The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Why doesn't Rach take down the offensive posts?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:17 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon Isn't that the right thing to do.
He says he doesn't want to see B or H suffer any more.
Why doesn't he take down the posts?
O wait, its because this isn't about doing the right thing. It's about his little penis measuring contest with RD.
|
 |
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:18 PM Author: Snowy immigrant athletic conference Why doesn't RD apologize? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7839908) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:22 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon Why is that even relevant?
If what Rach claims is true, which is that he doesn't want to see these girls suffer any more, than why does he submit to playing a "male ego contest" with RD?
Why? Because RACH is just as big of a self-righteous douchebag as they are.
Do the RIGHT thing. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:23 PM Author: Snowy immigrant athletic conference Why doesn't RD apologize? They lose the challenge. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7839945) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:25 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon Can you read? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7839955) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:27 PM Author: Snowy immigrant athletic conference If RD wants to defend its clients, its simply needs to name them and apologize for trying to ruin Rach's business. It's all stated very clearly in the challenge. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7839968) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:31 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon My point is that thats not the point. In the challenge Rach says that he doesn't want to see B and H suffer any longer.
If thats the case why doesn't he just delete the threads about them? Its really very black and white.
The whole "challenge" is incredibly immature and reeks of douchebaggery. This is not about RD vs XOXO this is about people getting fucked with IRL by a band of perverted assholes who hide behind the anonymity of the internet.
Rach can stop this malice on xoxo. I can't see how one can defend him when he refuses to do the RIGHT THING. His excuses for not deleting threads/posts are just unbelievable. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:33 PM Author: Snowy immigrant athletic conference Has anyone bumped those threads in the last few weeks? Who cares? GOI (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7839994) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:37 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon Someone cares. The people's whose reputations got fucked with care. If I outted you and made posts about you wouldn't you want them removed?
Don't be so callous man. Are you this indifferent to other people in real life? |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:39 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed you are a repdef(tm) "as seen on abc!" shill, aren't you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840014) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:39 PM Author: Snowy immigrant athletic conference I don't have any say in the matter but it seems obvious that if they want the threads down, and they have hired RD, they should simply have RD do what it's being asked. Life isn't fair and worse things happen to better people than this everyday, so no I don't feel that bad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840015) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:48 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon OMG reading comprehension dude. Look at how I frame my argument.
Basically it goes as follows:
Rach says he doesn't want B or H to suffer any longer.
If Rach truly believes in what he says, then why doesnt he delete the threads and posts regarding B & H?
Why does RD have anything to do with it? Basically I see Rach being a little immature douch and hiding behind the RD issue because he LOVES this little pissing contest just as much as the fuckers at RD does.
Basically in my mind Rach is just as guilty as RD. He can commit to actions NOW that will significantly improve the situation. Instead he posts a self-righteous challenge.
Wtf is this? Sixth grade? |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:51 PM Author: Snowy immigrant athletic conference You're the one with RC issues. You're harping on this one thing that Rach said when he obviously said a lot of other shit that is more important to him than these two dumbasses. Whatever you're asking him to do significantly improves the situation for only 2 people, and he obviously doesn't care that much. Oh well! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840078) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:56 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon I'm harping on the most important thing he said. He presents his challenge as if HE is the good guy and THEY are the bad guy.
If this is true, then why doesnt Rach do the good guy thing to do?
Its a very simple question. So far, no one has directly answered my question. You certaintly have not. If he doesn't care he should say so, and not make a big self-righetous front page CHALLENGE.
If you would actually read my posts maybe you would understand by now. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:00 PM Author: Snowy immigrant athletic conference Can you blame me? Your posts are pretty fucking retarded. You think it's the most important thing; evidently not many people agree with you. Why should he say so? Because you want him, nay, demand him to? LOL. It's a lot funnier when he does nothing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840142) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:04 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon You still haven't addressed any of my main points. My arguement is in context to what Rach has said. I'm just keeping him responsible for his own words.
Basically Rach is just a big a douchebag as RD thats essientially my point.
I hope this is clear, if not maybe I can draw you picture (with lots of colors too!).
Idiot. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:06 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed funny how everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.
|
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:08 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon No one has directly addressed my central point that Rach is just as big of a douchebag as the guys at RD.
You certaintly haven't. Maybe thats why you're an idiot? |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:10 PM Author: glittery partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840210) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:11 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake That isn't her. please stop (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840216) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:13 PM Author: glittery partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840229) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:13 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake it isn't her wtf, i am not doing this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840235) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:36 PM Author: Startled mediation Actively trying to professionally ruin someone is far more harmful than simply not censoring someone's constitutionally protected speech. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840381) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:53 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed rach explained his reasons in the challenge. If the two girls are using rd as their agent, rd has a duty of loyalty to the girls, not to their own egoes. they have a duty of care to act expeditiously to meet the girls' goals. they are breaching that duty by not negotiating with rach. I'm sure we could find competent counsel to represent the girls in their inevitable suit against repdef. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:58 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon But he also claims that he wants to minimize the suffering of the two girls.
My point is that CLEARLY he doesn't give a shit about B or H. All he cares about is showing up RD, a male ego-contest that he ironically decries. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:02 PM Author: glittery partner so you can't see how Reputation Defender fucked this whole thing up, huh? youre alone on that one buddy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840153) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:03 PM Author: Coiffed Marvelous Stage They wouldn't have been hired in the first place if the threads had just been taken down when the girls asked. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840164) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:05 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed you keep saying that when did the girls ask to have the threads taken down? how do you know when they did? are you one of the girls? |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:12 PM Author: Coiffed Marvelous Stage They and RD say they did, I assume they can prove it. I recall people posting that they thought the original emails were not polite enough requests. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840224) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:21 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed really? the girls have posted here? or are you friends with the girls? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840288) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 11:24 PM Author: Azure Stead Milk You're confusing AutoAdmit and the T14 contest. Several people emailed pauliewalnuts about the T14 contest, but no one emailed AutoAdmit asking for threads about the contest to be removed, except for an email sent by Heide Iravani after the contest itself had shut down, after rachmiel had already made a decision to revise the anti-outing policy. In other words, rachmiel was going to delete or edit all those threads (including the ones about Heide) once he had the actual policy formulated, which he was trying to get input on from law school deans and the community.
RD knew that rachmiel was doing this, yet decided to pursue its "shock and awe" campaign anyway, resulting in rachmiel delaying the policy changes and, if the changes are made in the future, likely having it not apply to RD clients until RD apologizes. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:06 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon No I agree that RD made the whole situation alot worse than it originally was. However, RD's actions dont justify PWs original T14 contest nor does it justify Rach's inaction now.
Basically RD is a big strawman at this point. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:37 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed a strawman who was able to plant stories in the washington post and on network television. that is some muscular strawman. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840389) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:40 PM Author: Startled mediation You're right, rachmiel should take action.
He should sue Reputation Defender, Heide Iravani, and Brittan Heller for tortious interference with business, defamation, and false light. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:59 PM Author: glittery partner If the two girls are using rd as their agent, rd has a duty of loyalty to the girls, not to their own egoes. they have a duty of care to act expeditiously to meet the girls' goals. they are breaching that duty by not negotiating with rach.
I'm sure we could find competent counsel to represent the girls in their inevitable suit against repdef. ------------------------
same thing i've been saying for a while. RD could've fulfilled their duty to their clients. instead, they refuse to apologize for blowing the issue up publically, even though rach has posted PUBLICALLY that if they apologize for slandering him & GTO in the news, he would remove the stuff. RD therefore is either stupid, ineffective, dishonest, or lacking in fulfilling duties to their client.
which is it? i think its a combo. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:14 PM Author: Flatulent thriller indirect expression box office Wow you keep missing this guy's point.
Obviously RD is in the wrong.
But Rach is behaving like a fourth grader by refusing to take down the threads until RD "apologizes." It really makes him look petty and immature. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:16 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon DING DING DING WE HAVE A FUCKING WINNER. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840260) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:23 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed another alternative: the girls could always deal with rach directly -- why doesn't repdef bow out and refund the girls' money? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840296) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:26 PM Author: Flatulent thriller indirect expression box office Sigh.
Yes RD could bow out. Yes that would be the best thing to do. But Rach said he cares about the girls. If he did he would value protecting them over settling the score with RD. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:33 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed rd publicly labelled autoadmit the bad guy on network tv. they called autoadmit out. rach can't just roll over. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840365) |
|
Date: April 29th, 2007 3:53 PM Author: Orchid Toilet Seat titfcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#8029977) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:41 PM Author: Startled mediation He cares about the girls but he also cares about his business, his reputation, and his life. And when it comes to deciding between those conflicting values, what do you think he should choose? You bet he's going to want to make sure he's taken care of first, as he should. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840411) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:38 PM Author: Startled mediation Would you rather he demand that RD, or Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani, compensate him for his lost income?
Given that he's lost real money because of this, an apology is getting off light. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:43 PM Author: Flatulent thriller indirect expression box office Why should they compensate him for lost income? All they did was reveal to the media that he allowed people to defame them on his website. They didn't do anything dishonest or illegal. If he lost income because his actions were made public, that's his fault. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840426) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:53 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed I wish people would not toss around the word defamation -- it has an exact legal definition, which has not been met here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840489) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:58 PM Author: Azure Stead Milk Have you read the RD website? Most of the things said on there are either outright lies or have important facts omitted. For instance, it constantly refers to pauliewalnuts's site as an "AutoAdmit affiliate." And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It's also important to remember that most of the things commonly mentioned, while perhaps in bad taste, are not defamatory. Saying that you think someone is a stupid bitch might be offensive, but it's just an opinion, not defamation. Linking to someone's Facebook picture and saying they have a nice rack might be disrespectful, but it's not defamation. And saying someone has a 159 LSAT is also not defamation if they actually have a 159 LSAT (which no one except Brittan Heller, LSAC, and the Yale Law School admissions office can verify one way or the other, and none of them are talking). |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:35 PM Author: Startled mediation How are reputations even on the line? Heide Iravani voluntarily uploaded pictures of herself to Facebook, and people discussed them online.
As for Brittan Heller, is there any evidence that she doesn't have a 159 LSAT? Has she shown rachmiel her score report? If not, why should rachmiel be obligated to do anything? Shouldn't the OP have rights too? |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:39 PM Author: Coiffed Marvelous Stage I bet they still show up as google hits, which is probably the reason they cared in the first place. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840016) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:40 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed the more attention repdef brings to the site, the more hits they will have. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840025) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:41 PM Author: Coiffed Marvelous Stage I don't think it matters how many hits a thread has if there are only a couple pages of hits about the person. People who google them will see the links. Besides, didn't they hire RD after they asked for the threads to be removed and they weren't? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840029) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:47 PM Author: glittery partner Rep Defender should ask themselves: "is this what we promised to do for Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani when they let us represent them?" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840054) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:49 PM Author: Coiffed Marvelous Stage I agree that they should apologize if that is what it takes. However, I'm not sure there was any reason for them to get involved at all. Why weren't the threads just taken down when the girls just asked? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840066) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:55 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed when did the girls ask rach to take the threads down? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840112) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:59 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon Why is there a need to apologize? Why doesn't Rach just do the right thing and remove the threads?
Basically he is fucking over B and H out of spite for RD. What a fucking immature douche. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:01 PM Author: glittery partner ... because it sets a precedent that he'll end up dealing with TTTSEF middlemen anytime something's posted that ppl dont like.
he wants to take some blame (for not paying attn to the board) but wants RD to admit their tactic (make it a public issue) so that ppl can see that going public hurt the client just as much as ppl posting stupid shit -- like 1 thread about Brittan Heller getting a 159 on the LSAT (which seems more likely than not to be true, btw) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 11:10 PM Author: Azure Stead Milk It's not just the middleman precedent. Threatening litigation, trying to extort someone into taking action by threatening to ruin an uninvolved friend's career, etc. are not proper ways to get your point across, and it is very bad policy for people to think that the way to get rachmiel to do something is to threaten him with frivolous lawsuits or to threaten to professionally ruin him or his friends.
rachmiel has helped people *many* times when they have asked him nicely, but has not once given in to anyone's demands when threatened, because giving in to threats results in more threats. It's bad policy for people to think that you can get rachmiel to delete a thread by contacting the Pennsylvania insurance commissioner to try to get his license pulled, or to think you can get rachmiel to get a post out of Google by threatening to report me to the character and fitness committee or send an email about me to my law firm.
This is why people like Professor Claire Finkelstein and Victoria Weatherford have had threads removed about them while people like Professor Brian Leiter and Brittan Heller have not. Giving even the appearance that extortion and similar sorts of actions are acceptable ways to influence rachmiel is bad for rachmiel personally and bad for the board. Hence why rachmiel was planning to remove the threads no questions asked but now will not remove them without an apology from RD and/or Heide Iravani and Brittan Heller: extortion isn't an acceptable way to do business with rachmiel, and rachmiel isn't going to give people an incentive to try these same sorts of inappropriate tactics in the future by giving in to them here. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 11:18 PM Author: glittery partner i agree, but of course you can speak more directly about this because you've been involved longer. all i can say is that i respect both of your positions re: not caving everytime someone threatens you. i can't begin to imagine how that's been for 3 years and counting.
i was just attempting a thumbnail sketch. part of the reason i deleted out a lot of my posts is that i think i understand where you guys are coming from and i'm trying to portray that against the idiot hordes who want to try to say (ignorantly, because they havent dealth with RepDefender or the media) that you are bad guys. yet, i dont presume to speak for you guys, so i deleted it out.
anyway, just so you know, i didnt write that YLS shit and you guys know what i was posting as that day and you can verify that for yourselves. i just wouldnt do that. i fucked up a lot but now i think a strong stand needs to be made vs the notion that you guys are evil or that RepDefender should dictate terms to *anyone*. their interests are comprimised due to publicity, to say the least. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:47 PM Author: Azure Stead Milk Giving into extortion is the right thing? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840452) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:43 PM Author: Startled mediation When this started, Heide Iravani had just 1 hit from xo in the top 10.
Now, thanks to Reputation Defender publicizing everything, she has 7 xo-related results in the top 10, including the first 6 results. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:12 PM Author: Flatulent thriller indirect expression box office Just because RD is also doing the wrong thing doesn't mean Rach is absolved of guilt. If he really cared about the girls, he would take the stuff down. All he cares about is beating RD. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840226) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:25 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed why would he "care" about two girls who dragged him through the mud? rach's reputation has been damaged -- at least xoxoers didn't talk about huge fucking titties on abc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840307) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:28 PM Author: Flatulent thriller indirect expression box office Then why say he cared in the challenge? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840327) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:35 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed I'm asking you what's his motivation. I'm surprised his offer is as generous as it is. I would be uber-pissed. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:23 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed rach claims that rd won't tell him who his clients are, or what posts they want taken down. this is kafkaesque to say the very least. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7839948) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:27 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon Rach knows which posts he should take down. Its not rocket science.
Basically Rach has ownership and control of this board. Thus he has the ability to control what is on this board. Instead of removing content that fucks with innocent people irl he uses up all his time writing challenges to RD bemoaning the "male ego contest" that they are supposadly playing.
The whole situation is just dripping with doucheness. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:37 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed vague and overbroad -- I hope you're not a law student. where would you draw the line? can no one be discussed in any manner on the board? politicians? celebrities? profs? authors? |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:41 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon Can you give me any better alternative? Besides, all my points are based on what RACH himself has said.
If what he says in the challenge is true (that he doesn't want B or H to continue to see harm) than why doesn't he remove the derogatory posts regarding them? Thats my simple question and no one has given me an acceptable answer.
Also your argument is a slippery slope one. How is deleting malicious threads that specifically harrasses innocent people IRL crossing the line? How does doing so lead to censorship on topics concerning all individuals? Politicans, celebrities, profs, and authors are in the public eye. They themselves generate discussion. What has H or B done to generate the shitstorm that has befallen them? Having "big titties" is not an acceptable answer.
Please, I hope YOU are not the law student.
ELEMENTARYLOGICPWNED.
|
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:47 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed this is a law student discussion board -- why cannot law students be discussed here? ELEMENTARYLOGICPWNED. explain how the threads are derogatory (and having "big titties" is not an acceptable answer). explain how the threads exhibit malice explain how the threads harrass innocent people |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:53 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon 1. Writing hypothetical rape situations is deragatory. Ask yourself, if any of these comments were directed to H IRL would they be acceptable? NO.
2. Having people constantly make new threads about H, having people constantly bumping threads, having people send emails to YLS about H = MALICE. There is intent to harm.
3. H is completely innocent. She never posted on XOXO. Basically she didn't really do anything to deserve all the attention she got on XOXO.
If I started writing shit about your family members would you consider them innocent?
Jesus man, you're not even a challenge.
Your logical reasoning "this is a law student discussion board..." is LAUGHABLE.
Are you a law student? My god dude you're dumb as nails.
|
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:02 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed since when does discussing a girl's endowment == a hypothetical rape situation? do you know what malice is? you don't seem to know what "having" means -- no one "had" anyone send emails to YLS about her; in fact we all tried to discourage the one who threatened to send the email. finally, although it may be tacky, speculating on who is the most attractive student at the top-rated law school in the country is a natural subject of discussion for law students.
|
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:15 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon 1. There have been specific posts made by users describing the ways they would rape H. You're fooling yourself if you think discussion was innocent banter about her pair of lovelies.
2. Malice = desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.
Someone on XOXO sent an email to the faculty at YLS out of malice. she/he/they/it had an intent to harm. An action by one member of the XOXO community reflects on us all.
3. Look you're technical right. Talking about how hot a girl is is a natural subject. But do you feel right about the whole H affair? Certaintly at some point it cross the line. Is she not innocent? I'm sure I can find a reason to justify writing shit about your family members on xoxo. Is this right? Are they innocent? My original thread to your response (where I outline 1, 2, 3) still very much stands imho. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:26 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed ah, guilt by association. why don't you confess that you sent the poisonous email? |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:03 PM Author: glittery partner shouldn't you be out on Rittenhouse Sq on a night like this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840162) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 11:18 PM Author: Azure Stead Milk "Politicans, celebrities, profs, and authors are in the public eye. They themselves generate discussion."
But don't you also put yourself in the public eye when you create a website or social networking site profile which can be accessed by literally millions of people? |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 11:25 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon I dont think the analogy follows.
The internet is still very much a gray area. Are 12 year olds with myspace accounts in the public eye? Should they get the same scrutiny that befalls Paris Hilton?
Basically a girl got screwed over. I dont see why everyone is trying to defend it. Its all pretty douchy to me. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 11:40 PM Author: Azure Stead Milk "Are 12 year olds with myspace accounts in the public eye? Should they get the same scrutiny that befalls Paris Hilton?"
Not to the same extent as Paris Hilton, since Paris Hilton is clearly a general public figure, but I would say that someone with a myspace account does put themselves in the public eye in a limited context and should be treated similarly to a limited purpose public figure.
Exposing yourself online through myspace, blogs, website, and other outlets can be very beneficial for a person (e.g. law professor bloggers who get better article placements because of their blogging fame, Jeremy Blachman getting a book deal because of his blog, David Lat turning blogging into a living, etc.). However, the potential for significant gain also comes with the potential for significant loss (e.g. law professor bloggers getting no-offered because of the horrible tone of their blogs, people making fun of a bad picture you uploaded to Facebook, etc.).
In other words, being involved in this online stuff has potential risks and rewards, and every individual has to decide for his or herself whether the potential rewards outweigh the potential risks, just like in non-internet media. If Heide Iravani had printed out her pictures and placed thousands of copies of them in locations where millions of people could potentially pick them up, including people at her law school, would we even be having this conversation?
The best way to avoid incurring any of the risks is to simply not put yourself out there. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 11:33 PM Author: racy friendly grandma this is laughable (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840774) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:41 PM Author: glittery partner "vague and overly broad". it needs to be narrowly tailored!
|
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 11:14 PM Author: Azure Stead Milk Is there any proof that it has fucked with innocent people, or are you just taking RD at its word that Brittan Heller got no-offered during 2L OCI because employers googled her name and thought she had a 159 LSAT? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840649) |
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:40 PM Author: Vibrant new version lay Shut the fuck up Ross, you Goldielocks faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840024) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:02 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon I think RD is a sham organization and its founders huge douchebags.
Just because RD = assholes, doesnt justify Rach being one. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:03 PM Author: glittery partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840167) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:09 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake That isn't her (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840202) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:12 PM Author: glittery partner yes it is.
pls dont keep denying it.
i like her and i dont want to have to go on the attack. if she wants to discuss, she can IM me later.
-paulie |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:13 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake pls, i swear it isn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840230) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:14 PM Author: glittery partner i'll let you save face. i will delete this. but dont push me like this again. tyia. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840240) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:15 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake it isn't me. i don't know who that is. i am not stupid enough to fight with you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840250) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:16 PM Author: glittery partner i hope you dont make me find out it's you. we dont need another huge situation and you dont need to be the next HI or BH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840259) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:17 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake why are you doing this? it isn't me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840264) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:17 PM Author: Vermilion painfully honest theatre dragon You're paranoid. I'm not him/her.
|
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:18 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake I want to stay out of this. i don't know what is going on here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840272) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 9:45 PM Author: glittery partner people at SLS have hinted strongly that Ross Chanin could very well be ghey. so earl isn't really out of line saying that... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840041) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:11 PM Author: Flatulent thriller indirect expression box office Well obviously. He obviously cares more about winning some sort of stupid internet feud than protecting those two girls. He's obviously immature and an asshole. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840219) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:15 PM Author: glittery partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840248) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:15 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake stop it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840251) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:15 PM Author: Flatulent thriller indirect expression box office WTF? This isn't "Larilee." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840255) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:20 PM Author: glittery partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840278) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:20 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake wtf, why are you doing this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840285) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:22 PM Author: glittery partner we will talk later. you can email me now if you want. pauliewalnuts.xoxo@gmail.com
you're saying the same stuff you tell me every night... look, if it is you, just stop. if its not... well hopefully the dude stops. but this stuff is verbatim from what you tell me re: rach. its beneath you. grow up. forget about it. you dont need to become involved. you were OBVIOUSLY reading the page. coincidence? lets hope. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:26 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake yes i am reading the page but i am not posting this stuff. It may be madame cunt, but it isn't me. I really think this is immature and do not want any part of this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840312) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:29 PM Author: glittery partner so just *randomly* you're reading this thread at the same time that someone isposting the VERBATIM screed you give me 3-4 nights a week re: rachmiel?
srsly?
and then you start posting out of the blue? and the other "guys" stop?
just, whatever you do, don't do the sucktoe... |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:31 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake I do look at this site every once in a while - the other thread got my attention and in it i saw you accusing me of being the OP. I remember that the OP started this thread and i was afraid that you would think i was fighting with you (which you did) so i came in here. I don't know what else to say, i promise you that isn't me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840351) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:32 PM Author: glittery partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840356) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:34 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake but i can't stop what the OP or the other people are doing BECAUSE IT ISN"T ME. i may say that i don't like what you are doing to B & H on IM - but i am not doing it here. i don't know what else to do to m ake you believe me other than ask rach to check the IPs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840369) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:36 PM Author: glittery partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840382) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:37 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake it isn't obviously me. i really am not posting this stuff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840388) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:24 PM Author: Vibrant new version lay stop fucking threatening people and then deleting half of your posts.
jesus fucking christ. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:28 PM Author: cerebral aquamarine set toaster can i just note that you sound like the most self-important fucktard ever to walk the earth? combine that and your obvious tendency to lie your fucking ass off, and it makes it harder and harder to believe your claim that you're not pensive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840329) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:27 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake I AM NOT THE OP (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840321) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:27 PM Author: glittery partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840322) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:28 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake nm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840332) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:34 PM Author: glittery partner delete your posts out where you use your old moniker. i already did this for you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840374) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:35 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake huh? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840377) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:38 PM Author: glittery partner http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&mc=97&forum_id=2#7840255
delete that out.... i have removed all references to your old moniker. you should too. and forget this happened. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:39 PM Author: cerebral aquamarine set toaster Date: March 29th, 2007 10:38 PM Author: chancebeating
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&mc=97&forum_id=2#7840255
delete that out.... i have removed all references to your old moniker. you should too. and forget this happened.
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:15 PM Author: DietPepsiTwist
WTF? This isn't "Larilee." |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:43 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake wtf is worng with you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840420) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:40 PM Author: Embarrassed To The Bone Aqua Whorehouse Corn Cake i can't delete that out because that isn't me. I am not notfrommconcentrate or dietpepsi or anyone else you said you saw posting before. wtf, i am not this fucking stupid to start this shit. i am not doing this jesus (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840406) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:30 PM Author: cerebral aquamarine set toaster stfu, youre such a shit-talking retard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840344) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:40 PM Author: Vibrant new version lay or you could just not out people.
you do come off as a self important douche. sorry dooder. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:32 PM Author: Startled mediation Why doesn't Google just take the threads out of its index? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840360) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:36 PM Author: big chartreuse meetinghouse half-breed their argument is that it's too much trouble. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=604353&forum_id=2#7840380) |
|
Date: March 29th, 2007 10:43 PM Author: glittery partner their argument is, they dont want to control content--that puts them on a slippery slope (deciding truth or relative merit). they want to argue that their search engine works to find th emost relevant things. and that nothing is true/good/worthy merely on the basis of it popping up.
once they start decidign whats true, they put themselves ina whole different role--one they dont want and one that consumers largely DONT want them to do it. if they start doing it for brittan (maybe she DOES have a 159...) or heide (maybe she DOES have big tits) it starts the ball rolling on a bad direction |