The Final Nail for Creationist Jeffery Tomkins
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- JUST when you thought it couldn't get any worse...
Glenn's channel:
www.youtube.co...
Addressing Criticisms: • A Professional Creatio...
The Nonsense Creationism of Jeffery Tomkins: • 84% Chimpanzee: The NO...
Github: github.com/mis...
"Human and Chimpanzee Genetic similarity; an Appraisal of Creationist Analyses"
docs.google.co...
Sources are listed by name where relevant.
Outro: Point Pleasant by Brock Berrigan
www.brockberrig...
open.spotify.c...
Socials:
gutsickgibbon@gmail.com
@Gutsick_Gibbon
Support the channel!
/ gutsickgibbon
www.redbubble....
"I received some new skulls for Christmas" is an insane quote
😂
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
And said in such a chipper manner!
"the % is lower. Therefore: 1 type of Middle Eastern magic made the universe."
- J. Tomkins
“I did receive some new skulls for Christmas.” You don’t hear that very often.
I won't let any of my creationist friends get away with claiming Tompkins results. Thank you, Erika.
dammit. i could have gotten away with claiming thompkins results, f not for those meddling kids!
@@vforwombat9915 Pulls off mask "MISTER TOMKINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Why would you have creationist friends at all?
@@uncleanunicorn4571 I used to be one.
@@uncleanunicorn4571Do you expect him to ostracize friends for that? I don't like creationism, either, but let's be honest with ourselves here: That would be a pretty shitty thing to do.
Yes publishing your nonpublic first and last name does count as doxxing. I'm sorry that happened to you, and I know it's stressful! I'm glad it was resolved.
Twitter only has her first name.
Why would anyone be looking?@@whatabouttheearth
I got doxed (in a private forum) and that was bad enough
In these days where some idiots go too far, it's either careless or inciting action - like some US public figures
ok. her first name is used widely here.
she has a twitter account w her first name.
and apparently a little used twitter account w her last name.
which makes it public.
plus, if she's a phd student, she's almost certainly had her name on published papers, which would put her full name out there- no i'm not gonna bother to look.
i mean, now.
i'm actually curious about her CV scientifically speaking.
i'm gonna have to change my opinion and call it not doxxing.
otoh, there's no reason not to respect her wishes and use her social media handles in all social media discourse concerning her.
@vforwombat9915 to be doxing, the information doesn't have to be private to the entire world. Searching for an old Twitter account to find someone's last name, which is not known in her community, and publishing the name is the definition of doxing. Saying "well it's public information" doesn't make it not doxing.
Oxford Dictionary describes Doxing as "the action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent."
A man walks into a store to buy a gift for his wife.
Certainly sir, we have skin care and perfumes, watches and jewellery, lingerie, evening wear, beach wear, some really fun summer hats ....
I was thinking more of skulls.
Skulls?
Yes, baby skulls.
Baby skulls?
Prenatal. Perhaps one human and one chimpanzee.
... 😮😮😮
lol
:D
They just assumed he was married to Wednesday Addams.
Top shelf brown paper bag stuff...
6 straight hours of steamrolling Tomkins.
Simpsons voice: "Stop He's already dead!"
As a huge fan of Roohif's work in debunking the flat Earthers, I have to say it is incredibly pleasing to see you and him working together to debunk the creationists! A dream come true!
evolutionism is a fairytale
Came here to say the same thing. Roohif is awesome.
IMO the irony is that if the answers were in Genesis, there would be no reason for the organisation called Answers In Genesis to generate content to explain why the Answers are in Genesis. All we would need is a copy of Genesis to know the answers. Correct me if I am wrong. They are, at best, creating an Errata for Genesis!
" Correct me if I am wrong."
err, have you HEARD of cliff notes?
...some ppl make entire careers out of dissecting other works and explaining answers in them.
...tho this greatly annoys me to say, to save effort later i will say i'm only disagreeing w your point, not defending, endorsing, agreeing with them, supporting, celebrating, complimenting, or even sending gift baskets to answers in genesis.
@vforwombat9915 Appreciate it. Perhaps I am being a little too literal and being over critical. I can't help thinking that they maybe should be renamed Answers Not In Genesis 😀
There should be an asterisk next to the word _Answers_ with a note at the bottom: Wrong Answers Only.
Answers Not Readily Apparent in Genesis. :-)
@@psychologicalprojectionist pretty much, yeah. it's the 'answers you don't get from just the plain reading of Genesis, but only when you make a whole lot of assumptions and twist the meaning a bit here and there'. In a way it's what other Bible scholars do too, except their notes are more along the lines of references to other, usually earlier, myths that have similar components and such, and what the symbolism of each part is. The difference is that they are trying to look at the text from the perspective from the time when it was written or mentioned, while AiG is looking at it through our modern worldview and trying to make it fit.
3 Tomkins videos in 1 sitting… This is going to be entertaining!
Happy New Years Erika. Hope you’re kicking ass on your way to your PhD.
Arguing one's technical guilt when accidentally doxxing someone is gauche.
Gauche as fuck.
This is why I prefer watercolors
@@orsonzeddis that a transparency joke, or…?😊
@@lildramatic4760 I think revealing the meaning of it would be a bit gouache
i didn't see the emails, but i took that as arguing semantics, not guilt.
since 90% of what these folks argue over is semantics anyways.....
It's WILD how much work it takes to debunk stuff that the author should have figured out before publishing.
Luckily few believe him.
That's Brandolini's Law in action.
If only there was a system for reviewing the accuracy of scientific papers before publication…..
@@theeniwetoksymphonyorchest7580if only it had been a scientific paper 😂😂😂
Doxxing through negligence is still doxxing.
I think it's perfectly OK to review another person's video in its entirety, so long as you properly give credit where it's due.
Give credit and transform the content, which she did
PLEASE never stop making these videos, if you save one person from a life of brainwashing by religious fantasy, it is all worth it ❤
Absolutely.
1000's of people
@@bryck7853I always wonder how many people actually learn from these videos.
I know that I got my first step out of a conservative bubble, when I was a Ben Shapiro fan and saw a video of a left leaning channel, that was criticizing him.
I was like, if I actually wanna believe what I believe, I have to listen to what the other side has to say.
It was the first crack in my conservative bubble and I am glad, that nowadays I actually get a good amount of the things, that people say on screen, instead of not getting at all what people say, while they sound smart, even though it’s complete BS, when you break it apart.
It’s far easier by now to catch people being dodgy or illogical, because I see the pattern everywhere now. Especially in religious people.
Nobody tries to control the narrative more than religious apologists. And for sure they like the Faith noises made even if they don't understand the discussion and really don't care.
The poisonous lie of Evolutionism is brainwashing by a religious fantasy
Erika, when you said "My lovely husband..." showing a skull I got a little worried xD
the skulls were too small.
plus, she digs things up
she'd know how to properly bury something so it wouldn't be found.
Seen similar problems when they try radiometric dating. They do it wrong and then tout their results as "proof."
FWIW, _in general_ I would tend to assume "doxxing" would refer to an intentionally-malicious act. That said, I think calling what happened in this case "accidental doxxing" makes clear that it lacked such intent, while still also making clear that private information was leaked, and... it seems like a perfectly valid usage to me. In other words: to call it doxxing without modifiers would _connote_ an intentionalality, without necessarily _denoting_ such. As-modified, though, perfectly clear. [Just my take on that, since you asked.]
God: “Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness”
Creationists: “But God, I was doing it for you!”
God: “Real talk? Oh shiz, well we cool then. Thanks fam.”
You don't reveal people's personal information unless they themselves have released it, and even then, it's complicated on a case by case basis. It sounds to me like he doxed you.
Thank you for all the hard work you put into these videos. I learn a lot from them!
I watched all of Erika's debunking Tomkins videos. I have to say, this has been one awesome and lengthy takedown of a scientist who seems to have lost his way entirely.
Au contraire. He's found his way. AiG pays better 😂😂😂😂
Currently on my 5th straight hour of this content and loving it
Creationists always look for patterns that loosely link to the bible, but they turn a blind eye to the ones that don't.
You could use that logic to argue fairies exist!
Creationists being ignorant and dishonest.....surely not.....lol
Gutsick is in the right, it was absolutely doxing
Edit: and then he wants to try and shut Gutsick down for a long form analysis that tore him a new one? Goddamn, the audacity!
Bro, if he doesn't want someone tearing his shoddy work apart, then he needs to do a better job.
Tompkins: My science is super real guys!
Reality: What are you comparing those human genetics to?
Tompkins: E. Coli, clones, chimps.
Reality: So you are not comparing humans to chimps then…
My favourite ape-ologist.. much missed so pumped about this but ...
3AM? Omg..
I'll be there 😂😂😂
Wait, are you, telling me your name isn't gutsick?
another afternoon well spent watching Gutsick Gibbon videos. thank you so much, Erika!
You are awesome! I've learned so much from your videos, and you've helped me be able to confidently take on all manner of numpties and weasels in evolution debates on discord lol- I even had a brief encounter with Nephilim Free the other day when he popped into my vc (I dont think he appreciated some of my questions🤭). I can confidently say it is your content that has equipped me with the ability to correct some people's misconceptions about evolutionary theory and human evolution; you've had a real impact and are genuinely a fantastic science communicator! Thank you for all the work you put in, it reaches farther than you might expect 🙂 Happy New Year!
Gibbon I love your work - honestly I think that ever since Prof Dave revealed how utterly insane James Tour is as Tour stands with a piece of chalk and screams (“DRAW MR FARINA!!!”) none of these people have recovered. Gibbon - you and Forrest and Dave and Rationality Rules (philosopher I know), and Matt D and on and on have shown what charlatans we are encountering here…
Creationists do not publish in secular journals. This video is good example of why.
Why are we surprised when a creationist lies, using "science", flawed or otherwise. We've seen that since the 19th century when the Scopes trial happened. Telling lies for God is the name of the game.
Releasing any non-public, identifying information about an individual is doxxing.
while usually doxxing is meant maliciously, it does include releasing private information to the public without consent, regardless of intent.
When will these people who don't believe in science stop trying to disprove science using science? All you get, at most, is better science.
Please stop showing people bioinformatics. I'm 7 years left to retirement and don't need a bunch of young people displacing me. Wait till 2030! LOL
Ugh, your husband is lucky. I got my wife baby skulls for Christmas and she said I was “psychotic” and need to be in an “institution”. It was so embarrassing when I had to give them back to the nice folks at the temple of Molech.
I am a true admirer of you and your work AND your vital work fighting against pseudoscience and theist charlatans.
Relationship goals, a husband who gifts you comparative skulls ❤
I have no idea how Tompkins could ever again say anything publicly about the human/chimp genome similarity given this comprehensive thrashing but creationists have no integrity or honesty. Great video.
Wait wait wait, your real full name isn't Erika Gibbon?
But yes, 100% agree that it's doxxing.
To be honest I truly don’t give much attention to other AIG vids but I have a burning hatred when they mess up things about dinosaurs/say that clearly mythical beast are “dinosaurs”/use LUAGHFABLY outdated dinosaur depictions etc
Reviewing another’s work is about as transformative as it gets, especially going line-by-line and not playing the entire video and then doing the commentary
That is so true. Just playing a massive video and giving remarks later can sometimes be seen as showcasing and thus distributing the reviewed work. Going through line by line and reviewing and commenting on the content is absolutely transformative, since the viewer can’t get the full experience of the original work, bc of the breaks in between. Thank you for putting it so short and concise @jloiben12.
Agreed that reviews/critiques are transformative and fair use, but this video was not. It was playing the genetic analysis video without transformation, aside from the occasional dunk about how Clostridium difficult is not an ape. That is not criticism, transformative commentary, etc.
And to be fair, this is acknowledged by Erika. She says that she wants to showcase his video, and has permission. You don't need fair use if you have permission.
Hi, I am not sure but we might have a misunderstanding here.
I am not arguing, that Ericas showing of Glenn Williamson‘s work and video is fair use.
This part is absolutely cooperative sharing and distribution. However since she has the permission to do so it is fine until the permission gets revoked.
The criticism Brian had of Erica was she did not use his (Brian’s)Jeffrey Tomkins video/ video series under the umbrella of fair use, which is weird, since she went through that in depth and with lots of commentary.
This is where I am of the opinion, that as soon as the original experience of the source video is not possible to get by viewing the newly created one, it is transformative and under the umbrella of fair use. Which counts especially if the new work is using criticism, commentary and going through line-by-line to „answer“ to the source video.
As far as I am correct that is the point on wich I agree with „jloiben12“ with. :3 @@phillyphakename1255
I hope this cleared up my commentary and you have a great week.
best regards. :)
@@autumnmeep correct. This Glenn video is not fair use (okay because permission, but Erika's normal commentary/debunks are fair use.
Cool, I am happy we agree and I could clarify my statement. :3 stay healthy if possible. @@phillyphakename1255 ☺👋
This whole ordeal truly demonstrates that creationist "research journals" should not be called research journals. In any legitimate journal with legitimate peer review, reviewers would point out these basic gaps and errors in Tompkins' articles. He wouldn't be able to get away with saying 'the chimp sequences are contaminated with human DNA' without saying which parts of the sequences he found to be contaminated. It's astounding to me that these researchers are so hostile to criticism that they will not listen to critiques of their articles as written, but that they require others to delve into their data and actually do it correctly. And even then they have no humilty. Thank you Erika and Glenn for looking these charlatans in the eye and destroying their empty bravado, never stepping down even when they lash out at you.
Releasing any undisclosed information about an individual whether you did it intentionally or not is doxxing
@@whatabouttheearthso why go on and on about her old account? If you’re privy to old stuff that she obviously doesn’t want public now, why not be a good person and keep it to yourself?
@@whatabouttheearth again: email to the email in her description. Just because an account exists elsewhere doesn’t mean you should compile that info and share it elsewhere.
If her name has not been shared on UA-cam and she has explicitly expressed she does not want her name on UA-cam, sharing where it can be found elsewhere On UA-cam is bad.
To help out, I’ll also shoot an email. But you should edit your comments, because seriously, bad look.
Publishing someone's first and last name it definitely a form of doxing expeacaly because peoples names are usually on public databases that include there address
I wish creationists would stop lying and misrepresenting science for the sake of their fairytale.
Problem is, there *is* a hidden option 3: he can ignore all of this, so that the lower percentage numbers continue to propagate.
This seems to be the most likely scenario, especially if all of these papers were done with the idea of “lying for Jesus” as the underlying premise.
Any personal information no matter how much shown is doxing.
For anyone who did not take a screen shot of the table showing the flaws in each of Tompkins' methods, it can be found at timestamp 38:52.
AHHHHHHGJFJFJGJDU THERE'S TWO HAPPY NEW YEAR TO US ♥️ thank u GG I hope u are well
Yep, that's doxxing!
I love her but it's not doxxing because she apparently doesn't realize she left her old Twitter open. It's publicly available, you don't even have to dig for it. I think she just fucked up with her online presence and might of forgot that that's still up.
I was going to joke about Erika releasing 5 hours of video just in one day and how I feel foolish for immediately wasting my evening on it, but now I discovered the 3rd video uploaded today and I am still going to watch it.
that's okay, i made a joke for you.
you're welcome.
I want to know about the buck on the wall
All in all, it's another buck on the wall.
@@joeybuddy96Indeed , but I would say they do in fact need an education.
New ape!
@@joeybuddy96 dammit.
i was gonna do a whole thing. talk about the buck's early life, his problems at school, his tragic death at the hands of the gg household.
the spark of creation has been lit inside me.
then you come along with this, and it's way funnier than anything i coulda done.
goodby deer Billy the Buck.
they will never know you now.
@@vforwombat9915
I'm extraordinarily sad that you didn't follow through with that idea.
I love when Erika just roasts this dude. Easily my favorite series on UA-cam, aside from AronRa’s “disproving Noah’s flood” videos. Another great listen.
typical YEC approach:
1 start with a conclusion
2 look for evidence that supports that conclusion
3 stop looking when something even remotely supports your conclusion
The thing about these types of copyright claims is that the creator will be upset if you show their video content as a reference but will also be upset if you just quote them rather than showing the video content. They can make the claim that you are misquoting, or taking them out of context. So I wholeheartedly approve of a response video playing the original content.
It’s very very sad that these Christians need to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. How frightened they must be to want to avoid facts.
One of the most glaring g aspect of Christian apologists is their lack of awareness or consideration of other much older scriptures and religious traditions. Many of these have no conflict with modern science and cosmology.
Galileo got in a lot of trouble with papacy for trying to explain scientific facts.
It seems we are still back there.
What is also very concerning g to me is a fundamental lack of understanding of what Jesus of Nazareth was up to. He was a zealot trying to defend poor people from being ripped off by the Temple’s priestly hierarchy and their racket of over charging peasants for sacrifices. As well as their conniving with the Romans.
I realize this is off topic, but there is a connection between the lack of awareness of historical facts and scientific facts.
One more point. Many evangelicals believe the earth is 6000 years old. The Satana Dharma ( aka Hinduism) mesures time in increments of 250,000 years. More suited to the universe as we have come to know it since Kepler and Hubble.
Jesus would not take kindly to people using the Bible as a way to lie, cheat, and profit.
I hope that's a non-controversial opinion, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Releasing somebody's name against their wishes is doxing, except in cases where it was completely accidental and the mistake corrected immediately on being found out. So in this case I would consider it doxing, and probably deliberate with it.
Gutsick Gibbon said first that the video was immediately taken down AND THEN said that they had a days-long disagreement on if what happened in the video counts as doxxing. Based on those details, it sounds like you disagree with GG in this case because the mistake was immediately corrected, like you required.
If you were doing videos about Westworld or The Vampire Diaries, then using your full name would probably be fine. Although still your choice alone. However, given your subject matter, big fan btw, the rise of christian identity movements, and the increase of right-wing domestic terrorism in the US, I think you're absolutely right to call it doxxing. Maybe not as egregious as posting an address, a bar so low its underground, but it's not too far off. Please stay safe, and maybe check out your local Socialist Rifle Association chapter if you're curious about self defense.
Anyone want to take a bet that what Tomkins will do is find a novel way to be wrong again?
Hi Erika, I'm big fan of your videos. Just a fyi your full name is on one of your videos. The last video you posted while you have excel open, your full name is visible on the top right corner.
The OG Gutsick Gibbon background!
Wait, is your full name not Erica Gutsick Gibbon?
I'm heartbroken 💔
Personally, I look forward to the day that Gutsick Gibbon decides to reveal who she is for herself, primarily because I want to read all of her papers and professional publication submissions!
Thanks for posting the three videos when you did! Kept me entertained for over 1/3 of my drive from Texas to Wisconsin 😂
Open science, the process of reporting findings and claims, and the subsequent critiques, refutations, and support, requires quoting the original in as much detail as required. If they're going to claim to be doing science and use UA-cam as their publisher then they must expect full responses in the same medium.
Tbh, the copyright stuff is still largely legally nebulous in regards to what happens on UA-cam with video reactions and 'fair use' and it's unclear to me why UA-cam doesn't just include ToS contracts giving them IP rights to regulate fair use of videos within its own platform... But your videos I've seen would be within the much more transformative end of things(also since you insert little memes and jokes and are poking fun/criticizing these other vids, worst case you can claim parody). So what you said is exactly right 'if your videos aren't transformative/fair use a huge share of other videos on UA-cam wouldn't be either'. But a lot of this stuff is still fairly gray area stuff.
Bias is a hell of a drug. Religion a hell of a dealer.
Yes it's doxing. Given the nature of social media, the creator must have say over their anonymity.
Of course releasing non-public first and last name is doxxing. Intent is completely irrelevant.
I wanna know about the Gutsick Gibbon merch behind her
Generic comment to agree with creator on definition of doxxing
Hey, I haven't watched the last 3 videos, but...
How in Darwins name do you just casually drop 6 hours of content in less than 10 hours
You did nothing wrong in actuality you did everything right thank you.
The funny thing is whether it's 80% or 96%, it still doesn't support YEC.
Please Erica, I have a family, there is only so many hours in the day, I can't keep up with all the uploads today while ignoring them
I understand. When Gutsick Gibbon uploads a video, you watch. Take care, spend as much time with your family as you can, and have a happy new year.
Take the family for a long drive through the countryside to admire the views and leave this playing while you drive.
Lemme see...
Real scientist gets realistic results...
Creationist scientist gets dubious results...
Obviously the creationist is using techniques too new and complete to be explained to real scientist...
Or is talking out of his fundament
It never gets old watching you (oh so politely) fisk these people and their arguments! Way to go on your channel and your excellent science communication. I wish as a biologist that I could explain things as clearly as you do haha
"His 2011-2015 work, his 2016 stuff, his 2018 work" - this guy isn't doing any actual research, he's just making mouse clicks on a computer. How does it take years to get "new" "results"?
He needs to come up with novel ways to get the desired results first... Presumably some of his attempts gave too high a value. ^^
"Creationist Layman" ...
Doesn't that imply there are also "experts" existing?
Like experts for crystal-healing, or osteopaths, stock market experts, farting unicorns and astrologists.
Hehehehe and thank you for the entertaining video, Erika!:)
On the topic of doxxing: Revealing non public information that identities a person is doxxing. Intentional or otherwise. Though, it's fair to give benefit of the doubt that it's not intentional.
On the topic of fair use and transformative works: Using a full product is fair as long as it's not identical to the original, is not provided as is, and provides important context. Example: Reviewing an entire movie is fair... as long as you don't show the entire movie and then add a 5 minute review at the end.
Reviewing a youtuber's video is also not equivalent to reviewing a movie. So he'll have a hard job of fighting you on fair use.
I agree with your definition that doxxing is releasing private information to the public, even if it's done accidentally. Is it still negligent driving if I hit your car on accident? Is it still property damage if my kids accidentally throw a ball through your window? Of course it is. Doxxing is the same thing, even if it wasn't intentional.
Good to see Glenn being so humble about his shell scripting prowess.
At some point you'll be publishing a book, it won't be authored by Gutsick Gibbob. But yeah, that's doxxing. However, if he gave your name it could be doc-sing.. if you got your phd.
Why is he arguing definition of Doxing? Clearly you have kept your name out of the public and when you pointed it out he took video down. Anything beyond an apology at that point is suspect.
So nice Gutsick Gibbon! Thanks a lot.
I don't have a background in science. Got a bachelor and scientific method, research or even analyses weren't part of it.
Through the years I've developed ways to become more educated as to whom I trust and don't trust.
When I started to question my beliefs in topics like climate change, but also history, some philosophical alley ways, I realized I lacked the knowledge to really understand the details of the research, but I realized that when I look at two sides of a claim, when there's a big discrepancy, there's always one side really going through the effort to respond to the critique, to back it up with the best possible data, and so on. So without real knowledge about a field, I became more able to distinguish between good science and bad science. Strong claims and weak claims.
Thanks to that I actually am developing some level of understanding about these fields, but that understanding is partly based on who I believe I can trust.
Watching your many videos on YEC, but also on other scientific butchery, I feel more inspired to deepen my understanding of the scientific method and my understanding of field of interest. Big thanks for your amazing and super important content!!!! YEC and similar theology is very bad for humans. That way people don't learn how to distinguish actual good science from bad science, anything goes.
@inajosmood "Butchery" - that's kind of savage !! But - somehow, appropriate - - -
Both the chimpanzee and human fetal skulls look like the Martians from Mars Attacks. Coincidence?
I dont think it's possible to argue that Tompkins is either competent or honest. I am certain that many will still try.
Hi Erica, thank you for the tea and sharing Glenn Williamsons work.
I think even accidentally revealing personal names, addresses or specific details that give the possibility of finding that person in real life is definitely doxxing. The intention does not discriminate between the outcome and someones right to personally decide how much personal information is supposed to be on the web. :/ Having personal info revealed gets scary very quickly and I fully agree with you to contact them and ask for removal, which fortunately was quickly acted upon.
I hope you had a good start to this new year of 2024 and you and your loved ones stay healthy and have a fruitful and positive year. :3
thank you again for the excellent content and see you in another video.
3;43 Yes, it's doxxing even if a result of negligence. The reason is that the dangers of doxxing are well understood. So anyone doing something public, such as publishing a video on YT, has a duty of care not to dox people. Doxxing by accident is a failure to meet the minimum standard of responsibility that comes with being active on a public forum.
@39:00 I too have saved Glenn's summary chart for my records, to be noted when the issue is reviewed in Vol 2 of "The Rocks Were There"
It is not cool, even though I am not sure exactly what it means to be dox'ed. Keep up the great work. You are able to say so many things, so eloquently that aI always wanted to say. Thank you.
Nail in the coffin? I Thought he would've fossilized by now...
IMO doxing is more than just a name. anybody can find many things on the web, but doxxing is identifiers or secret info like addresses or phone numbers. Just a name is the fuzzy area. Good on him for taking it down. Also, debunking videos are literally as transformative as you can get. He's wrong about using the full video.
Happy New Year Erica
👍👍 oof, sounds like even ClipArt are going to want JT's diploma back 😆!
As I understand that Tomkins avoids the peer review process like the plague; then the best way to review his errors is to do so via the VERY public youtube. As I just listened to Roohif, he is even getting multiple reviews via this path.
And yes, even if accidental, and even if he took the data down, that is doxxing. And it is telling that he kept trying to justify his negligence, if negligence it was.
I think I've got this
Name: Erika Gibbon
Address: UA-cam; Sometimes Kenya