- Joined
- Feb 10, 2015
Couldn’t someone like Null, who is already doxed, file a complaint?
Brianna Wu / John Walker Flynt - "Biggest Victim of Gamergate," Failed Game Developer, Failed Congressional Candidate
- Thread starter Jaimas
- Start date
Couldn’t someone like Null, who is already doxed, file a complaint?
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2015
Imagine that, you acted like a re,tard and blasted fake news out on the Twatter, who would have ever thought.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
Moon rocks killed the disnosaurs
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2017
John is Ambien tweeting about moonrocks again. What a time to be alive.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
My favorite John will always be Moonrocks Wu. Little about Wu pleases me more than the addled ramblings of a tranny that believes someone, somewhere, is weaponizing space rocks for some unknown devious purpose. Also
"Ask the dinosaurs"
"This is 4chan nonsense"
Hmmm.....
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2016
Don’t look behind the curtain dress. - Wutard of Moon
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
Ow. Ow ow ow ow ow.
The stupidity burns.
The thing that killed the dinosaurs wasn't just a rock. It was a meteorite over ten kilometres wide and was rocketing towards the Earth at much greater speed than could be achieved by simply shooting it from the moon. To reach that speed you'd need to shoot it from much further away, which is pointless, because there are several organizations that would pick up on it and work out a way to destroy it before it could get here.
Anyway, the Cretaceous impact event isn't a great advertisement for using rocks as a weapon, since a similar event would destroy humanity for certain if it hit. Kind of pointless using a weapon that doesn't leave you alive in the aftermath.
ln18
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
Congratulations to Brianna for finally addressing the JQ and taking on (((merchants))).
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2016
Well it makes perfect sense if you're going to live out the destruction in suspended animation in your moon base.
Checkmate, Nazi.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2015
I will now take an autistic amount of time to show that every sentence in this newsletter is shit.
The first thing that confuses me, is that this newsletter is written like Wu is addressing people who don't or barely know her. Because of this I will treat this mail like it was meant as a "cold call". It's also lazily and badly designed and I am pretty sure she doesn't have the rights to the Trump picture she used. However, people who receive this mail should already know who she is, since they subscribed to her newsletter. This campaign email should therefore be a status update of what she did and is about to do, to motivate people to donate more ...but I guess "I bought an old Porsche and dumped tons of money in Battlefront II!", isn't even in Wu's eyes very newsworthy.
-> Interest lost.
The next thing is that this email has (thankfully) no heading image of Brianna, her logo nor any indicator what party she belongs to. So the added statements "instead contribute/save america" are basically empty and pretty much a drag. Whoever thought in the previous sentence "Why should I?" will now surely move this to spam, because you are wasting their time.
-> Interest lost.
Besides, not immediately identifying yourself in a newsletter/spam-mail is suspicious. Then again, her campaign IS a scam... but, if you don't run a scam, you need some form of "immediately visible legitimacy" so people read more than the first two sentences. People will delete any "fantastic offer" or "super sale" email that passed their spam-filter without reading (or remembering) it, but they might take a look at such an email, if you see the Amazon logo in the preview window. Even newsletter you deliberately subscribed to, becomes quickly unwanted spam and you begin to ignore or delete them on reflex, so you have to make your statement of what and who you are as soon as the email is opened.
-> Interest lost.
You don't want to have any questions in your ad, your target audience could answer with "No, I don't care." and then move on.
"Do you know how our beer is brewed?"
"No, I don't care, I just want to drink beer!"
-> Interest lost.
However, if you add a statement directly into the sentence:
"Do you know why our beer is so good?"
"I don't believe that your beer is so good!"
-> Ad answers it's own question by showing/telling that the beer is so good, because every bottle is juggled by a playboy bunny or something.
-> Interest lost.
"Mediamarkt" is in Germany one of the worst contenders for this, their last big slogan was "Mediamarkt - I am not stupid." which can be easily turned into "Mediamarkt? I am not stupid!" and their current slogan is not much better, but that one gets lost in translation.
"Giev money, because I dumped $1000 dollar in Battlefront II Crystals before the lootbox controversy started."
opposed to:
"I dumped $1000 dollar in Battlefront II Crystals before the lootbox controversy started. Giev money."
"Giev money, because I run for congress."
opposed to:
"Giev money, for a moonrock-safe future."
And when it comes to donations, you don't pick the time around Black Friday to ask for them. This got to be the worst time to ask for any kind of donations. People have like a million better things to spent their money on on this particular day, and they aren't in the same generous mood as they are on and before turkey day and around Christmas. Why do you think little Mawomba and his village in Africa are starving around Christmas more then usual?
Also, in this case one should start with a bunch of "things you have to offer" and then underline your statement with the claim that Steven Lynch is not doing any of these.
Also, she is asking for a fixed amount. If you just say that you 'need' $15,000, it implies that you appreciate every donation, but would pay the rest from your own pocket. Even without knowing that she has recently bought a Porsche, instead of saving that money for her campaign, this phrasing sounds absolutely desperate (or greedy, take your pick) with it's implied 'or else!' tone.
Also, implying that 2018 is about TRUST and INTEGRITY, leads to the conclusion that the previous elections weren't. And not mentioning why it is about TRUST and INTEGRITY this year, leads to the conclusion that Wu gave a shit before.
...helping people.
...build a better future for District 8 and our Great Country.
...changing the world to the better.
...would have been all better than: "I like to sit around and listen and don't do anything."
&
You never-ever start an advertisement or PSA with any form of 'rejection/refusal/denial', unless it is some kind of warning ("Don't drink tap-water!") or so outrageous/weird that people get intrigued by the claim itself ("Don't brush your teeth!"/"Don't shit in your salad!"). In other words, you simply do not tell your audience what NOT to do. The common reaction to a statement that says "Don't do that thing you usually do and might even enjoy sometimes." is 99% of the time "You are not the fucking boss of me!"
-> Interest lost.
The next thing is that this email has (thankfully) no heading image of Brianna, her logo nor any indicator what party she belongs to. So the added statements "instead contribute/save america" are basically empty and pretty much a drag. Whoever thought in the previous sentence "Why should I?" will now surely move this to spam, because you are wasting their time.
-> Interest lost.
Besides, not immediately identifying yourself in a newsletter/spam-mail is suspicious. Then again, her campaign IS a scam... but, if you don't run a scam, you need some form of "immediately visible legitimacy" so people read more than the first two sentences. People will delete any "fantastic offer" or "super sale" email that passed their spam-filter without reading (or remembering) it, but they might take a look at such an email, if you see the Amazon logo in the preview window. Even newsletter you deliberately subscribed to, becomes quickly unwanted spam and you begin to ignore or delete them on reflex, so you have to make your statement of what and who you are as soon as the email is opened.
"No, I don't care."
-> Interest lost.
You don't want to have any questions in your ad, your target audience could answer with "No, I don't care." and then move on.
"Do you know how our beer is brewed?"
"No, I don't care, I just want to drink beer!"
-> Interest lost.
However, if you add a statement directly into the sentence:
"Do you know why our beer is so good?"
"I don't believe that your beer is so good!"
-> Ad answers it's own question by showing/telling that the beer is so good, because every bottle is juggled by a playboy bunny or something.
Whenever you can reply to a statement with "No, shit Sherlock." or throw the exact statement (in a sarcastic tone) back at the advertiser to make fun of them, the ad has failed.
-> Interest lost.
"Mediamarkt" is in Germany one of the worst contenders for this, their last big slogan was "Mediamarkt - I am not stupid." which can be easily turned into "Mediamarkt? I am not stupid!" and their current slogan is not much better, but that one gets lost in translation.
If it is likely that your target audience already knows the shit you are talking about: Statement/Request before the explanation why you do something. No one wants to read about stuff they already know, to get to the core of what the advertiser wants.
"Giev money, because I dumped $1000 dollar in Battlefront II Crystals before the lootbox controversy started."
opposed to:
"I dumped $1000 dollar in Battlefront II Crystals before the lootbox controversy started. Giev money."
Again, do not phrase anything in a way that your target audience can answer it with: "I don't care."
Although Brianna has explained why she needs the money, she hasn't brought yet up why people should donate to her. Which makes this link look like the cash grab her campaign is.
"Giev money, because I run for congress."
opposed to:
"Giev money, for a moonrock-safe future."
&
Although it is pretty much required to be confrontational to a certain degree, when you are running in an election (or pretend to), you do not lead with that. Especially not when your candidate is from the same party as you are. This comes over as petty, unprincipled, childish and gives people no reason to vote/donate for Wu. It is also the wrong angle: You are not competing for a fixed amount of donation money. You try to convince people that you are a candidate worth donating to. Wu is apparently treating this like most people have a 'political donation budget' and they exclusively donate to only one of the candidates.
And when it comes to donations, you don't pick the time around Black Friday to ask for them. This got to be the worst time to ask for any kind of donations. People have like a million better things to spent their money on on this particular day, and they aren't in the same generous mood as they are on and before turkey day and around Christmas. Why do you think little Mawomba and his village in Africa are starving around Christmas more then usual?
Also, in this case one should start with a bunch of "things you have to offer" and then underline your statement with the claim that Steven Lynch is not doing any of these.
These are just a bunch of naked claims, without anything to back them up. They feel like Wu is shouting unfounded insults at Lynch. You could add "He also has a foul body odor." to that list and it wouldn't change the tone. You need something to back your claims up, if you are getting that precise. For the same reason it's always 'leading dermatologist' who claim that skin cream X is removing wrinkles better then all those other creams, or some washed up Hollywood star from a decade ago holds her mug into the camera and smiles with perfect teeth.
Again, this is too vague. It isn't clear what these events are. You need some photo here, that shows a former event so the people know what to expect. Other campaigns would how show, say, Steven Lynch smiling and kissing veterans and shaking hands with babies, but since Wu hasn't made a single real appearance yet she doesn't even have a photo she could use.
Also, she is asking for a fixed amount. If you just say that you 'need' $15,000, it implies that you appreciate every donation, but would pay the rest from your own pocket. Even without knowing that she has recently bought a Porsche, instead of saving that money for her campaign, this phrasing sounds absolutely desperate (or greedy, take your pick) with it's implied 'or else!' tone.
Again, too vague. Who is 'you'? The people who already don't like Lynch? This underlines that she hasn't mentioned a single political goal she has in the entire mail. She has mentioned what she doesn't like about Lynch implying that she is opposed to those things, but she is building herself here as a protest candidate lacking any form of content.
How lucky for her that she doesn't get those donations in the first place. But again, this is just another "Lynch Bad, Wu Good!"
Hollow phrase. Every election should be about TRUST and INTEGRITY.
Also, implying that 2018 is about TRUST and INTEGRITY, leads to the conclusion that the previous elections weren't. And not mentioning why it is about TRUST and INTEGRITY this year, leads to the conclusion that Wu gave a shit before.
Again: "Trump Bad! Brianna Good!"
Bad phrasing, too urgent. This is not an emergency. Little Bobango won't die of thirst and cholera, if you don't donate immediately. "Donate to our campaign today" would have been much softer and less pushy.
Nobody reads the P.S. in a newsletter. Literally nobody, apart from kiwis is reading this part.
Wu needs to stress the fact that she is not running for herself. Would you buy a kitchen appliance that is marketed with "This electrical mixer won't short circuit and burn down your house!"?
One of the best things about running for office is...
...helping people.
...build a better future for District 8 and our Great Country.
...changing the world to the better.
...would have been all better than: "I like to sit around and listen and don't do anything."
This translates to:
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2015
On the plus side it's not gonna be able to see your ugly mug anymore.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
You get even less time with them when you leave them outside to freeze to death and never, ever groom their filthy carcasses.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I'm amazed a dog lived long enough in the Wu dog Auschwitz to experience aging effects. I guess they forgot to leave him out in the cold to die and blame it on Gamergate. Lucky dog!
- Joined
- May 9, 2015
According to Wikipedia, Bichons usually have a lifespan of 12-20 years, whilst Wu's is only 9.
One wonders if its poor condition has more to do with being constantly neglected by Flu than it does age.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
They probably confined it to that improvised dog dungeon they have, and taunted it about being a dog.
Imagine being a poor doge and both your masters are sadistic monsters. It's amazing this poor puppy lived as long as it has.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
That line about Lynch being a Republican in a cheaper suit not only reeks of elitism (which he then cries about later in the email), but it makes me think Frank wrote the majority of this email. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was the one who first came up with it.
But both Frank and Brianna keep repeating it like the line is some work of genius do it's hard to tell anymore. At least it's clear that Wu has nothing beyond bad one-liners and lies.
But both Frank and Brianna keep repeating it like the line is some work of genius do it's hard to tell anymore. At least it's clear that Wu has nothing beyond bad one-liners and lies.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
Donation Update!
2 new people and $50 more
2 new people and $50 more