Forums / Discussion / General

235,091 total conversations in 7,818 threads

+ New Thread


Locked Locked
GamerGate Thread

Last posted Jul 21, 2021 at 02:24PM EDT. Added Jul 26, 2015 at 06:48PM EDT
4603 posts from 222 users

The Ultimate Paragon wrote:

Honestly, I think they've reached their high water mark. These people going to the UN and asking that their critics be censored is gonna get them a lot of negative attention. Once word of this gets out, reaches a wider audience, the days of SocJus are numbered.

It's all downhill from here.

Sadly, I think people are dumb enough to just listen and believe

For those who didn't catch Arthur Chu's article on the UN shabang, you can read it here

"I'm not calling for a new law to be passed or a new agency to be created. I’m calling for a law to be repealed. I’m not calling for Internet users to be singled out. I’m calling for the Internet to not be singled out, for the artificial and stupid shield between the Internet and the “real world” that enables the Internet to be a lawyer-free zone and thus a massive unaccountable sewer of abuse to be torn down."

Ken White counters with his own article Arthur Chu Would Like To Make Lawyers Richer and You Quieter and Poorer

"He wants to be able to punish any site on which they post. He wants people to be able to sue Facebook, or Twitter, or any web site on the internet based on what visitors post there."

Last edited Oct 01, 2015 at 12:39PM EDT

Does anyone here actually take the UN report seriously? After doing my research I don't, and I don't think anyone in power does.

Everyone harps on the un citing jack thompson or thwt satanic one, but there's other problems. One source for this report is simply titled c-drive, for example. There are multiple double sources ((one source listed twice)), some sources which cite individuals without mentioning their actual works sourced, others citing works that do not exist.

All of this to me points to a simple fact. This isn't the UN listening to these speakers and caring about cyberviolence. This is the UN doing what is essentially a publicity stunt, most likely to appear to be doing something as the european, african, and middle eastern countries deal with more real issues such as destabilization and mass migration.

It's just that article above seemed to take the un report as some serious sign that censorship was coming. From whwt I see, its actually just condescending rhetoric to everyone, gamers and feminists.

Black Graphic T wrote:

Does anyone here actually take the UN report seriously? After doing my research I don't, and I don't think anyone in power does.

Everyone harps on the un citing jack thompson or thwt satanic one, but there's other problems. One source for this report is simply titled c-drive, for example. There are multiple double sources ((one source listed twice)), some sources which cite individuals without mentioning their actual works sourced, others citing works that do not exist.

All of this to me points to a simple fact. This isn't the UN listening to these speakers and caring about cyberviolence. This is the UN doing what is essentially a publicity stunt, most likely to appear to be doing something as the european, african, and middle eastern countries deal with more real issues such as destabilization and mass migration.

It's just that article above seemed to take the un report as some serious sign that censorship was coming. From whwt I see, its actually just condescending rhetoric to everyone, gamers and feminists.

Well, I for one hold it to the same great esteem as the old Jack Chick comics and angry soccer moms.

You know what really bugs me about the whole "Sarkeesian and Quinn go to the UN" thing? They basically are making it sound like women in general are these "weak and fragile little things you must coddle or else they will break." Yeah basically it sounds like they're just undermining the struggles of feminists in the past who worked to ensure that not all women are treated as fragile pieces of super thin glass that will break the moment they're touched either physically or emotionally. Do they not remember how big of a deal "Rosie the Riveter" was and how women the next few decades struggled to ensure they could indeed work hard labor jobs like they did during WW2? (during the years following WW2 the "happy housewife" image became more common and it took a while for women to once again be more readily accepted into these fields, because the common belief was "well now that the menfolk aren't off fighting the nazis anymore lets just revert back to an older way of living")

If you want women to be treated as equals, you don't treat all women like they're an emotional and physical wreck that literally cannot handle the world at large.

Sorry that this little rant isn't entirely GG related aside from bringing up Sarkeesian and Quinn's recent goings on, but I really felt like I needed to say this.

Well now there's more Gamergate and Zoe postings after the shooting in Oregon.

Last edited Oct 01, 2015 at 06:28PM EDT

NightmareNear wrote:

Well now there's more Gamergate and Zoe postings after the shooting in Oregon.

It's stuff like this that makes me question if Quinn has some twisted form of narcissism or is a full blown sociopath.

Black Graphic T wrote:

Does anyone here actually take the UN report seriously? After doing my research I don't, and I don't think anyone in power does.

Everyone harps on the un citing jack thompson or thwt satanic one, but there's other problems. One source for this report is simply titled c-drive, for example. There are multiple double sources ((one source listed twice)), some sources which cite individuals without mentioning their actual works sourced, others citing works that do not exist.

All of this to me points to a simple fact. This isn't the UN listening to these speakers and caring about cyberviolence. This is the UN doing what is essentially a publicity stunt, most likely to appear to be doing something as the european, african, and middle eastern countries deal with more real issues such as destabilization and mass migration.

It's just that article above seemed to take the un report as some serious sign that censorship was coming. From whwt I see, its actually just condescending rhetoric to everyone, gamers and feminists.

The thing is, people in power have been trying to control the internet for a long time. Does anybody in power feel like censoring the internet because Anita was called a liar? Of course not.

Do a lot of people in power think "protecting women from cyberviolence" sounds like a good excuse to hobble the internet's ability to bypass the MSM and make their corporations obsolete? Of course.

The real issue here is that this provides an excuse for the Islamist brigade to crackdown on disrespecting Mohammad, Russia to ban criticism of Putin, China to legitimize their Great Firewall, and the western nations to censor anything inconvenient.

Now that was scrapped by a bunch of people quickly destroying any credibility the report had by exposing exactly how bad it is, but if we didn't then who knows how far it could have gotten?


@TheGamerGrim

It’s stuff like this that makes me question if Quinn has some twisted form of narcissism or is a full blown sociopath.

Last edited Oct 01, 2015 at 07:56PM EDT

TheGamerGrim wrote:

It's stuff like this that makes me question if Quinn has some twisted form of narcissism or is a full blown sociopath.

Why not both?

So, I don't normally post in here (hi everybody!), but yesterday, the news article on The Escapist regarding the internal turmoil of Roberts' team over at Star Citizen had me wondering.
My boyfriend brought this to my attention. He's not a GamerGate supporter, but he did say that certain things about the Escapist mag not being very honest about their recent coverage (9 employees speaking out against CR).
Unfortunately I neither know all of the details nor the implications, but it seems like the Escapist had interviewed a few employees abandoning ship that are now telling how horrible the working conditions really are under Roberts' heels. Yet, as everybody couldn't help but notice a very familiar tone/language throughout their report (Derek Smart might have had a hand in it since he seems so bent to destroy RSI), the Escapist denied any involvement of Derek Smart beforehand, which, considering the circumstances is a bit suspicious. We ARE talking about Derek Smart after all, the notorious angry loudmouthed individual who can't take any criticism and needs his soapbox (when it comes to SC at least).
We all know that Smart is in some kind of crusade against RSI and Roberts and goes to extreme lengths to discredit and defame the studio to the point of obsessive lunacy. During the last few weeks, he has constantly instigated sh*tstorms, meaning the Star Citizen crew couldn't possibly hold together like that, the mismanagement of the backers' money, saying Roberts' leadership would sink this ship so hard while all his employees would turn their backs on his ambitious project.
His rantings range from everywhere between sane and insane, but lately it seems he kinda hits the mark more often than not. Something is definitely going on over at RSI. The forums are packed with controversy.
But I now wanna ask around if anyone can give me a good summary of the whole Escapist shebang that has been going on, because the forum members at the RSI forums are fuming right now at their article (Lizzy F was the author), seeing as they think that both parties are somehow conspiring against Chris Roberts and his team to bring him down via defamation.
Maybe this is something that is worth keeping one's eyes fixed on?
(sorry for the long post)

TheGamerGrim wrote:

For those who didn't catch Arthur Chu's article on the UN shabang, you can read it here

"I'm not calling for a new law to be passed or a new agency to be created. I’m calling for a law to be repealed. I’m not calling for Internet users to be singled out. I’m calling for the Internet to not be singled out, for the artificial and stupid shield between the Internet and the “real world” that enables the Internet to be a lawyer-free zone and thus a massive unaccountable sewer of abuse to be torn down."

Ken White counters with his own article Arthur Chu Would Like To Make Lawyers Richer and You Quieter and Poorer

"He wants to be able to punish any site on which they post. He wants people to be able to sue Facebook, or Twitter, or any web site on the internet based on what visitors post there."

because that won't grind the economy to a halt with red tape. remember sopa?

NightmareNear wrote:

Well looks like Funimation is backpedaling now.


And then there's this:


As the most recent South Park episode has shown us, SJWs do not give a damn about actual people in need. They only care about making themselves look good.

@NightmareNear

Funimation:

Piss off GamerGate, infuriate Otaku (i.e. The people paying for your product), all so you can pander to these people:

That's genius Funimation, sheer genius.


UN #CyberViolence report:

InB4 "GlabityGargle censored Zoe & Anita!!111!!11!".

Hrom wrote:

As the most recent South Park episode has shown us, SJWs do not give a damn about actual people in need. They only care about making themselves look good.

and getting a whole foods.

Bookie wrote:

The thing is, people in power have been trying to control the internet for a long time. Does anybody in power feel like censoring the internet because Anita was called a liar? Of course not.

Do a lot of people in power think "protecting women from cyberviolence" sounds like a good excuse to hobble the internet's ability to bypass the MSM and make their corporations obsolete? Of course.

The real issue here is that this provides an excuse for the Islamist brigade to crackdown on disrespecting Mohammad, Russia to ban criticism of Putin, China to legitimize their Great Firewall, and the western nations to censor anything inconvenient.

Now that was scrapped by a bunch of people quickly destroying any credibility the report had by exposing exactly how bad it is, but if we didn't then who knows how far it could have gotten?


@TheGamerGrim

It’s stuff like this that makes me question if Quinn has some twisted form of narcissism or is a full blown sociopath.

the UN wants power and has the means to obtain power, but given that they were using hilariously outdated source material only one source even existing and one being linked to zoe quinn's hard drive, and the spectacular failure of heforshe (~250000 signatures out of a goal of one billion 1/40th of a percent of their target) I wouldn't be too worried about regular people taking them seriously. they failed at grabbing hearts and minds. same weak point as always.
but don't get complacent those in power still love to quote the UN and when they see the UN condemn free speech it could have ramifications as politicians and businesses use the study to censor what they don't like. this may be a laughing stock as far as studies go but I've seen them quote ones almost this stupid if not as stupid. and a half dead snake can still strike. it will lend credence to not only existing regimes but ones to come.
also I've been looking for that pic. thanks

Hrom wrote:

Any idea of how we can seriously hurt the company?

For what reason, specifically? Are they spreading enough misinformation to warrant such a response? And how serious of a reaction is justified? Just enough for a public apology? Just enough to ensure pink slips are issued? Just enough to shut down the company so that they are no longer able to issue any statements?

Listen, I try my best to lurk rather than judge, because, hey, nobody's perfect, myself especially. But, unsurprisingly, even I have limits to what I can attribute to differences in experiences, regardless of the issue or the commentator. There's a fine line between trying to deter an idea or behavior and holding in contempt those who slight you.

I sincerely want to believe both sides of this whole issue really do have strong views because of a desire to help rather than a desire to harm or a feeling of fear. But comments like this (from both sides) make me question why I'm bothering to keep up with the issue anymore. (Granted, it's rather egotistical to assume that my "subsription" to this issue is at all important to anyone, but I digress.)

Wambamsamman wrote:

the UN wants power and has the means to obtain power, but given that they were using hilariously outdated source material only one source even existing and one being linked to zoe quinn's hard drive, and the spectacular failure of heforshe (~250000 signatures out of a goal of one billion 1/40th of a percent of their target) I wouldn't be too worried about regular people taking them seriously. they failed at grabbing hearts and minds. same weak point as always.
but don't get complacent those in power still love to quote the UN and when they see the UN condemn free speech it could have ramifications as politicians and businesses use the study to censor what they don't like. this may be a laughing stock as far as studies go but I've seen them quote ones almost this stupid if not as stupid. and a half dead snake can still strike. it will lend credence to not only existing regimes but ones to come.
also I've been looking for that pic. thanks

The UN itself is less a problem than its member, thing with good intention were created but taken over by dictatorship. The organisation also need fucking reform (add new emergent power to security council, supress veto, etc…)
The main example is the human right council taken over by country like Sudan or Saudia Arabia and turn it into anti-blasphemy and antisemitic council.

Roy G. Biv wrote:

For what reason, specifically? Are they spreading enough misinformation to warrant such a response? And how serious of a reaction is justified? Just enough for a public apology? Just enough to ensure pink slips are issued? Just enough to shut down the company so that they are no longer able to issue any statements?

Listen, I try my best to lurk rather than judge, because, hey, nobody's perfect, myself especially. But, unsurprisingly, even I have limits to what I can attribute to differences in experiences, regardless of the issue or the commentator. There's a fine line between trying to deter an idea or behavior and holding in contempt those who slight you.

I sincerely want to believe both sides of this whole issue really do have strong views because of a desire to help rather than a desire to harm or a feeling of fear. But comments like this (from both sides) make me question why I'm bothering to keep up with the issue anymore. (Granted, it's rather egotistical to assume that my "subsription" to this issue is at all important to anyone, but I digress.)

I agree with this. My comment with Funi backpedaling was asking the writer and Marchi about Nyberg, and see how they would react to Nyberg's story.
Funimation itself terminated a Voice Actor named Scott Freeman this past July who was convicted on child porn charges.
Here's the story about Scott.

roberthaha wrote:

But then the mods will get upset.

Actually the gallery is full of images that arent even related about the subject.
Besides they have never talk about the gallery, only about the comment section.

@Horm

FUNimation is the only one who can decide how much damage they're going to take, Right now they've decided on "not as bad as 'Otaku are dead', but still massively painful".


@Roy G. Biv

It's funny you think this is "FUNimation vs. GamerGate", rather then "FUNimation vs. Otaku over GamerGate".

Remember how the Pokemon dub changed "rice ball" to "jelly donut"?

Remember how Otaku hated that?

Remember how Otaku are still carrying a grudge almost 2 decades later?

Now imagine it was Misty making some "Clinton murdered Vince Foster" claim and you've got a better idea of how this is.

Don't fuck with Otaku's little girl chinese cartoons.

Bookie wrote:

@Horm

FUNimation is the only one who can decide how much damage they're going to take, Right now they've decided on "not as bad as 'Otaku are dead', but still massively painful".


@Roy G. Biv

It's funny you think this is "FUNimation vs. GamerGate", rather then "FUNimation vs. Otaku over GamerGate".

Remember how the Pokemon dub changed "rice ball" to "jelly donut"?

Remember how Otaku hated that?

Remember how Otaku are still carrying a grudge almost 2 decades later?

Now imagine it was Misty making some "Clinton murdered Vince Foster" claim and you've got a better idea of how this is.

Don't fuck with Otaku's little girl chinese cartoons.

Well to be fair, I don't watch any anime at all, and that jelly donut thing was pretty stupid. I mean, I understood what rice balls were at age 10…

I think FUNimation just made a slipup in the way they handled the press release following the 'GG creeps' incident, and that was more the PR team's fault than anything. They should've paid more attention rather than shove out a cut and paste general response.

They have a history of not being very tolerant of their staff doing stupid shit (firing the pedophile), so maybe the writer who made that line can be fired if we pressure them that way. At least then the company doesn't feel dragged into a shitstorm from which there is no escape, because they won't do anything if that's the case.

Frenchy McFrog wrote:

The UN itself is less a problem than its member, thing with good intention were created but taken over by dictatorship. The organisation also need fucking reform (add new emergent power to security council, supress veto, etc…)
The main example is the human right council taken over by country like Sudan or Saudia Arabia and turn it into anti-blasphemy and antisemitic council.

yes. another example of the UN telling nations how to run themselves instead of their actual purpose of establishing diplomacy and keeping peace. as well as tpp and acta.
I also read that this meeting may be in violation of something called the "logan act" (at least for zoe quinn, as anita is canadian) which makes it illegal to meet with a foreign government in an attempt to get them to influence american policies.
https://www.change.org/p/federal-federal-bureau-of-investigation-urge-the-us-to-arrest-ms-anita-sarkeesian-and-ms-zoe-quinn-for-violating-the-logan-act

Well, just thought I should bring this up.

Opinions?
Mine is that this is really pathetic and somewhat unhelpful to us. I'm willing to bet though that Kotaku or some other "journalist" will leap on this and parade it around as though this is a big deal despite having less than 2k signatures at time of writing.

Last edited Oct 05, 2015 at 06:29AM EDT

A Delicious Cut of Roast Beef wrote:

Does Ralph even have a clue what fascism is? How the fuck can anything they do be categorized as fascist? They are as liberal as it gets.

Fascism is an ideology where government has complete power and all individuals are to submit to the rulership of the government and the individuals who run it via national and ethnic identity. Colloquially, fascism means any attempt to censor or otherwise give unopposed power to governments or institutions.

I would find that Anita and Zoe as individual are guilty of both definitions given that their report states that anything that so much as "inspires hatred" should be made illegal and wiped out by the government. Their work included the encouragement of government regulation of the internet, equated porn to female trafficking, and also equated criticism to directed harassment all in the name of protecting women's ethnic identity.

I'm not the biggest fan of Ralph, but I can safely say Ralph knows what facism is in both colloquial and actual dictionary definition. Unless of course you were being sarcastic but you should totally lay it on thick so everyone can know (or just use /s).

MrKillultra wrote:

Fascism is an ideology where government has complete power and all individuals are to submit to the rulership of the government and the individuals who run it via national and ethnic identity. Colloquially, fascism means any attempt to censor or otherwise give unopposed power to governments or institutions.

I would find that Anita and Zoe as individual are guilty of both definitions given that their report states that anything that so much as "inspires hatred" should be made illegal and wiped out by the government. Their work included the encouragement of government regulation of the internet, equated porn to female trafficking, and also equated criticism to directed harassment all in the name of protecting women's ethnic identity.

I'm not the biggest fan of Ralph, but I can safely say Ralph knows what facism is in both colloquial and actual dictionary definition. Unless of course you were being sarcastic but you should totally lay it on thick so everyone can know (or just use /s).

I understand that they want that kind of a system. So why would you use the word fascist? Fascism by definition is also extremely far right on the spectrum… if he wanted to say they just want to control everything then use the word 'tolitarian' or 'authoritarian', or even 'promoting censorship'. People throw around the fascism label like it's an insult. It's a godforsaken ideology, it doesn't how much you disagree with the person, their political leanings aren't an insult.

All I'm trying to say is that stuffing a buzzword like that in the title (yes, it's a buzzword when used like that) makes it needlessly inflammatory, when you could just say "Sarkeesian and Quinn's report gets taken down by UN". Go into details in the goddamn article, but don't have deliberately accusatory headlines like that. It's the same fucking thing we are fighting against in bad journalism. Ralph and Milo are miserable journos, but nobody calls them out because they are GG and they will write up a hitpiece on you if it comes to that.

I'm sorry that was a little long-winded, but I didn't make my point very well the first time, and I needed to go into detail about my stance on this.

A Delicious Cut of Roast Beef wrote:

I understand that they want that kind of a system. So why would you use the word fascist? Fascism by definition is also extremely far right on the spectrum… if he wanted to say they just want to control everything then use the word 'tolitarian' or 'authoritarian', or even 'promoting censorship'. People throw around the fascism label like it's an insult. It's a godforsaken ideology, it doesn't how much you disagree with the person, their political leanings aren't an insult.

All I'm trying to say is that stuffing a buzzword like that in the title (yes, it's a buzzword when used like that) makes it needlessly inflammatory, when you could just say "Sarkeesian and Quinn's report gets taken down by UN". Go into details in the goddamn article, but don't have deliberately accusatory headlines like that. It's the same fucking thing we are fighting against in bad journalism. Ralph and Milo are miserable journos, but nobody calls them out because they are GG and they will write up a hitpiece on you if it comes to that.

I'm sorry that was a little long-winded, but I didn't make my point very well the first time, and I needed to go into detail about my stance on this.

I don't see how calling a facist report facist count as an insult. If anything given what you've argued about using buzzwords, is that authoritarian and totalitarian (which by the way are synonyms for fascism) wouldn't help either because those are also buzzwords.

I think you just hate Ralph.

Last edited Oct 05, 2015 at 04:17PM EDT

Misk Wisk wrote:

Well, just thought I should bring this up.

Opinions?
Mine is that this is really pathetic and somewhat unhelpful to us. I'm willing to bet though that Kotaku or some other "journalist" will leap on this and parade it around as though this is a big deal despite having less than 2k signatures at time of writing.

Agreed. Not only is this not helping, but it's pointless in the long run.

MrKillultra wrote:

I don't see how calling a facist report facist count as an insult. If anything given what you've argued about using buzzwords, is that authoritarian and totalitarian (which by the way are synonyms for fascism) wouldn't help either because those are also buzzwords.

I think you just hate Ralph.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but using those other words I mentioned would also count as buzzwords in that way. So I don't mean that they are not and fascist is, that's not what I was trying to say. I say don't use ANY buzzwords at all in your titles, or anywhere if you can avoid. In this case, you can easily, I even gave an example as to how he could've done it.

They are not synonyms for fascism, they don't describe an ideology, they describe a method of ruling or controlling something. Fascism is a political ideology.

There are very few people I legitimately hate, and all of them I know personally. He's said stupid shit on the internet. I certainly don't like him, but I don't have enough of a reason to hate him.

Besides, what does it matter if I did or not? Does my opinion suddenly become null and void because I don't like the person I'm talking about? People love to harp on about Donald Trump, but does that make their voices irrelevant?

A Delicious Cut of Roast Beef wrote:

Maybe I wasn't clear, but using those other words I mentioned would also count as buzzwords in that way. So I don't mean that they are not and fascist is, that's not what I was trying to say. I say don't use ANY buzzwords at all in your titles, or anywhere if you can avoid. In this case, you can easily, I even gave an example as to how he could've done it.

They are not synonyms for fascism, they don't describe an ideology, they describe a method of ruling or controlling something. Fascism is a political ideology.

There are very few people I legitimately hate, and all of them I know personally. He's said stupid shit on the internet. I certainly don't like him, but I don't have enough of a reason to hate him.

Besides, what does it matter if I did or not? Does my opinion suddenly become null and void because I don't like the person I'm talking about? People love to harp on about Donald Trump, but does that make their voices irrelevant?

"an important-sounding usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning used chiefly to impress laymen" – Buzzword

My point is that using a word when it qualifies doesn't count as a buzzword. Facism in this context is not a buzzword because facism is being used correctly and not superficially. Do note that neither of the two is called facist so only the report which as I have shown, is fascist.

I'm pretty sure we just disagree on what constitutes a buzzword.

"Does my opinion suddenly become null and void because I don’t like the person I’m talking about? "

Of course not but it means you do have to take into account biases and be sure to doublecheck and makes sure you aren't just angry because you hate the person and not what they did. I just don't find Ralph's use of the word facist anything to write about here because its well within its definition even beyond superficiality. I think you should have picked a more inappropriate use of fascism or a pointless use of buzzwords.

I can't find any inappropriate use of the word fascism but I can find a worse headline in the front page "Blowey Zoe Quinn Backs Away From UN Report She Just Got Through Endorsing". Emphasis on the word blowey which has no actual dictionary definition and seems to be there only to call Zoe Quinn someone who gives blow jobs. Why not use this example? Why get offended at a politically charged word that was used properly? A headline is supposed to show the contents of article and make you want to read it by presenting the items that reader may find interesting. Buzzwords are bad because they lie about the contents of the article. In this case the headline you suggested isn't very good “Sarkeesian and Quinn’s report gets taken down by UN” doesn't give the reader any reason to read the article because the headline says everything and it doesn't suggest scandal or negative reaction to the report by the public (both of which were large parts of the article).

TL;DR Oh well I think we should get agree to disagree, its not like I don't think Ralph is a terrible journalist. It's just that I think there are worse headlines he's made and that his use of "facist report" isn't really that bad compared to "blowey". Clickbait is unfortunately the norm these days.

Ben Kuchera write a shitty hit piece on Shenmue 3 as his opinion.
Keep the narrative that Sony is making the game and that Yu Suzuki is asking for money for no reason.
Even when Sony told what it is his role.

The best quote from this.
That's what happens when you only give three times a game's target on Kickstarter: You get told that the team is going to need more. Of course, we don't actually know how much money the team has, since the Kickstarter isn't the only source of funds for the game.

Where were all this people that are so "concerned" about Shenmue 3 when Broken Age's mismanagement by DoubleFine happened?

When Tim Schafer asked for 400 000 bucks, then got over 3 millions and still run out of money.

Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

This thread was locked by an administrator.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Howdy! You must login or signup first!