no skin off my teeth.
Fifth sealion is trying so hard to impress everyone and all I’m seeing is this
http://iscreamsundae.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/showyourconfidence.gif
and this
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/degrassi/images/c/c9/Game-of-Thrones-Joffrey-GIF.gif/revision/latest?cb=20140612180250
and this
And now apparently we’re all racists because reasons.