Wikipedia and google have made experts out of everyone overnight. They have replaced good old-fashioned exerience and common sense.

"I may make ridiculous, disgusting, and sexist jokes, but I draw the line at you telling me that my jokes are ridiculous, disgusting, and sexist!" - Brad

Re: Title

There are many of us that would say "Life isn't real Internet." I think neither of them really compare to the nomena we loosely base life and internet off of.

Someone adcocates murder and fails to imagine how that might be offensive.

I think you should go away for awhile and grow up.

The Internet should have a minimum age limit.

IQ as well..

I find it interesting that it seems really only 2 people know the actual truth of the matter, but folks who are totally uninvolved are so quick to pass judgement and wish harm on another. 

I'm curious to know if you agree or dispute (I'm trying hard to come up with neutral words for this which don't sound like I'm supposing any conclusion) the email the Kotaku article quotes as from you, or perhaps if you would change the phrasing somewhat.  If you take that email as phrased, then you have called yourself sexist (the text given says that about you, not simply the jokes that you make). I have to say, my estimate of the probability that a workplace run by someone who is openly sexist is welcoming to a woman they employ is rather low.

I'm glad that our legal system is so wonderful, and that justice will prevail in all cases, and that the amount of money you're able to pour into a lawsuit will have nothing to do with the outcome in the end.

I don't.  And see, this is where the "reporting" really fails. Because all those documents were there. Remember, this whole thing, including our case against her (it's total BS to pretend that a change in venue is the same as us waiting two years to file charges against her, we filed charges against her almost 2 years ago).

IF they wanted to have a non-sensational story, they could have quoted from the various documents where I and every witness named are asked that very question to which the answer is: NO.   

All of that information is available in the public now. No, I'm not a sexist, vulgar, etc. person. That's why context matters.  It is up to the accuser to then say "Well, I then complained about specific incident X, Y, and Z and they did nothing to rectify it."  But there's no assertion like that.  Instead, we get a bunch of wild allegations in which *every* witness, including her "Best friend" said didn't happen.

But, even though the docs are there, that's not what gets reported. Consider that next time you see some sensational headline. And most people will fixate on some snippet without any context.

I, and Stardock, don't care what sex, race, nationality, or sexual orientation you are. We only care whether you can do the job.  I believe it's one of the big reasons we've been so successful over the years.  We're one of the oldest software studios around (20 years next year since incorporation).  If we didn't have such a good environment, we wouldn't be able to attract and keep world class talent. But, obviously, a hater is incapable of making that obvious logical conclusion.

I wish they had loser pay laws here. That would shut down this kind of nonsense in a hurry.

I was looking at the Kotaku article (which has the court filings she gave them - which, astonishingly, have a lot of personal information about  witnesses -- if I had done this, the haters would be all over me but I'm sure she'll get a pass).

Anyway, there's enough evidence there to make it pretty obvious that her allegations are ridiculous. The testimony comes from her friends. And I don't even mean former friends, I mean, people who are still her friends. Today.  Page after page of affadavits from witnesses who say her claims are false.

But these people aren't interested in facts. They just want to hate someone.

Here's an example from one of HER friends who testified, under oath. And I'm just grabbing this from the Kotaku article. It's not stuff we provided.

And on..and on.  In this person's case, she was his boss. They're still friends.  Today. Every single one of her subordinates and every single one of her friends has responded like this - even ones who don't work at Stardock and have no relationship with me one way or the other. 

But the haters will grasp on to some private email I sent to my sister-in-law (my wife's sister) where I huffed about taking my ball and going home and proof I'm nuts. As if most people never get mad and say things privately they don't mean.

But that's what makes these people so screwed up. They'll feign false concern that I shouldn't point this stuff out in public (god I've heard that so many times over the years from people who have no idea what they're talking about). But what they really hate is having the obvious pointed out -she made a bunch of baseless accusations and all her witnesses say the same thing - it's bullshit.

Someone who was genuinely interested -- and I mean genuinely, could go to the Kotaku article and read through all her allegations (Which sound horrific) but then read all the witness testimony - from her friends - that objects to it.  The only person who was not a witness btw, but the only person who has given her any support was Phil Madis. Not a friend of mine but a very good friend of hers. And long before he provided any testimony, his name had come up:

And keep in mind, it's not like we are asking anyone to take sides. Just withhold judgment. But it tells you something when someone admits that the existence of this case automatically makes them "angry". Angry enough to start and participate in a thread in which they call someone names or wish death on them or what have you.  

And BTW, the above exerpt, from the Kotaku article again, was made by another one of her *current* friends.  

And so it goes.  This isn't even a close call. So yea, since we won't settle it, I'm pretty comfortable talking about what what is actually *publicly* filed (our lawyers would kill me if I divulged anything beyond what is in the documents they put up -- or at least laugh all the way to the bank with all the extra legal expenses it would cause <g>).

You know, I agree with the specific case of this as it relates to Stardock's current legal dispute. But I do think that "They hate because they're haters, so I don't need to listen to them" is a dangerous viewpoint to take. There are certainly people like that, but there are also people with legitimate criticisms that might merely be wrapped in vitriol for whatever reason, be it (sub)cultural or due to emotion. I feel it's important to be careful that you don't ignore good advice when you think you're disregarding pointless hate.