Of course those links aren't evidence for threats, because that's not what you asked me for. Do I need to recap the conversation?
Gamergate does not benefit from cancelling the panel. There is no introspection necessary.
You argue that no one in GG would have wanted the panel canceled.
Not the SavePoint panel, but it was canceled alongside the "online harassment in games" panel, which some in GamerGate would rather not take place. Someone in this very thread is calling it a "Pyrrhic victory" for GG.
I'm not sure whether you realize that I'm talking about the online harassment panel, not the SavePoint panel, so I clarify and provide an example.
"online harassment in games" panel, which some in GamerGate would rather not take place
Source? I follow KiA regularly and this is the first time I've seen it mentioned. There might have been some limited discussion on here but its hardly been a hot topic. Color me skeptical.
You ask me to back up my suggestion that some people in GG wouldn't have wanted the panel to happen.
From this thread: [...]
I provide some links to comments from people in GG who wouldn't have wanted the panel to happen.
meh, these posts all have hardly any upvotes and none of them support your original thought that its gamergate behind the threats.
You try to argue that no GGers made any threats because my links didn't support a point they weren't intended to.
Well I linked those to argue against your point that no one in GG would want the panel canceled. And most comments in this thread have hardly any upvotes.
I'm not saying that GamerGate is exclusively behind the threats, but is it wrong to say that GG supporters share at last some of the blame here?
I remind you of why you asked me for links in the first place and try to clarify my position.
Yes it is wrong to say gg had any hand in the threats. None of your links have anything to do with those threats. You're grasping at straws here.
You again argue that I'm wrong because my links don't back up a claim they weren't intended to support.