Ms. Jill Filipovic,

Before we begin, I must point out that you went after us first this time. Just as you have distanced yourself from your peers who protested the Miss NYU calendar, we distance ourselves from the posters who you had an altercation with years ago. This time, you libeled the founders of this website by baselessly accusing them of running the T14 Contest; you acknowledge that they had nothing to do with that contest, yet you continue to smear their names because it gets you attention. You won't apologize, though. Instead, you choose to live in your chamber of echos, bathed in the calming moos and bleats of sycophants busily preening one another in your shared ignorant bliss. Say what you want about this website, but we don't select which beliefs are acceptable. Make all the excuses you want, but your ego cannot take an unfiltered blast of truth.

But I digress. My point is that you choose to bring up rape at all. Nothing in this matter has even approached the ordeal rape victims go through. So please stop painting your dissenters as rapists-in-training. It's transparent, pathetic rhetoric. I worked in a rape counseling crisis center for a month before I had to quit. Yes, me. Caveman Lathorpe. Try a month there and see how easily you throw around comparisons to rape.

You challenge me to identify myself. But that is where we differ, Jill. I value my privacy, therefore I protect it. The problem is that you and all the women mentioned by this website have not valued their privacy and have not protected it. You guys wake up agog that your pictures are plastered all over, but how carefully did you keep your privacy? There is the ideal, and then there is the practical. Pretend you left your wallet on a park bench. Ideally, no one should take it. As a practical matter, you shouldn't have left it there expecting to find it in the morning.

Your argument is nonsensical. A fashion show does not become less objectionable simply because you prepend adjectives before it. "Feminist" and "environmentally friendly": two descriptives I've never heard applied to a fashion show. You think you're pretty so you flaunt yourself. Men think you're pretty, so they talk about you. The "regular women" who drop out of your friend's politically-correct contest are as victimized by society's expectations of women just as much as they are by the plain old Miss USA Pageant. Tell your friend to drop all the hotties and use all the notties. She will not. At the same time she decries the system that preys on women's self-esteem, she will partake in its fruits to make her rent.

Besides, Jilly, whatever makes you think we have not talked face to face already? Ask that guy you used to date whether he's ever bragged to his friends about your sexual escapades. I am sorry to report that your feminist male friends are the same as us, Jill. We are just more honest to ourselves.

Lathorpe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7724184)

I bet she's a champion in the sack.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7724276)

I liked your pants today.

Lathorpe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7725848)

plus serbo-croats are hot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7725897)

Yesterday I ate a feminist ice cream cone before taking feminist public transportion to a feminist garage sale.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7725920)

# Hold them accountable Says:

March 8th, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Online harassment is a course of conduct directed at an individual that causes substantial emotional distress in that person and which serves no legitimate purpose.

Online harassment may include…

Unwanted / unsolicited e-mail

Unwanted / unsolicited chat or instant messages

Public or private messages on IRC

Disturbing messages on Usenet or bulletin boards

Unsolicited comments about you to others

Online harassment is a crime in New York State punishable by up to one year in jail, a $1000 fine, or both:

Penal Code § 240.30. Aggravated harassment in the second degree. 1965. Amended 2001.

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:

1. Either

(a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or

(b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or

2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or

3. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation,regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct; or

4. Commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.

Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Penal Code § 240.31. Aggravated harassment in the first degree. 1982. Amended 2000.

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because of a belief or perception regarding such person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, he or she:

1. Damages premises primarily used for religious purposes, or acquired pursuant to section six of the religious corporation law and maintained for purposes of religious instruction, and the damage to the premises exceeds fifty dollars; or

2. Commits the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree in the manner proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 of this article and has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree for the commission of conduct proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 or he has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the first degree within the preceding ten years.

Aggravated harassment in the first degree is a class E felony.

Jill: Regardless of whether the pics were copyright violations; this is most certainly not just a civil matter…it’s criminal. If any of these people reside in the state of NY, I’m sure the Cybercrime unit of the local DA’s office would be interested in looking in to this. If you would like information about all relevant case law in NY State regarding harrassement and public message boards (specifically in regards to threats of rape) feel free to send me an email; though I’m assuming you can do the research all by yourself.

Good luck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7726893)

----------------------------

Although I don’t support all of the actions of my XOXO brethren, some of the things being said here are so ridiculous that it seems like they must be the product of intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps just blatant stupidity.

The idea that there is some vast network designed to damage the career prospects of women and thereby allow men to materially improve their own prospects is patently absurd. A clear instance of delusional paranoia run amok. Realistically, how would a small handful of guys spread across many schools talking about a small handful of girls spread across many schools serve to provide any material gain? Throwing out charges like that would be a lot more credible if say…most of the female law review members and top female students at a single school were targeted. There isn’t any need to look for a vast conspiracy to find the intentions. What XOXO does is driven by a general spirit of pranksterism and misogyny(some tongue in cheek, some real). For the most part, women are objectified because the posters find objectifying them to be an inherently enjoyable activity. They generally tend to have their fun and move on. The malicious attacks seem to occur mainly when someone has tried to make an issue of it since some posters also get inherent enjoyment from creating drama.

As for the poor ladies fearing for their lives and what not….XOXO is the same site that has gems of threads like “You haven’t lived until you’ve fucked a newborn kitten” and “99% of 9/11 damage caused by FAGGOT FIREFIGHTERS.” The entire site is basically a game to see who can be the most shockingly tasteless in the wittiest way. Statements about licking the sweat off of a girl or taking cel-camera pictures of her are made in the same spirit, and anyone who takes them seriously is an idiot. For the most part, I avoid discussing innocent individuals myself since there are plenty of ways I can offend without doing damage to a specicif person.

If anything, the comments on this blog seem closer to what XOXO is being accused of being than XOXO is itself. As I said before, XOXO is motivated by the shock humor arms race. However, the people commenting on this blog are angry and outraged. I get the sense that when they say they’d like to ruin someone’s career or actually stalk them, they are thinking that doing those things is a good idea. IE: I think there are people here who if they had the identity of the guy who made the cel-camera comment and went to his school, would probably go out and snap some pics of him. Some of the responses are borderline fanatical, and the scary part is, I think that unlike XOXO, they’re serious. I’m not sure how we’re going to resolve this, it’s like two worlds colliding, rival nations. It’s a primitive clash venting years of frustrations. Bravely we hope against all hope, there is so much at stake. Seems our freedom’s up against the ropes. Does the crowd understand? Is a East versus West, or man against man. Can any nation stand …alone? In the burning heart, just about to burst. There’s a quest for answers, an unquenchable thirst. In the darkest night, rising like a spire, In the burning heart the unmistakable fire. In the warriors code, there’s no surrender. Though his body says stop his spirit cries never.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7727367)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7727398)

I don't go to NYU Law. I am in NYC but I've never seen you before in my entire life, nor do I want to ever do so. I did go overboard with that last paragraph; I do apologize. I was mocking your efforts at intimidating me by saying you know I went to NYU Law. If you go through the threads, I have claimed to be from NYU Law, Yale Law, and Harvard Law. It's just a part of my schtick. (And make no mistake, I am a schitck. The comments on your website, which you implicitly approve of by allowing to be posted, making all kinds of threats of violence and stalking of XO folks -- those buffoons are serious, and they would stalk and attack if they could.)

I read with interest your accusations of cowardice. While you complain about unwanted publicity, you call a person who protects himself against such publicity a coward. I think it would be more accurate to call you reckless. But whatever.

Lathorpe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7728718)

The comments there are so fucking retarded I want to die.

They do occasionally show flashes of intelligence though:

# zuzu Says:

March 9th, 2007 at 8:41 am

Oh, and BTW, pumpkin, the really big money is in investment banking.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7729955)

However, many of the comments at Feministe (which, from what I can tell, is a *moderated* board) blame the owners of AutoAdmit (Mr. Ciolli and Mr. Cohen) for the actions of individuals that happen to post bad things at AutoAdmit, or run wholly separate websites with content that the Feministas find objectionable (e.g., the T14 Talent website). At least one of these comments links to a third-party website that contains statements of fact about Mr. Ciolli and Mr. Cohen that are likely to be untrue (or at least have been vigorously disputed in the past).

I, personally, don't think the owners of autoadmit should be held responsible for the actions of individual AutoAdmit posters. Jill and others at Feministe apparently either (a) disagree, and think that a website owner/moderator is reponsible for the comments posted there, or (b) don't understand that the owners of AutoAdmit did not do anything in favor of the T14 Talent compettion or post some of the despicable content on AutoAdmit.

Well, put your money where your mouth is.

If you think a website owner is responsible for the content of comments posted therein, then ask Jill to apologize and take down comments from her blog. Feministe comments and websites linked therefrom are blatantly misleading people into believing that Ciolli and Cohen ran the T14 Talent contest and making other (likely, though I don't claim personal knowledge) untrue statements.

If you don't think Ciolli & Cohen are responsible, it might be worth saying so to your Feministe brethren (sistren?) before they spend too much time dragging their names through the mud (after all, that's what we're concerned about, right?).

Anyway, I just thought someone should clarify things. I would do it there, but because there is no guarantee of anonymity, and many of the commenters are clearly out for revenge, I've posted it here in the hopes some gawkers might see.

***Gonna post in own thread, but thought I'd post here, too***

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7729969)

Eventually, someone is going to sue Filipovic. And she's going to get put into a very hypocritical situation. (Jill's going to argue that men are big and bad and should be made fun of.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7730021)

At any rate, if she thinks C&C should be held responsible for the actions of third parties, she clearly is acting hypocritically by allowing such blatant mistruths to show up on her blog.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7730042)

Author: pensivewalnuts (wamp wamp what it do what it do)

Don't know if this has been posted before, but it's hilarious:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/01/22/2106/

Jill's cohort grew up in Jersey/CT, went to UMich LS, got a biglaw job, couldn't hack it, and is now a 37 year old TTTemp ATTTorney liTTTigator who spends her free time writing for Feministe.

Prestigious?

Edit: Apparently she's unmarried, not currently seeing anyone, and has "pulled back for a while from the Wonderful World of Dating."

Shocking.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=617176&forum_id=2#7965469)

lulz

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=591875&forum_id=2#7965606)