Lies, Slithering, and Weasel Boobz: Washing the Walls of Smeared Excrement

Manboobz Weasel 2

I admit it. It all starts with a lie.

Lie No.1. 

Boobz claims that my screencap (the one not meant as part of my rewrite, but was posted by mistake via the editors at AVfM) is a forgery, saying that it is the result of the “AVfM Google forgery technique,” a process of sneak-typing the word “man” into the search bar to make it look like the search results are skewed. This is what he wrote in his piece of shit article, Worse than Wrong: A Voice for Men resorts to phony screenshot and outright lying to avoid admitting embarrassing error [UPDATE: Story gets stranger]

egregious error and phony screenshot

This is clearly speculation on the part of Boobz as Boobz has no proof or any kind of evidence at all (at least not that he has so far published) that the screencap is altered in any way. In fact, Boobz doesn’t even have evidence that the screencap is “phony.” He even admits in GWW’s comment thread that the “screenshot doesn’t seem to have been photoshopped.”

Despite URL

It is simply a screencap and that’s all. As such, we all agree. Nothing about the screencap has been “photoshopped,” or MS painted, or tampered with in any way. There is no question about it; the screencap is weird, but contrary to Boobz’ claim, there is nothing “phony” about it.  Here is the screencap in question:

Violence Against Men (1st Time It Happened (Large)

Here is a screencap of the email sent to Dean Esmay about this screencap and its weird results.

I Admit It

As everyone can see, the only claim made by me about it is that it was taken today (which was 6.14.2013) and that I had no idea how search engines work. It was not submitted as part of the rewrite, which you can view here. It was not submitted as any kind of proof about my prior claim. It was submitted as proof of my confusion about my search results. (Scroll down a bit for my evolving understanding and hypothesis about these weird results.)

Since 6.14.2013, the weird results (as evidenced in the aforementioned screencap) happened at least 4 different times. I have screencaps of each and here are the other three.

Weird Search Results 3x

The above screencaps are compressed into one .jpg for size considerations. Other than that, no alterations have been made to them. (The yellow lines on the far right screencap are an artifact resulting from my video capture software, which was running at the time of capture.) I’ve made a screencap video showing one occurrence of these weird search results in live-time. (Pay close attention to the first 90 seconds or so of the video.) I am more than willing to submit the full-size (individual and uncompressed) screencaps, as well as the aforementioned video, for expert analysis to show that no tampering ever occurred. They are in no way “phony,” “forged,” “faked,” altered or tampered. However, they are certainly weird. There is no question about it. Notice how the business results do not appear in the upper right corners of the pages. Also notice the contrast between the search bar terms and the terms listed at the bottom of the page. You will also notice in the video, at about the 18 second mark and under the search bar of the first attempted search, a momentary message popped up to indicate that “Google Instant” was unavailable.

The hypothesis I’ve developed over the past few days about the weirdness of these search results revolves around how Google’s Instant search results are affected by my broadband satellite internet service and the latency (lag) of that service. The service is very fast, but the latency of the service is about 20x greater than terrestrial internet service. Data has to be beamed off-planet and then back. (Gamers who play online first-person-shooter video games can tell you all about lag. Anybody who has ever tried to play a first-person-shooter video game online via this sort of satellite broadband internet will add many swear words to their fucking descriptions about lag.) If my hypothesis is correct, the “Google Instant” search results are somehow encumbered (or made to glitch) by this latency.

If my hypothesis is correct, does this mean that Boobz is lying when he makes claims about my screencap being a forgery or phony? Does this mean that Boobz is lying when he claims this?

Blatant Fraud

Or this:

Whoever Forged

Or this:

Clear Evidence

Or this:

Obvious Fake

Or this:

Concocted

Or this:

Burned

Or this:

start blatantly

Or this:

Not As Deceptive

Or this:

AVfM's Phony Screenshot

Or this:

Bombast Syndrom

Or this:

Explain Away

Or this:

Triple Down

Or this:

Fabricated Screenshot

Or this:

Lying Nature

Or this:

Center of the Fraud

Or this:

Screenshot Faked

Or this:

My Charge of Forgery

Or this one, which is contrary to Boobz’ previous claim about “photoshopping:”

Esmay May have photoshopped

Or this:

Forging Evidence

Notice how Boobz slithers to escape the possibility of making a false accusation here:

No definitive Proof

Here is some more slithering. It’s a bit like a news channel’s declarative statements that end with question marks. Jon Stewart breaks it down right here in “The Question Mark.

More Slithering

More slithering:

Original Source

In honor of Jon Stewart’s The Question Mark: is Boobz a liar who is making false accusations about fraud and phony screencaps? Could it be that in his zeal to hang AVfM, he has hanged himself? Could it be that Boobz has gone and fucked himself? Perhaps such awful things are true? Perhaps Boobz is a slithering sort of weasel who would fuck his own mother for a few extra hits on his blog? Is it possible that Boobz has smeared so much excrement all over the internet and on his blog and about others that he is slowly being buried under mountains of his own shit? Perhaps.

Lie No. 2. 

As my video clearly shows, there is no way to “sneak-search” about “violence against women” and make the results appear as a search about “violence against marmosets” (or “violence against men”). This sort of “sneak-typing” simply doesn’t work in Google’s Instant search bar. As such, there are 3 possibilities:

  1. Boobz is using a search bar other than Google for his search results and Boobz is deliberately concealing this fact (a lie by omission), perhaps hoping that his readers “aren’t quite so gullible.”
  2. Boobz has turned off “Google Instant” search results and concealed this fact from his readers by not mentioning it (another lie by omission), again, perhaps hoping that his readers “are gullible enough to believe.”
  3. Boobz seems to be altering (perhaps forging?) his own screencap to try and concoct evidence for the lie that my screencap is a forgery and to make a false accusation about forgery.

Let’s have a look at Boobz’ search results.

Soup

  1. If we believe Boobz’ screencap, we can rule out possibility number one. According to Boobz’ screencap, he is using a Google search bar.
  2. We cannot rule out possibility number two. It is possible that Boobz turned off the “Google Instant” option in the settings of his browser in order to make his screencap, something that I clearly did not do for any of my screencaps or in my video—as my video shows. If he is running “Google Chrome,” the settings to do this are found on the “settings” page. Perhaps he simply “forgot” to mention this one requirement? Perhaps.

Google Instant         3. If we could rule out possibilities 1 and 2, we would likely have pretty clear evidence of Boobz’ own fraudulent screencap.

Given that we cannot definitively rule out possibility number 2, we are left with suspicion and speculation. I suspect that Boobz may have deliberately turned off “Google Instant” search results in order to make his screencap. I suspect that Boobz “forgot” to mention the importance of this fact to make it look as though it was really easy to “fake” a screencap and to create leading evidence about me, my article, the credibility of AVfM and its editors, and to be able to make false accusations about forgery. Maybe Boobz suffers from a little bit of “Bombast Syndrome.” Perhaps it’s nothing other than a thoughtless/careless mistake (a lack of attention to detail), but I have my doubts and so would anybody who bothered to try Boobz’ marmoset challenge while using “Google Instant.” If using “Google Instant,” it’s practically impossible to get those sorts of search results, unless there is some sort of “glitch,” like the one I experienced in my video and like those that I screencapped. However, you wouldn’t know this from Boobz’ article. In fact, all Boobz has to say about it is this:

Pay Attention

Notice how Boobz’ only stipulation is “don’t pay attention to the highlighted words in the search results.” He makes no mention of “Google Instant” or of turning it off. He only mentions “highlighted words.” Well, if you look at his screencap, there are no “highlighted words.” Given that he didn’t mention the necessity in turning off “Google Instant” (another lie by omission) and that he only mentions the importance of neglecting “highlighted words,” I suspect and speculate that Boobz may not have even known how to turn off “Google Instant.” And if he didn’t know how to turn it off, how did he get those results and correlating screencap? Was it fraud? Was it “photoshopped” or thrown into MS Paint? Did Boobz fake evidence in order to enable himself to make false claims about fraud? Would Boobz fuck his own mother just to drive some more traffic to his blog? Perhaps.

Fess Up2

Lie No. 3.

Boobz is claiming that Dean Esmay (an AVfM editor) made the claim that the screencap was taken “BEFORE” publishing. In the comment section of GWW’s blog, Boobz makes this claim:

BEFORE

No claim of the sort was ever made by me and the editorial note clearly shows that Esmay didn’t make the claim either. So far as I know, the only person to claim otherwise is none other than Boobz himself. Here is what the editorial note actually said.

Before Press

Contrary to the excrement smeared by Boobz, the editorial note made no claims about the screencap being made “BEFORE” the article published. At best, Boobz’ claim is a misreading of the editorial note. At worst, Boobz’ claim is a blatant lie. Is it possible that Boobz “misread” the editorial note? Is it possible that Boobz deliberately “misread” the note in order smear excrement all over the internet, making a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his blog? Is it possible that Boobz would fuck his own mother for a few extra hits on his blog? Perhaps.

Admit it, Boobz. It all started with a lie—the lie that my screencap was a forgery. “You’ve gotta fess up, dude. That’s how it’s done.”

Other Assorted Pieces of Fecal Matter

My name is Jason Gregory. My name is not Jason Thompson or Joshua Thompson. Yes, it’s embarrassing that the editors got my name wrong. I believe the editors, via some weird clerical error, confused my name with the name of another contributor. Given that I’ve never talked with anybody from AVfM and that I’m a new contributor, that sort of error isn’t hard to believe. I don’t believe it was part of some cover-up to try and bury the story—just a fuck up.

Why wasn’t my damage control rewrite published? I don’t know. That is a good question, given that “tallwheel” and Dean suggested doing one. I even suggested a “rephrasing” in the comment thread. I did submit a rewrite, as it appears on my personal blog. Here is a screencap of the email sent to the editors of AVfM and the email contains the MS Word document file of my rewrite.

Moral Turpitude Rewrite

Perhaps the editors saw my screencap and didn’t bother to understand it—that it was a post-publication screencap and proof of my confusion about the weird search results. My guess is that—a lack of attention to detail.

Why did Dean Esmay suggest in the Monday Roundup that we found screencaps?

Monday Roundup

I don’t know. That is a good question. My guess is for the same reason that my rewrite didn’t get published. Dean probably saw my post-published screencap in the email and saw my screencaps in the rewrite and thought they were pre-published screencaps. It is probably a lack of attention to details—especially details about some new contributor and his little article.

I am Jason Gregory. I am nobody. Thanks to Boobz, however, I’ve gotten over 1000 views on my less-than-one-month-old blog. Thanks Boobz! “Go fuck yourself.” –Bill Burr

1005 06.21.2013 2.17am

Funny Words

Evidence of Fraud

Perhaps. See above. 🙂

[Editor’s Note: Special thanks to Rock Cellar Magazine for the great music.]

59 thoughts on “Lies, Slithering, and Weasel Boobz: Washing the Walls of Smeared Excrement

  1. Dude, instead of attacking me, you need to explain a couple of things.

    1) Why did you claim that searching for “violence against men” gives you results about “violence against women” when this is clearly not the case. Are you, like Dean Esmay, claiming that the results changed after your article ran on AVFM. If you’re still convinced you were right, why did you change the article on your blog?

    Or are you tacitly admitting that your original claim was a mistake, and that what you said only applies to searches for the phrase “violence against?”

    2) Why did you send Esmay a screenshot that had “violence against men” in the search bar, while the search results were clearly for “violence against?” If this wasn’t a deliberate fraud, how did this happen? (I see that the rest of your screenshots contain only “violence against” in the search bar.)

    Your video explains nothing. All it shows is that when you type in “violence against men” you get search results related to that, and when you type in “violence against women” you get results related to that. I don’t see how you could have gotten the screenshots you claim to have gotten from the search results shown in the video.

    And if your argument is that if you somehow take screenshots really quickly while google instant is in the middle of something the search results are weird, that doesn’t really show that google is censoring results related to violence against men, does it? It just suggests that this is how you came up with a screenshot that does not actually reflect Google’s real search results.

    Of course, there’s a much easier way to get a screenshot like that on purpose:

    1) turn off Google instant

    2) do a search for “violence against,” get results

    3) type the word “men” after “violence against” in the search bar. DO NOT hit enter

    4) take a screenshot

    That’s it. That’s all I did. It takes 30 seconds. You can type in anything you want, including stuff about marmosets. Alternately you could photoshop in the word.

    But, hey, I don’t know how the word “men” got into that screenshot. It’s YOUR screenshot.

    Why don’t YOU tell me how that happened.

    (Oh, and when I saiud “highlighted words” I meant “bolded words” in the screenshot.)

  2. Oh, this thing I said:

    (I see that the rest of your screenshots contain only “violence against” in the search bar.)

    doesn’t apply to the screenshots in this post, which I originally thought were the same as in your revised post. I meant to edit it out.

  3. Your reply was inadequate.

    Since we don’t know the procedure you followed and only have the screenshot as *evidence* to go on, there’s no need to believe you any more than Manboobz. Indeed, whatever really happened, it’s much more reasonable to believe Manboobz in this case.

    Moral of the story: be more careful and if you get caught up in what might actually be an innocent mistake due to personal incompetence, software glitches due to high latency etc, own up to it immediately unlike what AVFM seems to be doing.

    Answering the points Manboobz raised again in his comments here instead of going on a long tirade about how his reasonable concerns are “lying” is preferable for people interested in the truth of the matter. I wonder who might find cheap, rhetorical point-scoring satisfactory.

    • Clearly, you didn’t watch (or didn’t pay close attention to) the video. Pay close attention to the first 90 seconds or so of the video.

      • “Clearly, you didn’t watch (or didn’t pay close attention to) the video. Pay close attention to the first 90 seconds or so of the video.”

        Of course I did, you are missing my point…

    • I agree. These screencaps are dishonest. Im losing respect for avfm. What, you think all your readers are stupid? Don’t insult us like that. Most of us are young. We’ve been raised on google and we know how it works, and we know how you faked this shit, so stop it. I already called you. Just stop and let it go.

      • Clearly, you didn’t watch (or didn’t pay close attention to) the video. Pay close attention to the first 90 seconds or so of the video.

      • Yes, I completely agree. Boobz is lying scum and his troop for bumbling feminists supporters are nothing more than hateful and intentionally malicious morons, who think that if they insinuate random allegations they can hide that Boobz has hung himself with his own petard. You not only treat your readers as idiots but you are patented idiot – who has nothing to offer to anyone but hate and lies hiding the truth. Thanks to Jason, Dean, AVfM and many others in Men’s Movement that truth is coming out. Keep up the good works guys.

    • If you had actually paid attention, you wouldn’t be able to make statements like, “only have the screenshot.” If you had actually read the article, you wouldn’t refer to it as “cheap, rhetorical point-scoring,” unless of course, you are simply trolling the comment thread to make some cheap rhetorical points.

  4. It was when I started reading Manboobz I realized I needed to join the National Coalition for Men and go ahead and publicly associate with A Voice for Men. Since then every time I bother looking at anything on his site (I don’t bother much anymore, I understand there’s a hit piece or two on me there now, what the fuck ever) it just emphasizes why I, and people like you Jason, need to keep doing this work, and to put our real names and faces on our work so people can see his victims and know we are no longer afraid of him and his ilk or whatever dishonest “public exposure” they give us. We’re here to fuck their shit up, and they give us a reason and motivation to keep doing what we do. In that sense, he is one of the best allies we have ever had.

    Let us make no bones about it: Futrelle is not mistaken. He is not stupid. He is evil, and his readers are generally 1) lowbrow idiots, 2) raging hatemongering bigots, and 3) careerists whose income is threatened by any threat to their ideology. He feeds on and profits from all this, dancing on the backs of the poor, the disenfranchised, the powerless–and innocent children. He’s not just a sadistic bully, he’s a sadistic professional bully. And like all bullies, he’s ultimately a coward and runs and obfuscates whenever he’s caught, which he has been here, repeatedly.

    This old Nine Inch Nails song is his theme song, one he will likely take to his grave unless he loses his sociopathy and makes some way to redeem himself, if he ever has the courage and develops a sense of self-awareness:

    “God Money, I’ll do anything for you.
    God money just tell me what you want me to
    God Money, nail me against the wall
    God Money don’t want everything he wants it all”

    “All” in this case is Dave Futrelle’s integrity and honesty and honor. God Money and status has demanded all of it from him, and he’s eagerly given it.

    Have no doubt, he will find some way to spin even this comment into lies and quote-mine it for something; a threat of violence, another twisted intent, another accusation of “dishonesty” or “incompetence.” Something, anything to avoid looking at and admitting honestly what he’s built a career doing.

    “God money’s not looking for the cure
    God money’s not concerned about the sick among the pure
    God Money’s let’s go dancing on the backs of the bruised
    God Money’s not one to choose.”

    But Dave did choose. He chose a long time ago. He chose to throw integrity and decency and honesty and any respect for fundamental human rights away. Any journalistic credibility he had went into the toilet in that moment, in exchange for money and status. He is everything he would have hated when he was a young man.

    “Bow down before the one you serve, you’re going to get what you deserve.”

    And what he deserves is a lonely death, unmourned and unloved in some obscure hospital bed many years from now, knowing that he was a pathetic opponent of basic human rights, to be looked upon like we look upon the flunkies of HIram Evans or the defenders of the Apartheid regime, whenever anyone bothers to think of him at all. That will be his life’s legacy.

    The most amazing thing about Futrelle isn’t that he lies and bullies for money, although he does do that; if he were an honest man he’d be discussing these things with us before writing his incredibly juvenile articles, which he could do at any time. All of us are easily contacted, none of us have hidden email addresses or Twitter accounts and Skype accounts and many even publicly available phone numbers (mine’s 313-334-4470 by the way). But of course he doesn’t do that. That’s what an honest man and a real journalist would do. The problem is it would be nowhere near as profitable nor would it bring him as much sadistic glee.

    No, none of that’s amazing, it’s just cheap and incredibly common in the media landscape. People like Michael Savage do it for a living. So does Michael Moore, although at least Michael Moore takes the time to talk to people first, he then lies about them with selective editing, another Manboobz specialty. It’s an old methodology; it was in running across the Manboobz site and spotting these methodologies immediately that I realized I needed to throw myself into the men’s rights movement fully and publicly: once we have Glenn Beck/Michael Savage/Michael Moore type people attacking us, such intellectually dishonest bullies have to be fought, and the gloves are completely off… and it’s proof solid that the movement is finally going somewhere.

    Anyway, to the most amazing part about Futrelle. It isn’t his professional dishonesty, his whoring for money by dancing on the backs of the bruised, kicking helpless people (and their children) in the dirt over and over again while spitting on them, although all that is true of him as well.

    No, it’s his sheer incompetence at the whole thing, and how transparent it is for anyone with an IQ above two digits. His Modus Operandi is completely obvious to anyone who’s in the least bit media savvy. It has been as plain as day for at least a couple years now.

    I will repeat it: Dave Futrelle will die many years from now in some obscure hospital or hospice bed, unmourned, unloved, and forgotten as anything more than the flunkies of Hiram Evans or the defenders of Apartheid were. Take it to the bank. Unless he takes the increasingly tiny window of opportunity to redeem himself. Evidence says that window to integrity is there for him, he won’t, he’s too much of a coward and the cost to him of finding integrity gets higher by the day.

    God Money is a powerful thing, and the desperation to hold onto the money and the status that is slowly slipping away from him must be rising in him regularly. It’s why he does these things you know: he wants the link traffic, he wants the relevance, so the money keeps coming in.

    It’s really sad when you think about it. Poor sad pathetic little man.

    If we bother to reprint this on A Voice for Men, expect me to say all this and more. But he wants us to write about it on AVfM, don’t you Dave? Nothing would make you happier. It would be proof that you’re still relevant, and you aren’t.

    • Is this what you can do best? Cheap, rhetorical point-scoring per above?

      You fucked up in your AVFM presentation and even honest people who actually are for men’s rights realize this (they just get downvoted to oblivion on AVFM as usual). Just apologize and move on. The Manboobz-bashing-deflecting isn’t convincing anyone.

      • Is this what you do best? Cheap, troll-baiting per above.

        You fucked up in your above comment. Why don’t you just admit that you’re a troll and move on?

        “…even honest people who actually are for men’s rights…” I suppose this person would be you? I doubt it.

        I’m not deflecting anything. I’m drawing attention to false accusations about fraud. Had you actually bothered to pay attention to the video and read the article, you’d know this.

        One more troll comment and you’re done. Consider this your final warning.

  5. Uh, Dean, I’m glad you’re a fan of Nine Inch Nails and all, but how am I running away from anything when I actually have come to Joshua, oh sorry Jason’s blog to discuss this with him directly?

  6. Oh, hey Dean, since you’re inviting me to ask questions of you, could you let me know roughly how much money AVFM raises each year. Of this amount, how much goes to Paul directly? To John? To anyone else directly? Do you get any of this? If not, does it annoy you that John’s getting paid and you aren’t?

    Just curious.

  7. Dean, You can just email your response. My last name at well.com. Or you can call. You can probably get the number from your friend KARMA MRA MGTOW. I know he’s got it because he left that creepy, vaguely threatening message on my voicemail at 1:38 AM one night. You know, the way human rights activists like to do.

  8. See? There he goes again.

    We have no reason to contact him again, having tried in the past only to be subject to the same dishonest abuse. He’s had our contact info all along, and still has it, and always has the ability to use it. It’s also deanesmay on Skype, BTW.

    Hatemongers and their fans never change. Rape apologist and child abuse enablers like Manboobz and his readers, ditto. It’s like expecting a leopard to change its spots, or scorpions not to sting.

    Alone, unmourned and unloved, remembered only with a mixture of revulsion and contempt. That’s his future. Can you smell the desperation, Jason? Spinning in a frenzy of rationalization and subject-changing.

    This will be my last comment here and if this is addressed again on AVfM, it will likely be the last time this little Nazi creep ever gets mentioned on the site again. Editorial team discussing now. Human rights activists don’t need to subject themselves to abuse, including well-poisoning, guilt-by-association, quote-mining, and other such hatemongering nonsense from lying bigots.

  9. Remember, Jason, every time you link him, you’re putting money in a this child abuse enabler and rape apologist’s pocket. Into the pocket of a psycho who dances with glee every time an innocent man is cut down. Every. Single. Time. You’re helping him. And diverting your energy from something productive.

    As I say, if we publish anything more on this, it will likely be the last time he and his hordes of hateful minions and sociopathic financers will ever be addressed on AVfM. His 15 minutes of fame is about over.

  10. I guess this is what you have to resort to when you can’t provide clear and convincing answers to the very straightforward questions I asked in my first comment.

  11. Hahahahaha oh wow.

  12. Boobman, seeing you, the once mighty hero attempting to slay the patriarchy single handedly in service of the distressed damsels around the globe, lying pathetically through your teeth reminds us how desperate you must be. And then you get caught in lying in making lunatic claims and allegations. Do you think aliens control Men’s Movement or AVfM or Jason or Dean or maybe men in general (unless through a fine ideological surgery the implant is removed and the evil men see the evilness of their evil ways) ? Or, maybe the internet is controlled a cabal of patriarchal robotic lizards and they ate some of the data packets which matched their dietary requirements. Or, maybe you just just lied given your hatred of boys and men it wouldn’t have been difficult to exercise denialism and hence support violence against boys and men. As feminists and their lapdogs do.

    So, let’s settle on this (unless you want to tell us your theory of how aliens have created “patriarchy”) – you are cheap opportunist, who saw and took the chance to spread hatred of boys and men. Most men can see your desperation that lies underneath your hatred and pathetic lies.

  13. I’m not a manboobz regular, I don’t comment, but what you just said makes no sense.

    When you type something in google instant, or search for something in google, the matching words in the search results are in bold. For example, if you were to type “violence against” all your results would be in bold. Those words will stay in bold on those sites until you type another word, like “men” that will then change the results to “violence against men,” and any site with those words in the title will have those words in bold.

    From what I can see from your screencaps, you typed in “violence against women act.” I know this, because the first screencap shows “violence against women act” all in bold for all your search results. It also says “See more results for violence against women act.”

    Then you erased violence against women act, and typed in “violence against men,” while keeping the results the same. You don’t have google instant on, or it would have almost instantly given you results for “violence against men.”

    In your second screencap, you typed in “violence against,” searched for that, then added “men” afterwards before you took your screencap to make it look like you searched for “violence against men.” But you really only searched for “violence against.” It shows only “violence against” in bold.

    In your third screencap, you had searched for “violence against women act,” (it’s in bold). You then deleted the act, and screencapped it so it looked like you searched for “violence against women” but you really searched for “violence against women act.”

    I entertained the thought that possibly google, a company I’ve interned for and have many friends working for, maybe just doesn’t let you search for “violence against men.” Except it does. http://bit.ly/10EmHNF Click here for results.

    The first two websites that appear are wikipedia and MayoClinic. This may vary based on your preferences, but every search result brings back something about violence against (usually domestic violence against) men.

    Now can we stop. This argument is really annoying. We can all agree that violence against men is an issue without taking dishonest screencaps. And anyone under the age of 28 can see through this shit, we were raised on the fucking internet.

    Sincerely,

    A fed up coder who just wants to learn about the fucking MRM without having to sort through all this bullshit 24/7

    • Yes it would be a good idea for the lying scumbags such as Boobz Futrelle and others who come dropping their token soundbites to stop derailing the genuine work of people in MRM by wild conspiracy theories.

      We all know that feminists and their stooges have lied to spread the hatred of boys and men, it is time that we genuinely look at the commendable research done by MRM people and take their conclusions such as the violence against men has been hijacked feminist breast-beaters and purveyors of innocent female victim and male victimiser model with required gravity. These screen-caps, the article and the video thankfully point us to the right directions.

    • Clearly, you didn’t watch (or didn’t pay close attention to) the video. Pay close attention to the first 90 seconds or so of the video.

  14. This is the single greatest thing I have read all day.
    By which I mean to imply that, well, wow.

    ” … but how am I running away from anything when I actually have come to Joshua, oh sorry Jason’s blog to discuss this with him directly?”

    =/=

    “See? There he goes again.

    We have no reason to contact him again, having tried in the past only to be subject to the same dishonest abuse. He’s had our contact info all along, and still has it, and always has the ability to use it. It’s also deanesmay on Skype, BTW.

    Hatemongers and their fans never change. Rape apologist and child abuse enablers like Manboobz and his readers, ditto. It’s like expecting a leopard to change its spots, or scorpions not to sting.

    Alone, unmourned and unloved, remembered only with a mixture of revulsion and contempt. That’s his future. Can you smell the desperation, Jason? Spinning in a frenzy of rationalization and subject-changing.

    This will be my last comment here and if this is addressed again on AVfM, it will likely be the last time this little Nazi creep ever gets mentioned on the site again. Editorial team discussing now. Human rights activists don’t need to subject themselves to abuse, including well-poisoning, guilt-by-association, quote-mining, and other such hatemongering nonsense from lying bigots.”

    Sorry, who is dodging questions and avoiding responsibility here?

    Answer the questions, or else don’t claim that other people.. .don’t answer… questions.

      • You might find Manboob’z feminist abhorrent but the idea that he’d support violence against men is ridiculous. He’s a man with no signs of self-hate, in fact.

        Do you realize how you’re coming across? Instead of making cogent points, you provide ridiculous, well-poisoning speculations.

    • Yeah, seriously, Esmay’s performance has been awful throughout this whole thing. He thinks he can avoid answering or owning up to his mistake by shitting on Manboobz.

      Nope, sorry, you can do both if you want but they aren’t the same thing at all.

  15. Sadly, Jason Gregory’s video suggests that his screenshot is falsified. At the very least a retraction is warranted.

    First note that he has placed himself into the unfortunate position of defending two contradictory claims:

    1. To prove his original claim about Google’s returns are correct, he hopes to show that a search bar with “violence against men” in the bar can instead display results for a “violence against” search, at least at low connection speeds. The predictive search results don’t have to match what is typed in the search bar, then.

    2. To prove he did not actively forge the screenshot, he intends to prove “sneak searches” are impossible–Google will always search and display results for exactly what is typed into your bar. Thus his screenshot with “violence against men” in the searchbar can only be a search for “violence against men.” This, despite his article admitting Instant Search can be disabled and his video showing how Google disables it automatically at slow connection speeds.

    Importantly, in the 6 minute video, he is unable to reproduce the alleged glitch. Every time he types “violence against men” into the search bar, the results are always for that phrase and never for “violence against”.

    There are only two moments in the video worth watching. All other searches behave unremarkably.

    At 0:14-0:30, Gregory searches using the Omnibar in his Chrome browser and typing “violence against women”, but the predictive instant search shows results for “violence against women act” At 4:04-5:00, Gregory searches using Google’s search bar to the same effect. Throughout the rest of the video Gregory makes the same search repeatedly but instead gets “violence against women” (not “act”) results.

    The question is why these two searches were different. The answers are pretty straightforward.

    The omnibar used in the first search is not exactly the same as a Google search. For example, Omnibar searches also search your Chrome bookmarks and browsing history for matches too, and we see three “history” pages in Gregory’s dropdown box of predictive results. More important is the warning at 16 seconds into the video, saying Instant Search is unavailable. This is likely due to connection speed, and it means his instant search was interrupted. Google was no longer updating results as he typed; the page was “stuck” on its last guess which was for VAWA. With Instant disabled, the “sneak search” is completely possible as Gregory himself notes.

    The Google Search bar used in the second test has a much better UI displaying exactly what it is doing. Though Gregory has only typed “violence against women” into the search bar, there is a predictive and greyed-out “act” amended to the end of his search and the dropdown box is also showing “violence against women act” as the current top predicted result.

    In both searches, the drop down box remains on screen displaying predictions because the listed results are not a result from his exact search. Gregory’s screenshot does not include any drop down box.

    After clicking on the page to remove focus from the search bar, the drop down predictions go away. The result is exactly the same as if you “sneak search” when Instant is disabled–you have chosen the predicted results page, which are not a match for your partial-query, and Google is providing zero focus on whatever is currently typed into the search bar.

    Finally, this “successful” example is also different because Google is *completing* the search for Gregory, not removing info from it. Google guessed that the next word would be “act”, very different from if someone searched “violence against men” and Google subtracted the “men” from it, a result, remember, that Gregory is wholely unable to reproduce.

    Gregory admits ignorance about how searches work, so it is tempting to believe he and Esmy unwittingly showed one set of results thinking it represented another query (which would still deserve a straightforward apology & retraction, instead of calling critics names). Yet, there is no possible way for Google to predict a shorter search than what users have input. Gregory’s video demonstrates this for us beyond all doubt.

    The most shameful thing is that both actors repeatedly blame others for not knowing how searches work, when their own story (which is nevertheless not possible) shows they are the ignorant parties.

    • A quick correction for myself:

      Clicking the results page to remove focus from the search bar only removes the dropdown prediction box for Omnibar searches. Searches using the Google search bar leave the drop down visible. I was mistaken to suggest otherwise.

      That makes the error “less plausible” but because Google never *removes* words when predicting searches, the error was already impossible.

    • “Yet, there is no possible way for Google to predict a shorter search than what users have input. Gregory’s video demonstrates this for us beyond all doubt.”

      “…Google never *removes* words when predicting searches, the error was already impossible.”

      Your two statements regarding search result possibilities are false. Here is a video that I did not initially release because it was my first attempt at using video screen capture and the video settings were not properly adjusted to my screen. Nevertheless, the video proves that it is possible to get a result with a “shorter search than what users have input.” In the video, I searched for “violence against men” and the result was “violence against.”

      I do appreciate the effort put into your response, even if some of your statements are false. I’ll try and get to the rest of your statements at a later time.

      [Edit: this weird search result is the 3rd one and corresponds to the middle image in my compressed .jpg in the article.]

      • My first reaction: your computer may have a virus known as the “Google WebHP” virus that is redirecting your search results. This latest video shows your Omnibar search is redirected through three webpages, ultimately landing on a google.com/WebHP page, which is a symptom of this virus.

        I ironically suggest web searching for info on how to remove this virus.

        I have a number of other thoughts on this video… The search parameter in the URL reveals that the search was for “violence against” without “men”. Whatever the cause (extreme hardware/software latency/bugs, causing client/server to disagree about when you’re searching and for what… or a virus redirecting your query), this still tells us two things.

        1. You are wrong to claim a sneak search is impossible. Here, again, you’re showing a search results page with a different query in the search bar.

        2. It would be difficult to reproduce these problems while also overlooking the plain evidence that appears every time the search results do not match the query displayed (the “related searches” section and URL parameter).

        Which means it still falls to the writer/editor to simply retract the mistaken claims about Google’s returns. This does not warrant name-calling for anyone who found this problem (which is anyone who tested the article’s claims).

      • @Debunking Video, the video shows that the browser never strayed from “www.google.com/webhp,” which is an official Google server, according to this webroot article about the “Google WebHP” virus:

        http://community.webroot.com/t5/Tips-and-Tricks/Google-webhp-virus/td-p/13662

        Had the browser strayed to something like this, “google.com.webhp.com/stuffhere,” then your claim would warrant some concern. However, because the browser never did stray in the aforementioned way, your claim that my computer “may have a virus known as the ‘Google WebHP'” virus is false.

      • WHY THE HELL DIDN’T YOU POST THIS VIDEO IN THE FIRST PLACE?

        This seems to explain how you got a screenshot where the search box says “violence against men” and the search results are for “violence against” without doing what I guessed you had done.

        What it DOESN’T explain is why you sent this along as an example of the search results you were getting, because your other video shows that the overwhemling majority of the time you searched for “violence against men” you actually got results related to “violence against men.”

        And I’m still confused as to why in your original post you implied that you would get results related to “violence against women” pretty much every time you typed in “violence against men,” if, as your videos suggest, this was a “weird” glitch and not a standard response.

        Do you contend, as Esmay does, that you USED to get these results but now you don’t?

        Or do you concede that you only get such results when searching for “violence against” — except on those occasions when Google glitches and searches for the wrong search term as in this video.

    • @Debunking Video

      False claim 1:

      According to you, I’m in the “unfortunate position of defending two contradictory claims.”

      What are these contradictory claims, according to you?

      1. “To prove that his original claims about Google’s returns are correct…”
      2. “To prove that he did not actively forge the screen shot… [he has to prove that]…Google will always search and display results for exactly what is typed into your bar.”

      Your above claim, like other statements you’ve made, is false. This argument that you’ve concocted, whether deliberately or not, is a straw man. Hence, I will burn it down.

      1. I never made the claim that “Google’s returns are correct.” The claim I made in the above article is that “they are certainly weird.”
      2. I never made the claim that Google will “always search and display results for exactly what is typed into your bar.” The whole point of the screencaps and video(s) is to show otherwise—that I was sometimes getting results for things other than what I typed. When I made the statement that “this sort of ‘sneak-typing’ simply doesn’t work,” I was referencing the sort of “sneak-typing” that Boobz describes. (Perhaps you deliberately split this hair so fine in order to concoct your straw man? I don’t know, but you’re not getting away with it.)

      False claim 2:

      “After clicking on the page to remove focus from the search bar, the drop down predictions go away. The result is exactly the same as if you ‘sneak search’ when Instant is disabled—you have chosen the predicted results page, which are not a match for your partial-query, and Google is providing zero focus on whatever is currently typed into the search bar.”

      This video proves your claim false. Notice that I typed in “violence against” and that the predicted search was “violence against women act.” After “clicking on the page to remove focus from the search bar,” the “Google Bar” updates automatically to reflect my search as being one for “violence against women act,” not one for “violence against.” The result is not the same as a “sneak search.” As such, your claim is false.

      False claims 3, 4, and 5:

      “Yet, there is no possible way for Google to predict a shorter search than what users have input.”

      “Google never *removes* words when predicting searches, the error was already impossible.”

      “Gregory’s video demonstrates this for us beyond all doubt.”

      Your above statements regarding search result possibilities and doubt are false. Here is a video that I did not initially release because it was my first attempt at using video screen capture and the video settings were not properly adjusted to my screen. Nevertheless, the video proves that it is possible to get a result with a “shorter search than what users have input.” In the video, I searched for “violence against men” and the result was “violence against.”

      This weird search result is the 3rd one and corresponds to the middle image in my compressed .jpg in the article.

      False claim 6:

      “Your computer may have a virus known as the ‘Google WebHP’ virus that is redirecting your search results.”
      The video shows that the browser never strayed from http://www.google.com/webhp, which is an official Google server, according to this webroot article about the “Google WebHP” virus. Here is a link to that article:

      http://community.webroot.com/t5/Tips-and-Tricks/Google-webhp-virus/td-p/13662

      Had the browser strayed to something like this, “google.com.webhp.com/stuffnhere,” then your claim would warrant some concern. However, because the browser never did stray in the aforementioned way, your claim that my computer “may have a virus known as the ‘Google WebHP’ virus is false.

      False claim 7, 8:

      “The most shameful thing is that both actors repeatedly blame others for not knowing how searches work, when their own story (which is nevertheless not possible)…”

      I have never blamed anybody for any such thing. As such, your statement is false.

      My story is both possible and true. As such, your statement is false.

      False claim 9:

      “Sadly, Jason Gregory’s video suggests that his screenshot is falsified.”

      The first video makes no such suggestion. (The absence of evidence is not proof of its absence.) As such, your claim is false.

      Misleading statement 1:

      “Importantly, in the 6 minute video, he is unable to reproduce the alleged glitch.”

      While this statement of yours isn’t blatantly false, like your other statements, it is misleading because, as mentioned above, absence of evidence is not proof of its absence.

      Misleading statement 2:

      “This does not warrant name-calling for anyone who found this problem (which is anyone who tested the article’s claims).”

      I have never name-called anybody for finding and drawing attention to this matter. In fact, a thank you was written in the editor’s note in which “tallwheel” and others were mentioned and thanked for drawing attention to the matter.

      While we are on the subject of name-calling, did you bother to count the numerous false accusations of fraud and forgery? Many of those accusations are well documented in my above article.

      Yesterday, I mentioned in my comments that I appreciated the effort you put into your comments on the article. Upon further analysis of your comments, I retract that statement. Your comments are filled with false claims and misleading statements. It seems you have wasted your effort, spending it on some wrong-headed attempt to defend the false accusations of fraud and forgery made by Boobz.

      [Edit: the rest of your idiot parade spam is going to the spam bin.]

  16. Manboobz (aka foul rodent) snuffs the Holy Hand-grenade of Antioch (aka facts) [from the great Monty Python]

  17. @Boobz
    “…without doing what I had ‘guessed’ you had done.”

    Really?! You made numerous false claims and false accusations of fraud and forgery. See my above article where I document many of them. When you make such statements, are we now to believe that you are simply a bad guesser?

    “That’s the entirely of his response to my charge of forgery: it was just a ‘glitch.’”

    Is this going to be the entirety of your response to my charge that you are making false claims and false accusations of fraud and forgery: it was just a guess?

    “And I’m still confused as to why in your original post you implied…”

    Really?! You didn’t seem to be very “confused” when you were making numerous false claims and false accusations of fraud and forgery.

    Is this going to be the entirety of your response to my charge that you are making false claims and false accusations of fraud and forgery: it was just confusion?

    “Do you contend…or do you concede that…”

    You will find what I concede about these “weird” search results above and you will find what I contend here (https://funkymunkyluvn.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/moral-turpitude-an-open-letter-to-facebook/).

    “WHY THE HELL DIDN’T YOU POST THIS VIDEO IN THE FIRST PLACE?”

    I see that you are doing some more slithering…blaming the victim of your false claims and false accusations for your false claims and false accusations, kind of like a rape apologist who blames the victim for wearing a short skirt?

    In answer to your slithering question, I did not have the video until 6.20.2013. By this time, you had already managed to post 5 articles worth of your false claims and false accusations, smearing your brand of excrement all over the internet, mocking our true claim about the “glitch.”

    I think what your slithering question really means to say is this: “had you released this video earlier (at a time prior to its existence), I wouldn’t have had so much rope with which to hang myself.”

    As a rapist tries to hide behind rape apologetics, you are trying to hide behind “guesses” and “confusion.”

    “You’ve gotta fess up, dude. That’s how it’s done.”

    • You have answered only one of my questions, which is: HOW you created a screenshot that blatantly misrepresented Google results by showing “violence against men” in the search bar while the search results themselves were for the search term “violence against.”

      You have not answered these questions:

      Why did you claim that searching for “violence against men” gives you results about “violence against women” when this is clearly not the case. Are you, like Dean Esmay, claiming that the results changed after your article ran on AVFM. If you’re still convinced you were right, why did you change the article on your blog?

      Or are you tacitly admitting that your original claim was a mistake, and that what you said only applies to searches for the phrase “violence against?”

      Why did you send Esmay a screenshot that had “violence against men” in the search bar, while the search results were clearly for “violence against?”

      The fact that you generated that screenshot through a “glitch” doesn’t explain WHY you sent it to Esmay, or why he used it the way that he did. If you want to clear that up, you’re going to need to post more from your email conversations with Esmay.

      If it turns out this whole thing is the result of massive incompetence on your part, combined with massive incompetence on Esmay’s part (combined with his made-up story, ie lie, about how the Google results changed), you’re going to have to explain the whole thing in a coherent and at least vaguely plausible way.

      But there are still big holes in your story. If you didn’t have the video before the 20th, how were you able to demonstrate to Esmay before that that your results were a glitch?

      And how on earth did the results in your screenshot “show us what Jason’s post-publication results looked like,” as Esmay claims, when your OTHER video in fact shows that the vast majority of the time your results were completely normal — ie, searching for “violence against men” got you results related to “violence against men.”

      And if the only reason you got results other than that was because of a glitch, that sort of puts the lie to Esmay’s claim that before their story ran the results were always like that.

      I will happily make corrections to my posts, but so far I don’t see a coherent story from you or Esmay. I see two contradictory stories full of lies (and/or untruths) and evasions.

      The screenshot may have been a “glitch” but it was deceptive, and used to support a deceptive agenda. Right now I’m trying to sort out to what degree this was the result of ignorance and incompetence and ideological fanaticism, and what part this was the result of concious deception on the part of you and/or Esmay.

      And you’re going to have to answer some more questions and give me more evidence before I can figure that out.

      • “I will happily make corrections to my posts, but so far I don’t see a coherent story from you or Esmay.” –Boobz

        “And you’re going to have to answer some more questions and give me more evidence before I can figure that out.” –Boobz

        “Well, now it appears that … [you are]…going to triple down on… [your]…dishonesty. “I had momentarily allowed myself to hope … [you]…would rise above… [your]…lying nature.” –Boobz

        Right. So, you readily admit that you don’t understand the story and that you cannot figure out what happened, yet you keep making false claims and false accusations about what happened…very interesting.

        Keep fucking yourself, buddy. It brings me great joy to see you do this. I’m going to make some popcorn, perhaps watch the season finale of “Mad Men,” and then come back to this comment thread expecting you to do some more self-fucking. Please feel free to leave more comments. AVfM doesn’t have to bother with “fucking your shit up.” You are doing a fine job of it all by yourself. 🙂

        Cheers brohim.

  18. OK, so you say that your earlier blog post — the edited version — reveals what you think about Esmay’s account?

    So am I right to conclude that you think Esmay’s story (that the search results for “violence against men” changed from being mostly about violence agasint women to being mostly about violence against men changed after your post ran on AVFM) is a bunch of bullshit?

    Could you please just state what you think on this matter clearly in your own words?

  19. Well, if you’re unwilling to answer a couple of questions that would allow me to understand how you could have sent that screenshot to Esmay with innocent intent, why would you expect me to change my conclusions about what you and Esmay did?

    Again, if I’m wrong, I’m prepared to offer a correction, but aside from showing HOW the screenshot was generated you haven’t really explained anything, which naturally leads to the suspicion that you indeed have something to hide. If you want people to believe your story, you actually have to set forth a coherent and believable story in the first place, and you haven’t done this.

    In order to run a correction I sort of have to understand what actually happened, yet you for some reason don’t want to actually say. Again, why did you send Esmay this particular screenshot, given that it clearly misrepresented the results you were getting from Google (as is clear from your other video, which shows that almost all the time your results were perfectly normal)?

    What on earth does this “glitch” have to do with your claims in your original post?

    What’s also weird is that you seem to disagree completely with Esmay on one central point but that you won’t say straightforwardly whether or not you think Esmay’s story about the changing search engine results is bunk.

    Do you or do you not contend that before your post ran on AVFM, that whenever you searched for “violence against men” you got mainly results about “violence against women?”

    Or was this a mistake? A lie? The result of all your searches being contaminated by the “glitch” you later discovered?

    In other words, why did you in your original post claim something that wasn’t true in anyone’s version of the world except that of Dean Esmay?

    • “In order to run a correction I sort of have to understand what actually happened…” –Boobz

      Again, you readily admit that you don’t understand what happened, yet you make numerous false claims and false accusations about “what actually happened.” You’re a journalist?

      “Well, if you’re unwilling to answer a couple of questions…” –Boobz

      I’ve already answered your questions in the above article and in the rewrite. See the section on the email in the above article and see the section called “Other Pieces of Fecal Matter.” Either you fail to comprehend my answers, or, you are feigning a lack of comprehension in order to make yet another false accusation—namely, the false accusation of evasion.

      Either way, you readily admit that you don’t comprehend what happened, yet you make false claims and false accusations of fraud and forgery about what happened, and now you’re adding the false accusation of evasion.

      As such, this is your one and final warning. If you simply reiterate your questions again and fail to account for your false claims and false accusations, then your behavior is on par with that of a troll and you will be banned from further trolling my comment thread…or, I may just let you continue fucking yourself…not sure yet, but leaning toward the former, rather than the latter.

  20. **Either way, you readily admit that you don’t comprehend what happened, **

    Not what he said. He said he doesn’t understand your story; it has more holes then a slice of alpine lace. The timelines don’t add up. The explanations are contradictory. You won’t answer the questions about those issues.

    All you do is say, “I was right, why won’t you admit it”.

    Why doesn’t the timeline add up? Why do your results not match your claims? Why do you and Dean have disparate accounts. Why hasn’t the alleged proof been provided?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    • There is good news for you! I have found 5 properly placed periods in your garbled gibberish. Well done.

  21. Dude, here’s the deal: I am planning to run a correction about the screenshot. I have been holding off on it because I have been waiting to hear some more answers from you.

    If I don’t get some answers, it’s going to be a very strange correction indeed becuase it will have to say something like this: “the screenshot seems to actually have been the result of a glitch. But I can’t put together a plausible narrative that absolves Jason Gregory of participating in deception here because he has repeatedly refused to answer basic questions about what happened.”

    You’ve given a PARTIAL explanation for things in your post. I asked my questions in order to flesh out this explanation.

    From the additional details that are coming to light, I am beginning to lean more towards “massive incompetence and ideological fanaticism” being more responsible for this than outright fraud. (Both you and Dean, especially Dean, have said things that are untrue; but it may be that some of these things weren’t deliberate lies.)

    But I can’t construct a version of the story that doesn’t involve you being deceptive unless you actually answer the questions I’ve asked here.

    • Your questions have been answered in the above article and in the rewrite. Read again until you comprehend how your claims were bald faced lies, presumptions, false claims, false accusations, and how you have been caught red handed making them.

      At this point, it seems that you have two options:

      1. You can come clean and admit that you in your religious zeal of finding some sensationalist scoop, imagined the entire episode in your head, making wild conspiratorial and false allegations and that you were caught in the process.

      2. Or, if you cannot muster the honesty and courage to openly admit your mistakes and lies, you can keep trolling the blog by feigning idiocy. The latter won’t work, though. We know and people reading these blogs know, and by now, many readers of your blog know that you have lied repeatedly and that you have been busted.

      “You’ve gotta fess up, dude. That’s how it’s done.”

      • Can you at least explain why you sent Esmay that screencap? All you say in your email about it is “here is a screencap from today.” But clearly that was not a typical screencap, as it was a screencap showing that weird glitch that you have only sporadically been able to reproduce. Were you trying to convince Esmay that when you searched for “violence against men”‘ you were actually getting mostly results for “violence agaisnt women?”

        Unless you can give me a better answer than that, it looks like you were trying to pull one over on Esmay.

        I don’t hold you responsible for what Esmay did with that screenshot, but it’s very hard for me to see an innocent explanation for emailing Esmay a screenshot that blatantly misrepresented the search results you were getting most of the time when you searched for “violence against men.” (As you other video shows clearly.)

        And can you answer this one simple question about your original article: Was your claim in that article

        1) a lie
        2) a mistake
        3) the result of that same glitch

        If #3, why didn’t you try searching again to doublecheck it?

  22. @Boobz
    “Can you at least explain why you sent Esmay that screencap? All you say in your email about it is “here is a screencap from today.”

    It’s funny how you leave out everything else that I’ve written about it. It shows that you have not carefully read my articles and explanations. Here is what I actually wrote about the email:
    “As everyone can see, the only claim made by me about it is that it was taken today (which was 6.14.2013) and that I had no idea how search engines work. It was not submitted as part of the rewrite, which you can view here. It was not submitted as any kind of proof about my prior claim. It was submitted as proof of my confusion about my search results. (Scroll down a bit for my evolving understanding and hypothesis about these weird results.)”

    Perhaps if you bother to *read carefully* the above article and my rewrite, you will find your answers.

    As far as my original claim goes, I would not have submitted a rewrite had there been nothing *wrong* with the original. Clearly, you have failed to comprehend this. Why the rewrite was not published, again, see the above section called “Other Pieces of Fecal Matter.”

    As far as your 3 options go, when did you stop beating your wife, Boobz?

  23. You say the screenshot “was submitted as proof of my confusion about my search results.”

    But that’s not what your note to Esmay says. Your note implies that when you search for “violence against men” you get results about “violence against women,” as per the screenshot submitted as evidence of this.

    Why didn’t you make clear that most of the time when you searched you got results about violence against men? (Why didn’t you include a screenshot of that as well?)

    No, what you said was “here is a screencap from today afer searching for “violence against men.” Not “sometimes I get weird glitches and get results like these when I search for “violence against men.”

    In other words, from what you’ve presented here, it looks like you sent him an atypical and misleading screenshot as if it were just an example of the sort of search results you got when you searched for “violence against men.”

    If you sent him other messages that back up your account of things, let’s see them. But what you’ve got here doesn’t really seem to fit your account of things.

    Also, I can’t belive you’re so allergic to answering my questions that you don’t even want to say “the claim in my original post was a mistake, not a lie?”

    So when I write my piece I will have to say something like “Gregory will not say whether the incorrect claim in his original post was a mistake or a deliberate lie, despite being repeatedly asked to clarify this point.”

    Whatever, dude. You still have a chance to answer my questions, but I will be writing my post about this soon.

    • “Your note implies that when you search for “violence against men” you get results about “violence against women,” as per the screenshot submitted as evidence of this.” –Boobz

      I see you are back to making more false accusations. My email “implies” no such thing. The implications of my email are an admission of my ignorance and confusion about the search results.

      “Whatever, dude. You still have a chance to answer my questions, but I will be writing my post about this soon.” –Boobz

      Whatever, Boobz, your lying, slithering, little weasel brain is working overtime to try and find a way to weasel out of the lying, slithering, and weaseling you’ve done over the past few days. The fact is that you are trying to cover over all the false claims and false accusations of fraud and forgery that you have made by trying to find some little “implication” or some sort of minute detail that might give you a little bit of weasel room to get out from under the weight of your own excrement. The fact is that you have been caught lying, making false claims, and making false accusations. I know it. You know it. The people who read this blog know it. No matter how much spin and slithering you do, you cannot escape the fact of your lies and false accusations of fraud and forgery. You can try to weasel and slither and spin, but it will never be enough…not this time. All your weasel room is gone.

      I’ve suffered through your lies, fallacies, false accusations, your victim-blaming, and the rest of your bullshit for too long. I’ve entertained you by being relatively courteous to you in the comment thread, in spite of the fallacious things you’ve written about me. I’ve even allowed you to spread your excrement in my comment threads…and what do you do? You make another false accusation about “implications.” This is what makes you a moral retard…and your moral retardation is what makes you a lying, slithering little weasel.

      The only way out for you is to “fess up, dude.” Admit it. You were caught up in some religious fervor, some “bombast syndrome” and, before asking me or Dean or any of the editors, you prematurely blew your little weasel load and made all sorts of false claims and accusations. That’s the story that you should be writing. Anything else is simply more spin and everybody knows it.

    • Boobz, dude, you are really a shameless creep, who has nothing to offer to anyone except your toxic hatred of boys and men wrapped up in pathological lies, fradulent claims and nutjob conspiracy theories. Believe me, however much you are being paid, it’s not worth it. Get a life.

  24. This is stupid. YOU are making the MHRM look bad. The first rule of managing public relations is ignore bullshit..

    You made a mistake. Futrelle Took Advantage of it. If you and Dean had the wit to ignore him it would have died with the Boobzrs, but he wounded your little egos and you made a nothing case of his usual cherry-picking into a big deal.

    YOU make it look like he has the real goods on you by screaming at him. Those questions are painful but completely expected; even reasonable.

    You are making it look like he’s PWNED you, because you won’t answer him and won’t cut your fucking losses.

    It’s shit like this that makes him look good.

    • “The first rule of managing public relations is ignore bullshit..”

      I am not a public relations expert, but if you think this “shit” makes Boobz look good, you are definately not a public relations expert either. Or, you’re just really bad at your job.

      Either way, this is a blog about called “American Idiocracy.” As such, your brand of idiocy is very welcome here. Please continue posting it. I look forward to documenting it. 🙂

  25. Pingback: Monday Roundup for 24 June 2013 | A Voice for Men

  26. Pingback: That fake screenshot on A Voice for Men? It wasn’t faked. A correction, and its implications | man boobz

  27. Pingback: American Idiocracy | Pimping Bitches For Money: The Misogyny of Mocked Misogyny

  28. Pingback: Win A Date With a Red Pill Douchebag (Plus bonus Taylor Swift/Ninch Inch Nails mashup video) | we hunted the mammoth

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s