The Rules According to a Fraternity "Cocksman"

[agzg]

Originally Posted by SOM

Well-The story is getting wider and weirder:
IFC statement says e-mail did not originate at USC
http://dailytrojan.com/2011/03/10/if...ginate-at-usc/

There's been some speculation of a cover-up.

http://jezebel.com/#!5780823/student...leges-cover+up

[33girl]

Originally Posted by agzg

There's been some speculation of a cover-up.

http://jezebel.com/#!5780823/student...leges-cover+up

I wouldn't believe anything re this incident that I read on Jezebel. They have a very clear agenda. That's proven by the fact that you have to be "approved" to post there, even about something as innocuous as children's books.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I wouldn't believe anything re this incident that I read on Jezebel. They have a very clear agenda. That's proven by the fact that you have to be "approved" to post there, even about something as innocuous as children's books.

I. CANNOT. STAND. JEZEBEL.

At first, it was fun--a cheeky reaction to women's magazines, etc. Now it's just a lot of self-serving harpies who have taken the fun out of feminism.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I wouldn't believe anything re this incident that I read on Jezebel. They have a very clear agenda. That's proven by the fact that you have to be "approved" to post there, even about something as innocuous as children's books.

A. The OP in this thread has a link from Jezebel. This is their follow-up. Hence the link from Jezebel (although they're actually re-posting something from ONTD Feminism - which I can't get to at work anyway).
2. The tiers of commenting is on all GawkerMedia sites (Gizmodo, Gawker, Lifehacker, i09) and is really fucking annoying. It does not prove Jezebel's agenda since the commenters on GawkerMedia sites outside of Jezebel display the most grotesque misogynistic thought processes I've ever had the "pleasure" of reading. Don't disagree with you about Jezebel's agenda, however.
C. There was a reason I used the word "speculation" and not "THIS IS TOTALLY A COVER-UP."

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I was permabanned from Jezebel for noting of Obama's daughters that the cute one looks like Michelle and the ugly one looks like him.

What the fuck.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I. CANNOT. STAND. JEZEBEL.

At first, it was fun--a cheeky reaction to women's magazines, etc. Now it's just a lot of self-serving harpies who have taken the fun out of feminism.

I think it's stuck in the middle, some people want it to be more about fasion, sex, and gossip and some want it to BE a feminist blog. And it's hard to snark about people's looks and then complain about fat shaming in the next post.
I read some of the posts, more to get links to other things.

Originally Posted by agzg

A. The OP in this thread has a link from Jezebel. This is their follow-up. Hence the link from Jezebel (although they're actually re-posting something from ONTD Feminism - which I can't get to at work anyway).
2. The tiers of commenting is on all GawkerMedia sites (Gizmodo, Gawker, Lifehacker, i09) and is really fucking annoying. It does not prove Jezebel's agenda since the commenters on GawkerMedia sites outside of Jezebel display the most grotesque mysogynistic thought processess I've ever had the "pleasure" of reading. Don't disagree with you about Jezebel's agenda, however.
C. There was a reason I used the word "speculation" and not "THIS IS TOTALLY A COVER-UP."

I like ONTD feminism. That's all I have to add here.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by agzg

2. The tiers of commenting is on all GawkerMedia sites (Gizmodo, Gawker, Lifehacker, i09) and is really fucking annoying. It does not prove Jezebel's agenda since the commenters on GawkerMedia sites outside of Jezebel display the most grotesque mysogynistic thought processess I've ever had the "pleasure" of reading. Don't disagree with you about Jezebel's agenda, however.

I had to read this three times to understand what you were talking about. I know nothing about GawkerMedia and don't really care. All I know is I couldn't make a comment about Little House on the mofoing Prairie because I wasn't "approved" and I believe having to "audition" to comment is beyond asinine. Maybe the mechanics doesn't prove the agenda, but who gets approved and who doesn't most definitely DOES.

[KSig RC]

[QUOTE=33girl;2037767 I know nothing about GawkerMedia and don't really care. ... Maybe the mechanics doesn't prove the agenda, but who gets approved and who doesn't most definitely DOES.[/QUOTE]

Not really, because the approval process isn't really a Jezebel process - once you're approved for one (which includes Deadspin, Kotaku, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, etc.) you can post to all of them, and Jezebel itself may not even control it. So using that as example of agenda is not the strongest, compared to just looking at what its writers/editors instead choose to post.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Not really, because the approval process isn't really a Jezebel process - once you're approved for one (which includes Deadspin, Kotaku, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, etc.) you can post to all of them, and Jezebel itself may not even control it. So using that as example of agenda is not the strongest, compared to just looking at what its writers/editors instead choose to post.

I get what she's saying to some degree - since the starred commenters approve pink posts and promote greyed posts their bias shows in terms of what they approve or promote.

And you're not approved for all of them when you're approved for one anymore - you have to be approved at each individual site (the only one I can think of that you don't would be Gawker and GawkerTV). Also, if you're starred on one it doesn't necessarily mean that you're starred on all.

Of course, this is just getting into GawkerMedia's mechanics. I used a Jezebel post because the OP used a Jezebel post. Follow-ups are fun.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by agzg

And you're not approved for all of them when you're approved for one anymore - you have to be approved at each individual site (the only one I can think of that you don't would be Gawker and GawkerTV). Also, if you're starred on one it doesn't necessarily mean that you're starred on all. .

Ah, my bad, I did not realize that had changed - it used to be the exact opposite: any one allowed posting to all, and that was fairly recently (SEE: Deadspin weekend-edited by Jezebel turns into massive tard party when Jezebel posters jump into sports dorks head-first).

The correction is much appreciated.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I wouldn't believe anything re this incident that I read on Jezebel. They have a very clear agenda. That's proven by the fact that you have to be "approved" to post there, even about something as innocuous as children's books.

I was permabanned from Jezebel for noting of Obama's daughters that the cute one looks like Michelle and the ugly one looks like him.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

the ugly one

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by agzg

There's been some speculation of a cover-up.

http://jezebel.com/#!5780823/student...leges-cover+up

I could be completely wrong on this but the proported eyewitness account sounds like just so much BS. I have met and conversed with Mic Wilson our Executive Director. He is not going to put his neck out on the line and ask others to cover up and lie to squelch an email going viral. We (Kappa Sig) have a pretty good history of shutting down out of control chapters and expelling undesirables. I hope I am not wrong but I call Bulls**t on the Jezebel article. There is just too much that seems out of character in this.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

There is just too much that seems out of character in this.

What do you mean by this? Do you know the alleged writer personally or are you saying it's "out of character" for a member of your organization?

I'd be the first to admit that there are some shitheads in my org, too.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

What do you mean by this? Do you know the alleged writer personally or are you saying it's "out of character" for a member of your organization?

I took him to mean it would seem out of character for Kappa Sig HQ to be engaging in a cover-up rather than taking action.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I took him to mean it would seem out of character for Kappa Sig HQ to be engaging in a cover-up rather than taking action.

Oh right that makes sense. Sorry it struck me as a "A Kappa Sig would never write this!" and I'm like "buh?"

Makes sense now though.