taking that guy seriously is a really great example of how desperate things have gotten out there.

Devin, can you provide concrete, actionable evidence, admissible in a court of justice that "that guy" is wrong with the core points of his article?

Hey, let's apply the same standard of evidence you've been demanding from others to your post! Can you provide evidence that's admissible in a court of justice that support the core points of the article?

The evidence is in the article. He displays emails in their entirety that talk about members of the press colluding on coverage. That's admissible in a court of law.

Here are more emails[0].

It's put up or shut up time. Either you're going to provide a thorough counter of the evidence provided or everybody will know exactly what you are: a liar.

[0]: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/18/the-emails-that-p...

Applying the same standard of evidence to my others does in no way, shape or form solve your problem of providing evidence that's admissible in a court of justice that support the core points of the article? Since the Sarkeesians, Van Valkenburgs and Flynts of this world started out with claiming GG harrassment (and are profiting handsomely from it), it behooves them and their supporters to come up with evidence first.

He provides links to facts and actual emails. What do you provide, besides indignation?

Yeah, and in the adult world we call that article "making a mountain out of a molehill" and "fabricating evidence by selective reading".

What's the conclusion? That video game journalists are secretly colluding to push an agenda? That's just about the most penny-ante conspiracy theory imaginable. That the evidence is selectively excerpting emails from a professional mailing list (that from what I've been able to discover wasn't exactly a secret) is pretty petty.

Enlighten us, then. What parts do you think were fabricated? If you can provide proof (and by that I mean logical proof or physical proof) then I will change my mind. I just haven't seen any yet.

Argument by personal incredulity.