2019-05-11 - Anonymous: "Administration abuse report (against Null)"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus Christ I actually got a headache reading those messages. It's like that one moron in your life who tries to look smarter than they really are by being overly verbose to the point of gibberish times one million. Regardless of whether he's just pretending to be retarded or actually this retarded, he's a massive retard either way.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: BOLDYSPICY!, UselessRubberKeyboard, Stuckinatoaster and 10 others
Superman93 said:
Just two theories on who this anon can be:

  1. ProJared or anyone close to the Projared fiasco for obvious reasons.
  2. Shane Holmberg. I can just envision Shane in my head when reading this correspondence. What gave it away for me is his exceptional legal speak he attempted to try in another argument with an actual lawyer.
Click to expand...

Shane is a shoe eating moron who has no idea that the stupid shit he says even makes him look bad.

It's probably some old cow trying to erase their humiliating past of failure and defeat but who has the sense to know that they'd just revive their thread if they tried getting it taken down with open threats. Maybe someone who has blustered and threatened in the relatively distant past and it didn't work and been quiet lately.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Coleman Francis, BOLDYSPICY!, Gunslinger and 8 others
Going through the old moleman stuff I realize that Null of 2013 was either a lot more optimistic than he is now, or bikibebia hadn't yet turned into a place where lies and half-truths are kept up despite evidence to the contrary and corporations pay editors to smooth articles over.
755315
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: José Mourinho, Mcniggered, Coleman Francis and 19 others
A2P said:
Now that I think about it, there's a real possibility this might be ProJared.

Anon here is demanding you swear to secrecy, which is a personality trait of ProJared's, given that he tried to make his own wife sign an NDA.

Anon is pushy with his secrecy demands, which might indicate that the emailer is desperate to save their face somehow, which I imagine is a PJ mannerism at this point.

Anon gives off a vibe of an insanely overinflated ego, which if anyone has seen Projared's thumbnails on his main channel, ALL of his video banners feature his smug image of him looking all greasy and spergy.

And lastly, anon used the report function, which is a trademark tactic of SJW cancel culture.

Is this too big brained to consider?
Click to expand...
Pro Jared has WAAYY more shit to handle than kiwi farms right now. Considering the info here is availlable all over the web right now and not originating from any farmwork, I think its unlikely. Plus he has money, he'd hire a lawyer to handle it instead I'd wager.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: José Mourinho, Coleman Francis, Kosher Salt and 4 others
Big moth tiddies said:
Going through the old moleman stuff I realize that Null of 2013 was either a lot more optimistic than he is now, or bikibebia hadn't yet turned into a place where lies and half-truths are kept up despite evidence to the contrary and corporations pay editors to smooth articles over.
View attachment 755315
Click to expand...

Yes, Wikipedia is very different from what it was 6 years ago. 6 years is ages in internet years. Now there are troons and metoo people everywhere.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Cat Menagerie, PoisonedBun, Coleman Francis and 7 others
Big moth tiddies said:
Going through the old moleman stuff I realize that Null of 2013 was either a lot more optimistic than he is now, or bikibebia hadn't yet turned into a place where lies and half-truths are kept up despite evidence to the contrary and corporations pay editors to smooth articles over.
Click to expand...
I can actually pinpoint the moment I decided Wikipedia was dead. I had been giving Wikipedia $100/yr since I first got a job making french fries at 17. When I read the article on Anita Sarkesian during GamerGate, it said something like "all her critics can be described as racist, sexist, and misogynistic." Like, it was preposterous in how it just deflected everything wrong with her points of view as being a result of bigotry. So for the first time in my life I made an account and made an edit, not even erasing that, but adding some context that she believed they were sexist. It's the wiki that anyone can edit, right?

My edit got reverted immediately. So, I set about contacting the editor and they didn't reply. The Sarkesian article belonged to a portal, so I contacted the sysop in charge of that portal. He deleted my message off his talk page. He didn't reply to it, didn't acknowledge it, didn't shoot a message back. He fucking reverted my edit which was 100% polite and nice and wanting resolution to an edit conflict.

So, as a financier of the site, I looked into Wikimedia and pulled up corporate contact information I had available to me. I lodged a complaint. They said they'd look into it and did so by adding like 6 different citations to the claim her critics hated women and called it finished. They declared, without exception, that her critics hated women. A thing that you can't know for sure from any empirical statement. So I cancelled my donations.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: José Mourinho, Cat Menagerie, downloads and 57 others
CWCissey said:
Guys, I'm telling you, this is Moleman.

Click to expand...

He certainly does the same "rules lawyering while blatantly ignoring the rules" thing.

Triggered Fivehead said:
Yes, Wikipedia is very different from what it was 6 years ago. 6 years is ages in internet years. Now there are troons and metoo people everywhere.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it but while there had been fairly bad issues of bias before, they'd usually been ultimately worked out with at least an attempt at impartiality, but once goobergrape happened, every single article about it was instantly curated by openly biased mobs of autists and rather than being worked out, every single article on the topic is still absolute garbage.

Just as one example, the John Flynt/Brianna Wu article is about someone who is completely non-notable and virtually every biographical "fact" asserted in it is as accurate as L. Ron Hubbard's biography.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Mcniggered, TerribleIdeas™, Slick Willy and 5 others
AnOminous said:
Just as one example, the John Flynt/Brianna Wu article is about someone who is completely non-notable and virtually every biographical "fact" asserted in it is as accurate as L. Ron Hubbard's biography.
Click to expand...
It's part of the problem with source bias. You have sources X, Y, Z. X and Y are racist nazi incel pedophile sites, and site Z is Buzzfeed, a well of truth and journalistic integrity. X and Y say something is false, Z says it's true. Because only Z matters, it must be true.[1]
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: José Mourinho, BONE_Buddy, Wendy Torrance and 6 others
Null said:
It's part of the problem with source bias. You have sources X, Y, Z. X and Y are racist nazi incel pedophile sites, and site Z is Buzzfeed, a well of truth and journalistic integrity. X and Y say something is false, Z says it's true. Because only Z matters, it must be true.[1]
Click to expand...

It's citogenesis:

755361


The difference is the current cabal has started doing this outright deliberately and has a whole stable of these worthless clickbait outlets where they can place stories at will, either by asking their buddy there to write one or writing it themselves, then use one of their meat puppets on Wikipedia to cite these "reliable sources."

Ryulong was just one of the few crude and stupid enough about it to actually get banned.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Army Burger, TerribleIdeas™, YayLasagna and 16 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back