Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
samoth said:
hahaha
ok be honest bitches - did any of you take that players guide thing seriously?
- Thread starter GoldenDelicious
- Start date
hahaha
B
BrothaBill
Guest
samoth said:
I just hope more people post links to wikipedia in the future
I got told that I could be charged with vandalism lol, gimme a break, when you can make fun of an article and make it sound more truthful than the original content means the person writing it doesnt know what they are talking about. Wikipedia is a joke lol
BrothaBill said:I just hope more people post links to wikipedia in the future
I got told that I could be charged with vandalism lol, gimme a break, when you can make fun of an article and make it sound more truthful than the original content means the person writing it doesnt know what they are talking about. Wikipedia is a joke lol
This isn't wikipedia, per se. It's xoxohth's personal wiki.
XOXO'ers don't really like wikipedia; see
http://www.xoxohth.com/wiki/index.php/Wikipedia
and especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Xoxohth (lol!)
B
BrothaBill
Guest
samoth said:This isn't wikipedia, per se. It's xoxohth's personal wiki.
XOXO'ers don't really like wikipedia; see
http://www.xoxohth.com/wiki/index.php/Wikipedia
and especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Xoxohth (lol!)
lol, Ok, makes sense. Wikipedia still sucks bad with alot of problems and the articles are shit and people still read them like they mean something.
It started out as a good idea but really, there has to be an elite screening process.
The stuff is just ridiculous and getting rid of them b/c they dont like or agree with you just contributes to the problem
Fucking with UT law profs is another extra curricular for XOXO board goers:
http://www.autoadmit.com/leiter.html
Law Prof's response:
Penn Law Student, Anthony Ciolli, Admits to Running Prelaw Discussion Board Awash in Racist, Anti-Semitic, Sexist Abuse
...
There appear to be, for example, roughly 250 threads with the word "nigger" in the subject line (double that number if you include "blacks"), including an average of 1 or 2 such threads every single day for the last couple of months! Contrast that with a mere 150 threads discussing "UCLA" and only 100+ on "clerkships" and "Georgetown", all topics one might have expected to command as much or more attention on a prelaw discussion board than racist abuse.
There are, in addition, some 350 threads about Jews, and while some are benign, the majority appear to be of the variety "Are Jews Smarter, or Just Craftier?" and "Did jew bitches give blowjobs in Auschwitz for the protein?," the latter of which introduces another feature of the site perhaps even more prevalent than the racism and anti-semitism, its vulgar and abusive sexism, evident, for example, in the more than 300 threads about "bitches" and another nearly 300 with "cunt" in the subject line, not to mention dozens of links to pornographic sites. (This just scratches the surface of the sexist abuse on the site, as perusal of a single day's threads will reveal.) And the racism, anti-semitism, and sexism wouldn't be complete, of course, without abusive remarks about homosexual men, as in the 200+ threads about "fags."
Messrs. Ciolli and Cohen's response to these facts: "We are very strong believers in the freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas. This is why we allow off-topic discussion and almost never censor content, no matter how abhorrent it may be." True enough, this is all constitutionally protected speech, but that isn't the issue, since Messrs. Ciolli and Cohen are not the state. My commitment to the "marketplace of ideas" doesn't require me to turn my blog over to racist psychopaths once a month, nor does it require a Penn law student to run a web site which is littered with the kind of garbage noted above. As Eugene Volokh (Law, UCLA) remarked in publicizing the racism and anti-semitism on the site:
Nongovernmental entities may and often should do things that the government may not; and their ethical rights and obligations are often more complex and context-sensitive than what we'd expect from the law.
Also, if the discussion board decided to filter out rude statements in order to make the discussions more valuable, or even to filter out evil ideas because they don't want their property used to promulgate such ideas, I wouldn't object: I think they're ethically entitled to do this, and there's no reason to condemn them for it.
Put aside ethical obligations, and let's just consider good taste and decency: how hard can it be for Messrs. Ciolli and Cohen to delete all the threads with certain words? And if they did that a few times, no doubt the infantile morons responsible for most of this garbage would give up and go elsewhere.
The Ciolli/Cohen discussion board styles itself, somewhat comically, as "the most prestigious prelaw discussion board in the world," but it is so "prestigious" that everyone posts anonymously, and for obvious reasons. (It is curious the faith people have in anonymity on the Internet: the identity of the most vile racists on that board is roughly two subpoenas away from discovery, and the consequences for, e.g., employment prospects and bar admission [where judgment and maturity are relevant factors pertaining to "fitness" to practice law] could be serious if these folks were "outed.")
It is hard to tell what volume of traffic the site actually gets: one may hope, not much! My blog, for example, gets nearly double the volume of hits from this prelaw discussion site than from the Ciolli/Cohen board (and in both cases we are talking just a few hundred hits per month), which is some hopeful evidence that other prelaw sites command more of the market for prospective and current law students. I give Messrs. Ciolli and Cohen real credit for owning up to their responsibility for this travesty, even if they have been pretending, to date, that their failure to supervise the content of the site somehow contributes to the quality of "discussion." It is striking, as one correspondent pointed out to me, that one doesn't see the same amount of racist, sexist, and anti-semitic garbage on sites frequented by aspiring graduate students in philosophy or other disciplines (even at the Ciolli/Cohen board). For the sake of the reputation of law students, let's hope that in the wake of the unflattering publicity given the Ciolli/Cohen site by Professor Volokh (and now this blog), that they will "clean up their act."
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/penn_law_studen.html
http://www.autoadmit.com/leiter.html
Law Prof's response:
Penn Law Student, Anthony Ciolli, Admits to Running Prelaw Discussion Board Awash in Racist, Anti-Semitic, Sexist Abuse
...
There appear to be, for example, roughly 250 threads with the word "nigger" in the subject line (double that number if you include "blacks"), including an average of 1 or 2 such threads every single day for the last couple of months! Contrast that with a mere 150 threads discussing "UCLA" and only 100+ on "clerkships" and "Georgetown", all topics one might have expected to command as much or more attention on a prelaw discussion board than racist abuse.
There are, in addition, some 350 threads about Jews, and while some are benign, the majority appear to be of the variety "Are Jews Smarter, or Just Craftier?" and "Did jew bitches give blowjobs in Auschwitz for the protein?," the latter of which introduces another feature of the site perhaps even more prevalent than the racism and anti-semitism, its vulgar and abusive sexism, evident, for example, in the more than 300 threads about "bitches" and another nearly 300 with "cunt" in the subject line, not to mention dozens of links to pornographic sites. (This just scratches the surface of the sexist abuse on the site, as perusal of a single day's threads will reveal.) And the racism, anti-semitism, and sexism wouldn't be complete, of course, without abusive remarks about homosexual men, as in the 200+ threads about "fags."
Messrs. Ciolli and Cohen's response to these facts: "We are very strong believers in the freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas. This is why we allow off-topic discussion and almost never censor content, no matter how abhorrent it may be." True enough, this is all constitutionally protected speech, but that isn't the issue, since Messrs. Ciolli and Cohen are not the state. My commitment to the "marketplace of ideas" doesn't require me to turn my blog over to racist psychopaths once a month, nor does it require a Penn law student to run a web site which is littered with the kind of garbage noted above. As Eugene Volokh (Law, UCLA) remarked in publicizing the racism and anti-semitism on the site:
Nongovernmental entities may and often should do things that the government may not; and their ethical rights and obligations are often more complex and context-sensitive than what we'd expect from the law.
Also, if the discussion board decided to filter out rude statements in order to make the discussions more valuable, or even to filter out evil ideas because they don't want their property used to promulgate such ideas, I wouldn't object: I think they're ethically entitled to do this, and there's no reason to condemn them for it.
Put aside ethical obligations, and let's just consider good taste and decency: how hard can it be for Messrs. Ciolli and Cohen to delete all the threads with certain words? And if they did that a few times, no doubt the infantile morons responsible for most of this garbage would give up and go elsewhere.
The Ciolli/Cohen discussion board styles itself, somewhat comically, as "the most prestigious prelaw discussion board in the world," but it is so "prestigious" that everyone posts anonymously, and for obvious reasons. (It is curious the faith people have in anonymity on the Internet: the identity of the most vile racists on that board is roughly two subpoenas away from discovery, and the consequences for, e.g., employment prospects and bar admission [where judgment and maturity are relevant factors pertaining to "fitness" to practice law] could be serious if these folks were "outed.")
It is hard to tell what volume of traffic the site actually gets: one may hope, not much! My blog, for example, gets nearly double the volume of hits from this prelaw discussion site than from the Ciolli/Cohen board (and in both cases we are talking just a few hundred hits per month), which is some hopeful evidence that other prelaw sites command more of the market for prospective and current law students. I give Messrs. Ciolli and Cohen real credit for owning up to their responsibility for this travesty, even if they have been pretending, to date, that their failure to supervise the content of the site somehow contributes to the quality of "discussion." It is striking, as one correspondent pointed out to me, that one doesn't see the same amount of racist, sexist, and anti-semitic garbage on sites frequented by aspiring graduate students in philosophy or other disciplines (even at the Ciolli/Cohen board). For the sake of the reputation of law students, let's hope that in the wake of the unflattering publicity given the Ciolli/Cohen site by Professor Volokh (and now this blog), that they will "clean up their act."
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/penn_law_studen.html
B
BrothaBill
Guest
hmmm, that doesnt smell right at all
Similar threads
