It’s just a guess, I think that Michael Koretzky does not know when to drop the shovel and climb out of the hole he’s been digging the past 2 days. His latest post does not place him in any better light than the one from yesterday,but hey, it actually was to be expected, wasn’t it?
Recall the last line of the post yesterday?
I wonder what holy hell this update will unleash.
Well, if what he posted today he considers holy hell, he’s really unfamiliar with social media. Most of us have seen much worse in our personal Twitter experience and as for GamerGate specifically, well, again, a little research would show him what holy hell looks like.
But then, maybe he didn’t use the worst of the worst on purpose. Why he wouldn’t is curious because if I wanted to show examples of unleashing holy hell, I’d certainly choose the most offensive tweets. He does call these the “Top 10” so they must be the most offensive he received.
I’m not going to go through each tweet and reply to each of his snarky responses. I’d rather focus on a few of his responses and raise some questions about them.
Koretzky makes the following statement:
I announced from the beginning that AirPlay’s agenda would evolve, and when GamerGate’s critics declined to attend, I “hid” and “lied” about those changes in an update read by thousands. Mea culpa.
Does he really believe that just posting changes to the site is sufficient notification for the panelists that will be attending? Seriously. Does he expect people to click on the site daily to see if there are any changes or updates? I can think of another way to ensure that all panelists are certain to be informed: a little utility known as e-mail. How difficult would it have been to send the panelists something like the following:
I have made changes to the schedule. You can view them at the site. Please let me know if there are any issues with the changes as soon as possible.
He does have their e-mail addresses doesn’t he? I mean, to not have them to be able to communicate critical information would be journalistic malfeasance wouldn’t it?
The remainder of the tweets he responds to are really not worth the time to discuss at this point. I do have one omre question though. Yesterday he wrote the following:
I’ve volunteered three months, sat on a six-hour stream answering all questions, posted nearly 500 tweets, and sent more than 100 email replies. Yet apparently, I haven’t done enough.
Today, he writes:
My only regret: It took me three months, thousands of tweets, hundreds of emails, and dozens of updates to win your trust. I should’ve been able to fuck you over in half that. I’m losing my edge.
I had to shake my head at that. Which is it? I guess he doesn’t count us smart enough to catch that change.
So really people, tell me, is this event woth anyone’s time or aggravation?