November 02, 2014

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or something like that.

Moaner said:
The Wikipedia entry does gamergaters no favours at all. Basically, it portrays them as the misogynist, racist turds they are.

Because nobody can edit that page and it's not one-sided at all and there's no Talk. It's written in stone. A Bible for the age of the Interwebz.

Because nobody can edit Zoe's, Anita's or Brianna's pages, either, and remove any criticism of them.

Because Wikipedia is the be all and end all of... well, just about everything.

From Criticism of Wikipedia at...

Wikipedia... Written by volunteers worldwide. Almost anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles.
Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals. Most academics, historians, teachers and journalists, reject Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for being a mixture of truth, half truth, and some falsehoods. Articles in the Times Higher Education magazine, The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies, concluding that the first undermines freedom of thought and the second; the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather only present the majority “weight” of viewpoints creates omissions which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information. Novelist and critic A. S. Byatt has described this consensus populism as leading to the tyranny of the majority. A New York Times article concluded that the casual reader is not aware of these controversial policies because he/she thinks Wikipedia has free expression views.
Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin Black noted how articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic. An article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin.

Scholar and author Mark Bauerlein perceives Wikipedia as a threat for being a "monolith enclosing the knowledge worlds of students". The Academic Integrity at MIT handbook for students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology states: 'Wikipedia is Not a Reliable Academic Source: The bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable – use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research."
Someone else pointed to the GamerGate page on Encyclopedia Dramatica and Moaner pronounces ED as "crap". Except when she agrees with it. (Note that Moaner doesn't seem to object to the doxxing of Prok or members of the JLU there... Again, people she doesn't like. Or at least... agree with.)

October 22, 2014

Still reading, dudebro?

Moaner said:
I must note here that, way before gamergate came to be, we had precisely this sort of idiots [sic] in SL. Some of us have seen them in action.
Oh. Ya mean idiots like Mr. Tish? Mr. Tish, who published the full name (first, middle, last), location (and we're not talking about Joe Smith who lives in... say... NYC) and other RL details of someone that you both hate and then practically invited people to go "kick [his] face in" on his blog and on his Twitter timeline and who had his idiot friends create lame-ass "wiki" style pages publishing that same info?

Or idiots like Gypsy the junkie, who spammed the SL feeds with that info (and yeah, he's blamed at least one of his feed rampages on a heroin binge)?

Or idiots like Deek, who created at least one alt for that same purpose?

Or idiots like Lillie, who "loved" those feed posts?

Idiots like that?

Cuz... Ya know... If you're going to be all up in arms about people getting doxxed and threatened with physical violence, maybe you should condemn it everywhere and not just where you see fit.

And even if you didn't know about it when it happened, maybe you should shun those people.

But they are or were your "friends" so it's ok. Right?

September 24, 2014

Stalkers and bullies and trolls, oh my!

Moaner said:
One of the worst kinds of stalkers in SL and RL is the vengeful stalker; this person convinces themselves that you are their enemy (even if you've never interacted with them, or had more than the misfortune of having exchanged a few words with them), simply because of your opinions.
I don't think of you as my enemy, Moaner, just as a fraud whose stupidity should be exposed for what it is. The problem is that you choose to just block everyone who has an opinion that differs from your own (disagrees with you). As I said elsewhere, that's just lazy. And now you've gone further and tried to silence me. Well, that just won't do.
And they start stalking you, both on LL's own systems and outside of them (Twitter, blogs, forums, etc).
By "stalking" you mean... reading. Is that right? Then I would say that you are guilty of the same.
  • ~9/16 - My Twitter account is suspended. [Gee, who could possibly have reported me?]
  • 9/16 - I register a Plurk account.
  • 9/21 - I'm blocked on Plurk and plurk about it.
  • 9/21 - Your Plurk profile is set to private.
  • 9/22 - I plurk about it (a plurk that you liked) and mention my presence on ASN.
  • ~9/23 - Your post on ASN (now deleted) that refers to your "personal stalker" who's "announced he's come" to ASN "to continue his harassment - but under a different name this time" (see below) appears.
So... who's "stalking" who? If you are/were not "stalking" me, you:

a) wouldn't be reading my Twitter timeline so that you could become so very offended that you had to report me; and
b) would never even see my Plurk timeline so that you could become so very offended that you would feel the need to seek out pity from your fellow ASN users.

Some of these persons organise in groups whose sole existence is to troll, stalk and bully others.
I belong to many "groups", both formal and informal, none of "whose sole existence is to troll, stalk and bully others." Perhaps you'd care to elaborate and maybe even offer some evidence instead of just flapping your gums.
They also claim that what they do is covered by "freedom of speech".
Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas to anyone who is willing to receive them.

Nobody is forcing you to read (receive) my Twitter, Plurk, blog, etc.

The following post appeared on or about 9/23 and has since been deleted (one assumes by the author). Original link:

I'm with you, Lanai. I have my personal stalker, and now he's announced he's come here as well to continue his harassment - but under a different name this time.
See above RE your very own "stalking", Moaner.
He has dedicated his plurk and blog...
No. You're just the latest in a short line of complete morons who've merited such treatment (I only now just realized that most of them happen to be men who play women in SL, and I suspect that you are no exception). Just ask some of your friends about Sus.
... to posting libelous and stalker-ish stuff directed at me.
The following definitions can be found at this link (I know you're quite familiar with the site):

Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.

Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.

Crucial to the second definition is the word FALSE.

I challenge you to point to one single instance where I have made a false statement about you, or about anyone else for that matter.

It's been going on for two years now.
Your first appearance on my blog was in February of 2013. The Tweets in that post are from December of 2012. Prior to that, I didn't even know of your miserable existence.
In fact, yesterday I decided to remove a friend from here, because I saw that she lied when she said (in public) she had ditched a group of friends of hers whose SL was all about drama.
In other words, someone who disagreed with you.

August 22, 2014

If only...

Lucinda Bulloch said:

Why did you make most of my products including the main one adult so taking them from general view and why did you make my dresses adult, how is a dress adult, i have now closed and intend to leave sl for good once i have copied all my script to my hard drive. for 7 years i have put up with abuse but still created but this is the final straw i can not fight these anti competition practices that you see as normal any more.

So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehen, good night.


ETA: That was a comment, now gone, that Lucinda left on a KB article. Off-topic, so of course it deserved to be RICed and I was happy to comply.

August 03, 2014

I blog merely to express my own thoughts.
 'scuse me while I roll on the floor, laughing my ass off (ROFLMAO).

I feel obliged to do some homework before I write about something: Ask about it, read about it, cross-check references, try to find information that's as accurate/helpful as possible.
Yeah, we noticed.

Did the author of the Business Insider article do her homework? Did she try to find someone to help her get to grips with the viewer, optimise her graphics settings, point her to places, communities etc, that are representative of that is done *now* within SL? From what I read, it doesn't look like it. So, if a non-professional, admittedly amateur blogger like me is expected to do her homework and be as accurate and concise as possible in what she writes, why wouldn't a journalist be expected to live up to similar or higher standards?
 Here. Pass this link along to her: