One snarky comment and you're screwed for life.
― would like a calmer set (Eazy), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
So I originally registered for Idolator in 2006, and I'm pretty sure I don't currently use that password anywhere (whatever it might have been). Now a search of my Gmail indicates that I reset that password in 2009, probably to something I do currently use elsewhere, but since Idolator was no longer part of Gawker at that time, I should be OK, right?
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
this was posted upthread http://undertow.jedsmith.org/gawker
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:34 (2 years ago) Permalink
ah mine must have been idolator too
max emailed me at 9pm - customer service!
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:36 (2 years ago) Permalink
Well my username/e-mail have definitely been compromised. But that doesn't mean anything if the password was unique, no?
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
\(o_O)/
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:41 (2 years ago) Permalink
Hmm, mine is on that list as well, though the e-mail address I used was a secondary anonymous-y one, so I don't know that it can be traced to anything other than that e-mail account.
― would like a calmer set (Eazy), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 05:41 (2 years ago) Permalink
if the password you gave gawker was unique, you're fine
― caek, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 11:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
cool i've used 'unique' for all my passwords
― just sayin, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 12:21 (2 years ago) Permalink
you weren't kidding
― just sayin (dayo), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 12:30 (2 years ago) Permalink
hey caek it looks like your gawker password was unique too...also your ilx one
― caek (dayo), Tuesday, 14 December 2010 12:30 (2 years ago) Permalink
lol
― caek, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 12:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://www.observer.com/2010/media/turning-gawker-itself
― buzza, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 04:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
But there was also the very real chance that editors and writers across the city could now be outed publicly for dissing their bosses in private. One Gawker and Jezebel commenter with a Condé Nast email address, for instance, had written in about making up quotes at a women's magazine; the condition of Anna Wintour's 60-year-old skin; and her experiences with both circumcised and uncircumcised penises. Twenty-six readers registered with Times email addresses, 21 from Condé Nast, 12 from Time Inc., 18 from Hearst, nine from The Journal, six from the Post and three from the Daily News. An untold number more used harder-to-detect private accounts. But searching for media coworkers—and rivals—became as simple as plugging their personal email addresses into an easily downloadable 72-megabyte text file, a 1.3 million-entry fantasia of byline hunting. Did Jeffrey Toobin really register with the name "ValentinoAgamemnon"?
― would like a calmer set (Eazy), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 04:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
― vladimir pootawn (am0n), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 05:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/13/the-top-50-gawker-media-passwords/
― dayo, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 05:37 (2 years ago) Permalink
trustno1
― markers, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 05:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
'trustno1' is pretty good, as in, people with that password probably expected gawker or some other site to get hacked, probably use diff passwords for important stuff, and are probably safe. or maybe they're just stupid
― dayo, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 05:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
At least two popular passwords are science-fiction references: “trustno1″ was Special Agent Mulder’s password on “The X-Files,”
― dayo, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 05:39 (2 years ago) Permalink
afaict the passwords confirm what we already know, gawker's demographics skews towards huge fucking internet nerd
― dayo, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 05:40 (2 years ago) Permalink
lol @ pokemon
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 15 December 2010 06:08 (2 years ago) Permalink
wonder which one j0rdan's was
whoa I had no idea the situation was that serious before reading that article
― iatee, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 06:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
I had an ex-girlfriend who had trustno1 as her gmail/facebook password
no kidding
― mh, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 17:09 (2 years ago) Permalink
including u, eh?
― would like a calmer set (Eazy), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 17:10 (2 years ago) Permalink
no joshua?
― http://tinyurl.com/ccccccccccccccccc (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 15 December 2010 17:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
I was relatively trustworthy, only saw it by accident when she typed her password in the username spot once. Well, that part was innocent, at least.
― mh, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 17:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
here we go again? http://gawker.com/5714043/
― markers, Thursday, 16 December 2010 19:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
Eh, it's a little much, for sure.
Is there anyone out there who hasn't figured out exactly what he seems to be like in social interactions? He really sounds like every somewhat arrogant, academically intelligent computer nerd. Reminds me of lots of people I've met.
― mh, Thursday, 16 December 2010 19:58 (2 years ago) Permalink
lol ilx
― Jefferson Mansplain (DG), Thursday, 16 December 2010 20:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
wow at those emails. whoa
― dell (del), Thursday, 16 December 2010 21:36 (2 years ago) Permalink
password reset lady at my school just gave me some parting advice: "just stay off of the gawker"
ADVICE TAKEN
― k3vin k., Monday, 20 December 2010 21:34 (2 years ago) Permalink
my password was "jordan"
― return of the nakh (J0rdan S.), Monday, 20 December 2010 23:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
― dayo, Wednesday, December 15, 2010 12:37 AM (5 days ago)
― k3vin k., Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:08 AM (5 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― k3vin k., Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:08 AM (5 days ago)
^____^
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 21 December 2010 00:04 (2 years ago) Permalink
comments section:
Reminds me of the time my sister bought my nephew a gift, that she told him was from me, because I upset him and accidentally took his apple or something. I'm allergic to apples to this likely didn't happen and was imagined by my nephew because kids are moody and nonsensical beings. But I did the normal thing and brought him a big bag of apples next time I saw him. My sister kept insisting the toy to appease was from me, but I insisted otherwise.
???
― the red-headed smanger (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:42 (2 years ago) Permalink
actually all the comments here are winners:
http://gawker.com/5715629/ungrateful-little-jerk-embodies-americas-attitude-towards-reading
Either1. Long diatribes about how bad the parents are2. Weird bragging about how they used to read as kids
― the red-headed smanger (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
Weird bragging is usually the domain of the jezebel commenters.
― THX THO... (Nicole), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
MrKotter 10:57 AMSo your plan is to restore that respect for reading, one Katy Perry post at a time?
So your plan is to restore that respect for reading, one Katy Perry post at a time?
― Tina Tina Cheneuse (DJP), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
boom
― the red-headed smanger (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
funniest thing about the WSJ blog entry -- that people actually do "online banking." What a buncha darned fools.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
?
― the red-headed smanger (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
does that boggle ur stone-age mind or
― vladimir pootawn (am0n), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
other things "darned fools" do "online": shopping, taxes, reading, chatting!?!?!
― vladimir pootawn (am0n), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
would you say you pity these fools?
― the red-headed smanger (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
never been ripped off during online chatting and reading funnily enough
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't think many people are ever ripped off due to online banking, fwiw.
The most you're going to be able to do is view balances, transfer between existing accounts, and view bank account numbers. You know, the same numbers anyone can read off of a check you write.
But checks might be too "damned foolish" too, I don't know.
― mh, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 16:49 (2 years ago) Permalink
thx for the new display name
― old man yells at cloud computing (am0n), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:02 (2 years ago) Permalink
lool
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:06 (2 years ago) Permalink
I prefer barter
also, fuck you am0n
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 17:15 (2 years ago) Permalink
;-)
― old man yells at cloud computing (am0n), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 18:23 (2 years ago) Permalink