Gamer Girls

You can see her article here:

https://retrobitch.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/reinvestigating-polybius-with-2015-update/

I don’t really understand it.  She wants credit for articles that other people wrote?  Who cares if you found an old article?  That doesn’t mean that the article belongs to you now.  

Then she wants credit for a theory that she had.  You can’t plagiarise a theory.  

My theory is that the boys on Reddit don’t like the Screenwave crew because the Reddit boys are catty homosexuals who don’t like bears.  So now whenever anybody says that the guys on that sub-reddit are a bunch of faggots, they’re supposed to cite me as a reference?  It’s ridiculous.  

Then she talks about more research that she did and wasn’t credited for.

She says that multiple people were “plagiarised” against in that video.  That’s fucking research.  When you compile information from more than one source, that’s research and it’s new material.  

It’s the same thing that she did.  She compiled work that other people did and presented it as her own work.  That’s how this operates.  

Maybe Jimmy Rolfe and/or the Screenwave Bunch could have listed their sources in the description of the video.  But this isn’t a scholarly article in an academic journal.  It’s a shitty Youtube video.  And I don’t even know if it would be required to cite this stuff in an academic sense.  

It’s just the boys on Reddit trying to stir up trouble like the camp drama queens they are.  And then this very peculiar woman uses it as an excuse for self-promotion.  

The Monster Madness stuff was a much stronger case for plagiarism.

https://gamergrrlsofficial.blogspot.com/2021/10/reddits-homosexual-campaign-to-get-newt.html

The video uses exact phrases from a movie review.  The movie review in question is clearly the writer’s own opinion and work and therefore it’s their intellectual property.  

But research?  Research where you’re just collating other people’s work?  That’s much more nebulous.  Is she presenting anything original?  She says something about Tempest being confused for Polybius is her own theory.  Well, okay.  So now any time that somebody says, “Polybius was probably just confused for Tempest”, they have to cite her?  It’s stupid.  Nobody is going to do that.

As I said, I don’t even think that this stuff would need to be cited in an academic context.  So why would the standards be higher for a shitty Youtube video?  

Let me go back to this Monster Madness thing.  It seems like obvious plagiarism and it shouldn’t have happened.  Let’s assume that it was 100% Newt, which I’m not even sure if it was.  

If it was Newt, he must have had too much to do.  Because why else would you just rip stuff off wholesale from some old review?  Maybe he just didn’t give a shit, possibly because he wasn’t getting paid enough.

But it’s not an academic or a legal or a moral issue for me.  If Newt considers himself to be a writer, which I think he does, why would he just rip somebody else’s work off?  Why wouldn’t he have enough pride in his own work to think that he could do a better job than whatever he’s ripping off?  It’s a fucking movie review.  What do you like about it?  What do you dislike about it?

And that brings in the whole weird dynamic that he’s writing a review for somebody else.  How can Newt write a movie review for Jimmy Rolfe?  Newt doesn’t know what Jimmy liked or didn’t like about the movie.  Jimmy didn’t even see the fucking movie.  None of it makes sense.

Now that I think about it, when Roger Ebert was in his dying days, he brought in a crew of writers to do movie reviews for his website.  The people were all properly credited but it was all under the umbrella of Roger Ebert.  Like these were somehow supposed to be substitutes for Ebert’s reviews.  

Nobody went for it.  They were trying to turn Roger Ebert into some kind of brand.  Are they still doing this?

https://www.rogerebert.com/

Yeah, they are.  Ebert has been dead for years but he’s still reviewing movies.  Kind of.  Brian Tallerico reviewed the recent Halloween movie.  

Why is Brian Tallerico writing on rogerebert.com instead of briantallerico.com?  

They have a bunch of people who you’ve never heard of writing these movie reviews.  What’s the point?  I don’t value the opinion of Odie Henderson.  I don’t know anything about him.  Maybe he has good opinions but how do I know?  

It’s a similar thing to this Monster Madness, I suppose, but more honest.  At least on RogerEbert dot com, the writers are given credit.  With Monster Madness, it’s Jimmy Rolfe pretending that he wrote all of these reviews.  I don’t know if that’s plagiarism but it’s clearly dishonest.  And he does the same thing with the AVGN videos.  I saw one video where somebody got writing credit.  For everything else, nothing.  

This is how it’s been from the start.  Mike wrote loads of AVGN episodes.  Maybe all of them.  Who can say?  It was just Jimmy Rolfe taking credit for all of them.  

James Rolfe is an autistic fucking retard.  He’s not capable of doing this stuff.  He’s a complete puppet.  But Mike profited off of him and now Screenwave are profiting off of him.  So it works for everyone, I guess.  Jimmy gets some money and all of the credit and Mike owned the fucking channel so he presumably was making money off of this.  And now I think Screenwave own the channel so they’re making money off of this.  

And thinking about this situation, Jimmy is happy to take all of the credit for other people’s work but he refuses to take any of the blame.  Some faggots on Reddit start causing problems?  Newt’s out the door.  

I suppose that you can’t expect too much from an autist retard but still…the whole situation with Jimmy Rolfe is creepy as fuck.  People manipulating an autistic man for financial gain.