Support NeoGAF

[Kermit The Dog]

Like the previous poster explained, he's drawing a distinction between "which" woman he beat. It's reprehensible all the same.

Bullshit. He is dismissing the claim that the women involved was his wife, while stating that nobody knows the details of the case, certainly not to an extent that they could make a judgement on it.

This is my case in point, brilliantly but inadvertently executed by yourself and Roto. You're presuming he beat his wife, twisting quotes to suit a narrative and then labeling it reprehensible. It is Vigilante Justice 101.

 

[scy]

Actually, wasn't the DV charge clarified by Paul to be that it was an ex-girlfriend he was living with and there were "circumstances" behind the charge?

 

[Aselith]

Actually, wasn't the DV charge clarified by Paul to be that it was an ex-girlfriend he was living with and there were "circumstances" behind the charge?

"She had it coming! Not my fault."

 

[Roto13]

Bullshit. He is dismissing the claim that the women involved was his wife, while stating that nobody knows the details of the case, certainly not to an extent that they could make a judgement on it.

This is my case in point, brilliantly but inadvertently executed by yourself and Roto. You're presuming he beat his wife, twisting quotes to suit a narrative and then labeling it reprehensible. It is Vigilante Justice 101.

Why are you still here?

 

[bananas]

Bullshit. He is dismissing the claim that the women involved was his wife, while stating that nobody knows the details of the case, certainly not to an extent that they could make a judgement on it.

This is my case in point, brilliantly but inadvertently executed by yourself and Roto. You're presuming he beat his wife, twisting quotes to suit a narrative and then labeling it reprehensible. It is Vigilante Justice 101.

He beat his ex-girlfriend.

 

[Jive Turkey]

This guy doesn't learn how to do anything other than tell people he's incompetent as a marketer.

Even Wile E. Coyote figured out how keep from falling off a cliff a few times.

 

[Kermit The Dog]

He beat his ex-girlfriend.

No, that link does not say that at all. It said he had a domestic violence charge brought against him. Nowhere does it say he 'beat his girlfriend', nor does DV exclusively denote the victim was beaten. He could have thrown something at her, pushed her, etc.

Stop proving my point with this bullshit.

 

[Aselith]

No, that link does not say that at all. It said he had a domestic violence charge brought against him. Nowhere does it say he 'beat his girlfriend', nor does DV exclusively denote the victim was beaten. He could have thrown something at her, pushed her, etc.

Stop proving my point with this bullshit.

All fair game of course; as long as it wasn't a balled fist.

 

[Monroeski]

Anybody happen to remember his wife's first name? I'm trying to find that quote he had on the Ocean Marketing website from somebody who talked about how great he was and what a hard worker he was since she's known him from college that turned out to be her.

::edit::
Nevermind, found the post.

 

[Gibbles17]

Nowhere does it say he 'beat his girlfriend', nor does DV exclusively denote the victim was beaten. He could have thrown something at her, pushed her, etc.

Wowaweewa, what is this I'm reading. Guessing you're a relative or something?

 

[jaxword]

He could have thrown something at her, pushed her, etc.

Yeah, if he'd BEATEN her, that makes him a violent asshole, but if he throws stuff and pushes her, that proves he's a nice levelheaded man.

 

[Parallax Scroll]

I asked before what it is that he has done that is illegal, and didnt get a reply.

What is it that he has done that makes him a crook?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly which of these offenses qualify as criminal fraud or are otherwise illegal. But here are some of the things Paul has done:

- Lised fake customers on his business's website
- Listed fake credentials/certifications on his business's website
- Posted plagiarized articles on his business's website
- Impersonated his former boss in an email for the purpose of promoting his business
- Attempted to extort money from his former employer using his access to the company's website, email accounts, and social media accounts as leverage
- Publicly accused a former business associate of stealing $35,000
- Posted links to pirated music downloads on his employer's twitter and his company's website
- Discussed his purchase and use of illegal drugs on a public forum, including dollar amounts paid for said drugs

Plus whatever else I'm forgetting.

 

[Jive Turkey]

No, that link does not say that at all. It said he had a domestic violence charge brought against him. Nowhere does it say he 'beat his girlfriend', nor does DV exclusively denote the victim was beaten. He could have thrown something at her, pushed her, etc.

Stop proving my point with this bullshit.

Moral of the story: It's OK to throw something at or shove a woman as long as you aren't currently schtupping her.

 

[freddy]

Anybody happen to remember his wife's first name? I'm trying to find that quote he had on the Ocean Marketing website from somebody who talked about how great he was and what a hard worker he was since she's known him from college that turned out to be her.

Looking for his wifes first name? I thought the GAF thread was free from this shit.

Also if he had charges of domestic violence against him and he wasn't convicted doesn't that make him innocent in the eyes of the law?

 

[Aselith]

Looking for his wifes first name? I thought the GAF thread was free from this shit.

Also if he had charges of domestic violence against him and he wasn't convicted doesn't that make him innocent in the eyes of the law?

Err he was looking for it to find the post not send her a death threat.

 

[Monroeski]

Looking for his wifes first name? I thought the GAF thread was free from this shit.

Also if he had charges of domestic violence against him and he wasn't convicted doesn't that make him innocent in the eyes of the law?

I was just looking for it to find a post that was ALREADY IN THIS THREAD.

Which I did, and edited it into my first post. One of the best parts of this whole thing IMO was that fake recommendation.

 

[scy]

Looking for his wifes first name? I thought the GAF thread was free from this shit.

Her name was brought up before, though I think it was first from his Facebook (rather, Ocean Marketing's) and not directly from him.

Also if he had charges of domestic violence against him and he wasn't convicted doesn't that make him innocent in the eyes of the law?

Most of the talk about his prior charge is the fact that he's had a charge before and his aggression; I don't know the outcome of the charge fully so not much to say on it. So, yes, there's a lot of details we don't know on it so it's some blanks being filled in, for better or worse. Paul did add more to the story, though it was mostly how much of a victim he was in the scenario that led to it; considering everything else he's said, though, not sure how much of it can be taken as how things truly went.

But it's all speculation.

 

[Kermit The Dog]

All fair game of course; as long as it wasn't a balled fist.

Wowaweewa, what is this I'm reading. Guessing you're a relative or something?

Yeah, if he'd BEATEN her, that makes him a violent asshole, but if he throws stuff and pushes her, that proves he's a nice levelheaded man.

Moral of the story: It's OK to throw something at or shove a woman as long as you aren't currently schtupping her.

And with that, you again underline my point. Take a quote out of context, extrapolate whatever you want from it, then label it reprehensible. Welcome to the internet. Never did I imply anything in regards to guilt or severity, but you twits just interpret it how you want.

Pathetic.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Looking for his wifes first name? I thought the GAF thread was free from this shit.

Also if he had charges of domestic violence against him and he wasn't convicted doesn't that make him innocent in the eyes of the law?

Uh, his wife's name is only available because she put it on the website in the form of a false recommendation. No one is hacking his Facebook or anything.

 

[Flavius]

No, that link does not say that at all. It said he had a domestic violence charge brought against him. Nowhere does it say he 'beat his girlfriend', nor does DV exclusively denote the victim was beaten. He could have thrown something at her, pushed her, etc.

Stop proving my point with this bullshit.

I do not have a dog in this fight (nevermind that would apply to the majority of us here discussing this topic). However, you seem like a pretty intelligent guy.

When your point of debate centers on the context of a domestic violence charge, I'd suggest you either invert your pyramid, or give up the ghost. Not much meat on those bones.

 

[Owlowiscious]

And with that, you again underline my point. Take a quote out of context, extrapolate whatever you want from it, then label it reprehensible. Welcome to the internet. Never did I imply anything in regards to guilt or severity, but you twits just interpret it how you want.

Pathetic.

So your point is that people should say Domestic Violence.

 

[Kermit The Dog]

I do not have a dog in this fight (nevermind that would apply to the majority of us here discussing this topic). However, you seem like a pretty intelligent guy.

When your point of debate centers on the context of a domestic violence charge, I'd suggest you either invert your pyramid, or give up the ghost. Not much meat on those bones.

I've been beating this drum for a few days. I left, came back three or so days later, and GAF still loomed as a snapshot of vigilante muppetry.

The DV thing is just another example of the stupidity that defines this thread.

 

[Parallax Scroll]

And with that, you again underline my point. Take a quote out of context, extrapolate whatever you want from it, then label it reprehensible. Welcome to the internet. Never did I imply anything in regards to guilt or severity, but you twits just interpret it how you want.

Pathetic.

oh i get it they're pathetic because you disagree with them

 

[Roto13]

The best part about this avatar trend is we know we're all being looked down upon by a 12-year-old boy.

 

[Aselith]

And with that, you again underline my point. Take a quote out of context, extrapolate whatever you want from it, then label it reprehensible. Welcome to the internet. Never did I imply anything in regards to guilt or severity, but you twits just interpret it how you want.

Pathetic.

It was IN context. You said that domestic violence doesn't necessarily denote a full on assault, it might be that he threw something at her or pushed her...how does that make him look better? Maybe he only pushed his girlfriend over or threw a vase at her? What a swell guy then.

Your post implied that there could have been less severe circumstances and that said circumstances would make him look less bad. What other context could there have been for your post?

What's pathetic is the extent to which you'll stretch yourself in order to be "right." You backed the wrong pony. Get over it and move on with your life.

 

[Jive Turkey]

And with that, you again underline my point. Take a quote out of context, extrapolate whatever you want from it, then label it reprehensible. Welcome to the internet. Never did I imply anything in regards to guilt or severity, but you twits just interpret it how you want.

Pathetic.

I'm not going to agrue with you anymore because you've proven time and time again that you're going argue this to the death no matter how moronic you come across. I would like to ask you to clarify a few things for me before I continue silently laughing at you: You keep saying we're taking the things you say out of context yet we're directly quoting and then refuting your entire post. How is anybody taking what you're saying out of context?

Paul had a domestic violence charge against him. This is a fact. The alleged victim was a woman. This is also a fact. Since we simply can't fathom your true meaning would you please clarify your stance on these points?

-Do you doubt the validity of the charge and if so why?
-You are so adamant about the internet blowing this charge out of porportion. Why?
-Why does it matter if he hit the alleged victim or threw something at her? It's still assult.
-You've said we don't know who the alleged victim is (i.e. wife, ex) but why does that matter?

Now I have no doubt you'll continue grasping at straws as well as hiding behind your laughing smiley and repeated use of the word "pathetic" almost in an effort to convince yourself that you're not wrong. You refuse to admit that there's the slightest possibly you're wrong without offering anything other than the "you guys just don't get it" defense. It's almost like arguing with Paul himself.

I'm already angry at myself for seriously responding to you.

 

[scy]

You keep saying we're taking the things you say out of context yet we're directly quoting...

That sounds familiar...

 

[AshMcCool]

Very weird that someone dug out his criminal record...

 

[Erigu]

-Do you doubt the validity of the charge and if so why?

I would agree that assuming guilt isn't a very nice thing to do. You never know.

(... that being said, in this case and based on what we've seen from this delightful character, if I had to bet...)

 

[Mxrz]

Been a few days, so what has the big bad Internet done to this guy that warrants his continued defense?

 

[Roto13]

Been a few days, so what has the big bad Internet done to this guy that warrants his continued defense?

Asked Him Anything when he did a Reddit Ask Me Anything.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Can someone please tell me what is going on? 70 pages is too much to get through right now

 

[Mariner]

Guy is a joke. Though, PAX is a bigger joke.

 

[Jintor]

Guy is a joke. Though, PAX is a bigger joke.

Drive-by nonsense, or soon-to-be-defended legitimate argument? Only time will tell!

 

[Kermit The Dog]

Your post implied that there could have been less severe circumstances and that said circumstances would make him look less bad.

When did I imply that? The problem we've got here is that you're misinterpreting my point. I was responding to someone who said he had been 'beating his wife', and I was stating that there was no evidence of this, that a DV charge covers different types of assaults, and that to presume he had been beating her was naive and ill-informed. No-one where did I imply it would 'make him look less bad'. Nowhere.

From my perspective, it was another example of people jumping the gun, assuming he was guilty, assuming he had 'beaten his wife' from nothing more than a DV charge, and then weaving this contextual information into a narrative.

If my wording was ambiguous, I apologise.

What's pathetic is the extent to which you'll stretch yourself in order to be "right." You backed the wrong pony. Get over it and move on with your life.

I'm not backing him. He's clearly an idiot, and if he had wanted this to go away, he could have killed it by day two. No excuses. My issues have nothing to do with Paul. His incident just illustrates my issues perfectly. It's clearly separate.

How is anybody taking what you're saying out of context?

See above.

Paul had a domestic violence charge against him. This is a fact. The alleged victim was a woman. This is also a fact. Since we simply can't fathom your true meaning would you please clarify your stance on these points?

Both undisputed facts.

-Do you doubt the validity of the charge and if so why? No.
-You are so adamant about the internet blowing this charge out of porportion. Why? Because many people are saying he beat his wife. I see no evidence of this.
-Why does it matter if he hit the alleged victim or threw something at her? Yes, but posters in this thread have been alleging he beat his wife. There is no evidence of this. People are extrapolating the DV charge to an extreme extent and assuming he beat her, without any knowledge of the facts. My issue is with these overreactions and assumptions.
-You've said we don't know who the alleged victim is (i.e. wife, ex) but why does that matter? Because people assuming it was his wife are another example of vigilante morons getting ahead of themselves.

Now I have no doubt you'll continue grasping at straws as well as hiding behind your laughing smiley and repeated use of the word "pathetic" almost in an effort to convince yourself that you're not wrong. You refuse to admit that there's the slightest possibly you're wrong without offering anything other than the "you guys just don't get it" defense. It's almost like arguing with Paul himself.

I'm already angry at myself for seriously responding to you.

If you'd have put as much effort into understanding my perspective as you did writing a paragraph of laughably limp waffle, you would never have needed to waste your time.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Can someone please tell me what is going on? 70 pages is too much to get through right now

Can't believe I read through all these pages, or at least scanned through most. Basically to sum up.

- Dude acts like a total prick to a customer, Penny Arcade gets involved, dude gets what he deserves

- Guy turns out to be a roid rager and all kinds of other shit

- Maker of control damage controls the situation before their whole company gets brought down

- Random white knighters want to complain that the guy faced consequences to his actions

And after all of this, apparently the guy isn't actually contrite or actually getting he was in the wrong, so he deserves anything he gets for acting like a dick.

Also another thought, for me and the rest of the 99%, it makes me sick that this guy somehow had a fairly lucrative (it appears) marketing position with basically no understanding of the English language. The former marketing company made it clear that it seems like the controller maker had delusions of grandeur about trying to make some money getting this supported in stores, and also in the past marketed it as a turbo controller for pros, and not the handicap. Sounds like they're as much to blame for the damage they've taken as well for bringing this guy on without due diligence and their head in the sand over promises.

Either way, the guy's 15 minutes of fame are about up, and he had to deal with his family now.

To add:

- Paul gives subsequent interviews, appears to be remoreless, gives half apologies, contradicts himself, and swings wildly between "I'm sorry I didn't know the guy I bullied was important" and "Fuck everyone, I'm awesome, I'm the victim!"
- New PR guy for Avenger comes on, does awesome job, sets up AMA Reddit
- New PR guy reveals that Paul is holding company domain, email, website hostage, tries to negotiate with Paul, Paul says "you're a nice guy, but fuck you" (basically)
- New PR guy shuts Paul's blackmail down

The Saga Continues

He also made a AMA reddit which went poorly.

---

Kermit, he beat a woman. Ok, so it wasn't his wife, it was likely his girlfriend at the time. Even if it weren't, how does this make him look better? It's another piece of evidence against his character.

 

[Kermit The Dog]

Kermit, he beat a woman.

Did he? Where's the evidence for that?

All I see is a general DV charge. I agree that simply having a DV is a slight of his character, but people assuming he beat her embodies the presumptuous, hyperbolic nature of internet vigilantism.

 

[Jive Turkey]

The point is Kermit there was apparently sufficent evidence to have the charge filed. It doesn't matter if he allegedly slugged her, hit her with a car, or threw a sandwich at her. It's all assult. It also doesn't matter who the alleged victim is. Girlfriend, wife, or roommate.

And as an aside: Are you capable of posing an argument without insults? A truly telling characteristic you have there.

EDIT: Shit you goaded me again. I really do have nothing left to say to you.

 

[CatPee]

Did he? Where's the evidence for that?

All I see is a general DV charge. I agree that simply having a DV is a slight of his character, but people assuming he beat her embodies the presumptuous, hyperbolic nature of internet vigilantism.

I dunno man, there's a reason why the charge is called Domestic Violence and not Domestic Very-Gentle-Throwing.

 

[Kermit The Dog]

The point is Kermit there was apparently sufficent evidence to have the charge filed. It doesn't matter if he allegedly slugged her, hit her with a car, or threw a sandwich at her. It's all assult. It also doesn't matter who the alleged victim is. Girlfriend, wife, or roommate.

EDIT: Shit you goaded me again. I really do have nothing left to say to you.

I dunno man, there's a reason why the charge is called Domestic Violence and not Domestic Very-Gentle-Throwing.

You both miss the point again. The definition of DV and types of assault it covers is an aside. My issue is with the idiots that presumed from a DV charge that he beat his wife. I believe it indicative of this internet vigilante thing. Nothing more.

And as an aside: Are you capable of posing an argument without insults? A truely telling characteristic you have there.

I am, and I did, even in that post same post in which I replied to your queries. You attempted to get personal and I responded in an impersonal fashion.

 

[scy]

Did he? Where's the evidence for that?

All I see is a general DV charge. I agree that simply having a DV is a slight of his character, but people assuming he beat her embodies the presumptuous, hyperbolic nature of internet vigilantism.

Semantics, I'd say; would you have been fine with "assaulted" instead of "beat"? It's the same thing that most of us were going for in the phrasing. That he harmed her in some manner fitting of a DV charge.

If I remember the story correctly, Paul claims his (ex)-girlfriend was crazy but he needed a place to live and was staying with her still. Some shenanigans occurred and then he got the DV charge. Details are a bit loose in my mind so I wouldn't quote me on this being the exacts of it.

You both miss the point again. The definition of DV and types of assault it covers is an aside. My issue is with the idiots that presumed from a DV charge that he beat his wife. I believe it indicative of this internet vigilante thing. Nothing more.

The wife part is a misunderstanding since a lot of people didn't look up the story; just sort of know he's married, has a DV charge, and so it gets to be 1 + 1 = wife beating. And "beat" is a generic catch all here for assaulting, or at least that's how I'm familiar with the usage. I am from Texas, however, so maybe that's just me being odd :/

 

[Zertez]

Most states there needs to be evidence of an assault before they will charge you with DV. No idea if he beat her, but by the charges she must have had some type of visible trauma. Given his track record with the unwarranted rage over an email and admitted steroid usage, doubtful most will give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he isnt guilty of DV.

 

[RoninChaos]

I haven't taken a side at all.

C'mon, son.

 

[elrechazado]

More defender bumps, this thread keeps on giving. Now because a DV charge doesn't carry an implication of violence!

 

[Parallax Scroll]

You both miss the point again. The definition of DV and types of assault it covers is an aside. My issue is with the idiots that presumed from a DV charge that he beat his wife. I believe it indicative of this internet vigilante thing. Nothing more.

how do you know they are idiots

 

[thcsquad]

Did he? Where's the evidence for that?

All I see is a general DV charge. I agree that simply having a DV is a slight of his character, but people assuming he beat her embodies the presumptuous, hyperbolic nature of internet vigilantism.

Ask anybody on the street in generic terms what domestic violence means, and I'd be willing to bet money that 'beat' will be the primary verb in most of your answers.

You're taking the appearance of this common assumption and reading what you want from it: that it's internet nerds butthurt from high school intentionally blowing it up to make the macho-looking guy look bad!

 

[Kermit The Dog]

Semantics, I'd say; would you have been fine with "assaulted" instead of "beat"? It's the same thing that most of us were going for in the phrasing. That he harmed her in some manner fitting of a DV charge.

Yep, as long as they put allegedly in there as well, because it never went any further, right?

Also, cheers for being reasonable and sensible after our little back and forth a few days ago. Respect.

 

[br0ken_shad0w]

If anything, internet justice was nowhere near as bad as what happened to Adam Goldstein:

Since the beginning of the raid Adam has been trolled through the following methods:

1) Constant phone calls to his home, cell, and place of business

2) Black Fax copies that have successfully murdered his home and business fax ink.

3) His personal website has been shut down.

4) The Provider of his website has been shut down.

5) Misc. Porn mags are now being delivered to his home.

6) Has had dead animals thrown at his house (evidence: testimony by Adam on phone)

7) over 9000 Pornstars contacted to meet at his home.

8) Myspace account hacked/shut down.

9) Local pizza parlors delivering tomorrow morning and afternoon.

10) At least 25,000 UPS boxes shipped to his home and place of business for the next 4-12 weeks.

11) 2000 sq ft of maple hardwood samples sent to his home.

12) Condoms & Lube for the next 4 - 6 weeks.

13) Bibles, Korans, and Jehovas Witnesses scheduled to come by his office.

14) Various free samples/products/literature/brochures addressed to his home.

15) Gay Newsletters.

16) Constant harassment and billing charges due to excessive cell phone messages.

17) Streams of Islamic bibles and DVDs with conversion tips have been constantly shipped.

18) Male prostitutes have been sent.

19) Posters of H1N1 virus posted around his house.

20) Posters calling him a child molester have been posted around his house.

21) 2 sites down

22) Thousands of postcards and 24hr information hotline for his home phone.

 

[Jive Turkey]

how do you know they are idiots

They must be. Kermit doesn't deal in insults.

 

[elrechazado]

If anything, internet justice was nowhere near as bad as what happened to Adam Goldstein:

Some of that sounds great actually. I could use some hardwood flooring.

They must be. Kermit doesn't deal in insults.

He's pure and nuanced in his discussions. If he calls someone an idiot, that's not at all part of "this internet vigilante thing".