Gawker published a list of people who legally owned a gun in New York, including one woman who bought a gun to defend herself against a stalker. Thanks to Gawker's list, the stalker was able to locate her.
Someone mentioned this earlier. Is there actually something to back this accusation up? Because if it is based solely on the comment in the Gawker article, the timeline doesn't add up.
According to "K-leigh" (the woman in question), another publication had exposed her through the list a few years earlier and this let her stalker locate her. Then she was able to disappear again, but then Gawker posted the list and she was admonishing them for putting up the very thing that let her stalker find her previously (since the gun registration contained her newest address). The whole of her comments explaining everything is here: http://gawker.com/the-journal-posted-my-address-and-name-for-my-gun-owner-477413800
So the only thing to back that up is a... internet comment?
I'm skeptical (especially considering the insanity of GrumbleGurp - I would not put it past someone at the ralphretort hivemind to make up such a story)
Gawker published a list of people who legally owned a gun in New York, including one woman who bought a gun to defend herself against a stalker. Thanks to Gawker's list, the stalker was able to locate her.
Someone mentioned this earlier. Is there actually something to back this accusation up? Because if it is based solely on the comment in the Gawker article, the timeline doesn't add up.
According to "K-leigh" (the woman in question), another publication had exposed her through the list a few years earlier and this let her stalker locate her. Then she was able to disappear again, but then Gawker posted the list and she was admonishing them for putting up the very thing that let her stalker find her previously (since the gun registration contained her newest address). The whole of her comments explaining everything is here: http://gawker.com/the-journal-posted-my-address-and-name-for-my-gun-owner-477413800
So the only thing to back that up is a... internet comment?
I'm skeptical (especially considering the insanity of GrumbleGurp - I would not put it past someone at the ralphretort hivemind to make up such a story)
Referring to the earlier piece in the Journal News, one commenter wrote: 'The journal posted my address and name for my gun ownership. My past stalker saw this. I haven't heard from him in two years, because I disappeared.
'Now he is back and calling me......thanks to people like you bunch of a*******, looks like I will have to protect myself from becoming a murder victim. Gracias.'
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Gawker published a list of people who legally owned a gun in New York, including one woman who bought a gun to defend herself against a stalker. Thanks to Gawker's list, the stalker was able to locate her.
Someone mentioned this earlier. Is there actually something to back this accusation up? Because if it is based solely on the comment in the Gawker article, the timeline doesn't add up.
According to "K-leigh" (the woman in question), another publication had exposed her through the list a few years earlier and this let her stalker locate her. Then she was able to disappear again, but then Gawker posted the list and she was admonishing them for putting up the very thing that let her stalker find her previously (since the gun registration contained her newest address). The whole of her comments explaining everything is here: http://gawker.com/the-journal-posted-my-address-and-name-for-my-gun-owner-477413800
So the only thing to back that up is a... internet comment?
I'm skeptical (especially considering the insanity of GrumbleGurp - I would not put it past someone at the ralphretort hivemind to make up such a story)
Referring to the earlier piece in the Journal News, one commenter wrote: 'The journal posted my address and name for my gun ownership. My past stalker saw this. I haven't heard from him in two years, because I disappeared.
'Now he is back and calling me......thanks to people like you bunch of a*******, looks like I will have to protect myself from becoming a murder victim. Gracias.'
I can't tell if you're being serious in posting Daily Mail as a legitimate news source. Is your next source going to be the National Enquirer?
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
"I'm skeptical (especially considering the insanity of GrumbleGurp - I would not put it past someone at the ralphretort hivemind to make up such a story)"
Considering the comment was made in early 2013, over a year before "GrumbleGlorp" (seriously, when people give it cutesy names like that, they just come off looking like toddlers) even existed, I don't see how they are germane to the issue.
Or maybe they were using Obama's Magic Time Machine (the one that lets him do all the things Fox News claims he did before he was even in office) to do this! DAMN YOU GUMMYGLUTENS! *shakes fist in anger*
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The mob involved in GlitteryGlitch were already formed and harassing people before the hashtag existed. The same group created the #EndFathersDay hashtag.
Tube on
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
The mob involved in GlitteryGlitch were already formed and harassing people before the hashtag existed. The same group created the #EndFathersDay hashtag.
The mob involved in GlitteryGlitch were already formed and harassing people before the hashtag existed. The same group created the #EndFathersDay hashtag.
So it was time travel?
Not to mention Mind Reading! We've got people on here who can identify EXACTLY who did what and when on the internet! I know, let's blame them for 9/11 while we're at it! Heck, when anything bad happens ANYWHERE, internet or otherwise, it was GrannyGropers! Clearly, they were responsible for such tragedies as the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, the replacement of Classic Coke with New Coke, and the early cancellation of "Joan of Arcadia"! 8-)
There's a reason I brought up Obama's Time Machine, because certain people here sound just like the idiots on Fox News who blame stuff on Obama that happened way before he even set foot in office in Chicago, much less the White House.
KLLRFRST on
0
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
Kotaku is one thing, but this comic seems wholly misleading given that "games journalism" as a whole, for good reason, has been and still is considered essentially paid for advertisement for games rather than honest critique.
To say that most news outlets are "deeply incentivized to destroy the developer" as in the parable of the scorpion and the frog, is plainly laughable. They might as well just be a third party marketing department.
Kotaku defies the paradigm and not in a particularly productive way though, yes, because honest and insightful critique doesn't grab headlines. Fox News is a good comparison.
Regarding "good gaming journalism" - it's one thing to ask uncomfortable questions and another to go in with an agenda and create something akin to a smear piece.
Some of it is also the customers fault. It is almost expected of an AAA publisher to release information and hype pre release - if none or sparse info is provided it is immediately pitched in the negative direction "Puplisher / developer XY isn't confident in its product." Then you have sites like Kotako which thrive on every fragment of information or non-information. If we, or the games audience would put more restraint (I must have every piece of info at once), then a blacklist wouldn't be a big deal. It would just mean that the magazine/ news outlet has to buy the game like everybody else and maybe has more time to publish an in-depth or just a quality article.
For the comic, I think it's one of the weaker ones. Although it is a bit tongue in cheek and makes fun of itself in panel 2 for the inebt analogy.
Posts
So the only thing to back that up is a... internet comment?
I'm skeptical (especially considering the insanity of GrumbleGurp - I would not put it past someone at the ralphretort hivemind to make up such a story)
Is older.
I can't tell if you're being serious in posting Daily Mail as a legitimate news source. Is your next source going to be the National Enquirer?
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Considering the comment was made in early 2013, over a year before "GrumbleGlorp" (seriously, when people give it cutesy names like that, they just come off looking like toddlers) even existed, I don't see how they are germane to the issue.
Or maybe they were using Obama's Magic Time Machine (the one that lets him do all the things Fox News claims he did before he was even in office) to do this! DAMN YOU GUMMYGLUTENS! *shakes fist in anger*
On my sleeve, let the runway start
So it was time travel?
Not to mention Mind Reading! We've got people on here who can identify EXACTLY who did what and when on the internet! I know, let's blame them for 9/11 while we're at it! Heck, when anything bad happens ANYWHERE, internet or otherwise, it was GrannyGropers! Clearly, they were responsible for such tragedies as the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, the replacement of Classic Coke with New Coke, and the early cancellation of "Joan of Arcadia"! 8-)
There's a reason I brought up Obama's Time Machine, because certain people here sound just like the idiots on Fox News who blame stuff on Obama that happened way before he even set foot in office in Chicago, much less the White House.
This is ridiculous.
Edit: Also, the writing in the second panel made me chuckle.
To say that most news outlets are "deeply incentivized to destroy the developer" as in the parable of the scorpion and the frog, is plainly laughable. They might as well just be a third party marketing department.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
It's interesting how negative this forum has become to the very creators of the site.
Some of it is also the customers fault. It is almost expected of an AAA publisher to release information and hype pre release - if none or sparse info is provided it is immediately pitched in the negative direction "Puplisher / developer XY isn't confident in its product." Then you have sites like Kotako which thrive on every fragment of information or non-information. If we, or the games audience would put more restraint (I must have every piece of info at once), then a blacklist wouldn't be a big deal. It would just mean that the magazine/ news outlet has to buy the game like everybody else and maybe has more time to publish an in-depth or just a quality article.
For the comic, I think it's one of the weaker ones. Although it is a bit tongue in cheek and makes fun of itself in panel 2 for the inebt analogy.