I’d also like to add— to illustrate my point about the differences between the industry and corporate america— that comment was written on my work laptop on company time, while I stand hear at my standing desk in my socks reading Gawker. God bless Hollywood. During my writing that comment the director and a…

FWIW, I’m a union film editor who regularly works within the studio system (and yes, even for Amy Pascal’s Sony Pictures). While I appreciate your concern, I’m pretty up on our deal memos. Your misunderstanding continues that corporate info is public. It is not. Again— this information was obtained as the result of a…

You’re an idiot. By that same logic you could claim that because Jennifer Lawrence’s private photos were sent through Apple’s servers, her leaked photos did not violate her privacy, just Apple’s. If Sony released them that would be one thing, but they did not, and you’re making a huge jump in your rationalizations.…

Sony didn’t release these e-mails. They were released by hackers. This isn’t the result of some FOIA request or something. Sony maintains that they are -still- private, despite the leak. You are really confused. Sony is not the government, and just because you use a work computer does not make your internet use public…

Maybe it’s not “private” in the sense that my employer (/IT department) can see what I’m doing, but it is absolutely not “public.” These e-mails came to light as the result of a hack. Perhaps you’re confusing her with an employee of the federal government?

Reposting my e-mail to Jezebel here (and doubling down on my comments, sorry):

this is such a gross rationalization. she’s still a human being.

Regardless of how much money she made while at Sony or what racist e-mails she sent, this article is in super poor taste and so gross. Whether you do “worship her” or not, her private shopping is her own business, and just because it was in a leak (that was made through a hack) doesn’t mean you need to republish it…

Finally a new trick for my bukkake parties!

I apologize for the confusion. I watched the video where there is no dressing or anything similar, it's literally just him stuffing the trophy into his bag and walking off. Checked out the article with this caption,

also, as an aside— I seriously appreciate your thoughtful response, and Indefinitely Wild is one of the few recent Gawker offshoots I am legitimately excited for (especially with your recent post on the huge lack of good motorcycle/riding coverage right now).

I have taken the life of animals for my own food, I know where my food comes from and the sacrifice involved. And for the record, I'm not anti-hunting, just have a problem with hunting purely for sport, which this appeared to be at a glance.

More humane still would be not killing the animal— as you don't "need" to and it's purely for sport. Unless I'm missing something. (Spoken as a meat loving, gun firing American.. just making sure we don't get shit twisted here— especially since 500 people are going to make basically the same comment)

the sound of your neighbors complaining about your terrible taste in music

Is there a reason this was just republished from 2014? Just curious, it doesn’t say anywhere that it was, but... it was, right?

here, let me click the link for you:

"Padiddles never turn out to be police cars."

Also might want to check out Ashley Feinberg’s post from last year:

http://gizmodo.com/the-fake-place…

thanks, i was curious what these guys actually do. couldn’t tell if they were just drone nerds or what.