My impression from the phone conversation was that this was the chronology:
1) Jill Filipovic from Feministe tells WSJ that I worked at EAP&D
2) WSJ reporter calls EAP&D, and the firm says I had my offer rescinded.
3) WSJ reporter emails me saying they’re going to run a story on it tomorrow.
Believe me, the last thing I wanted was this to be public. I just want to be left alone.
I did not know where Anthony worked, and I took no steps to get him fired. Apparently someone did post his firm on a 600-plus comment thread two months ago. I didn’t do anything with that information, and didn’t even pay much attention to it when it was posted. I don’t remember reading it. I may have, or it may have gotten lost in the 600-comment shuffle. Either way, I didn’t commit it to memory, and I didn’t pass it on to anyone else. If you had asked me two days ago where Ciolli was employed, I wouldn’t have known. I definitely didn’t contact Ciolli’s firm, WSJ, or anyone else.
The WSJ reporter emailed me yesterday afternoon telling me that Ciolli had his offer rescinded, that the WSJ law blog was doing a story on it, and could he call me for a quote. That’s how I found out about it.
So, sorry AutoAdmit posters (and Anthony), but you’re gonna have to find someone else to blame for this one.
Date: May 4th, 2007 3:50 PM Author: talented marketing idea
But I never said I thought she committed step one in getting it rescinded. I was responding to a guy who asked how the WSJ found out the offer was rescinded, and I said the WSJ reporter gave me the impression that he interviewed Jill, found out about the firm, and then contacted the firm, at which point the firm told him my offer was rescinded and he decided to run the story (at which point he emailed me asking for comment).
I just read Ciolli’s chronology as answering the question, “How did the Journal know where I worked?”, not “How treacherous Jill from Feministe ratted me out to my firm, causing them to rescind my offer.”
zuzu Says:
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Right, Hector. Because reporters who cover legal issues don’t know anyone who works for law firms or anything who might, like, tell them stuff about controversial shit.
Jill Says:
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
1) Jill Filipovic from Feministe tells WSJ that I worked at EAP&D
2) WSJ reporter calls EAP&D, and the firm says I had my offer rescinded.
Well, I didn’t tell the Journal where he worked. And later in the AutoAdmit thread, someone makes the tie between me and his firing, implying that I contacted his firm. I didn’t contact anyone — not WSJ, not his firm, nada. I wasn’t the one who made this information public.
Hector, you’re right that Ciolli’s chronology wasn’t saying that I got him fired. I had just read the whole thread, wherein I am being blamed for his firing, and was responding more to that. But I didn’t make that clear in the post.
Date: May 4th, 2007 4:13 PM Author: talented marketing idea
Okay, well it's good to know she denies telling the WSJ about it. Maybe the reporter misled me about who got him on that track (wouldn't be the first time a reporter has done that to me). And I'm glad that she clarifies what she meant by that blog post (though I think it speaks volumes that she hasn't edited her original post to make the correction). But this "I didn't contact anyone" statement that she keeps making still irks me since she's implying that I said she contacted the WSJ -- if you look at my posts it's clear I never said that she was the one who made first contact with the WSJ.
Date: May 4th, 2007 4:16 PM Author: Outnumbered gay ratface
you know, i've only read her blog when linked from xo, but jill doesn't seem all that bad. a hardcore feminist with a grudge against xo yes, but not terribly unreasonable or unpleasant.
zuzu, on the other hand, seems like a smug pile of dried dogshit.
Date: May 4th, 2007 4:27 PM Author: Outnumbered gay ratface
one thing i find particularly annoying in online discourse is the constant use of irony to reply to a point without actually formulating a response. zuzu does it in the post quoted above, it's rampant in the comments on jill's blog, and it's somehting i find liberals do often in general, i.e. that "terrorism *blank stare*" shit.
Date: May 4th, 2007 4:42 PM Author: Vibrant transparent hissy fit
TITCR; he should really contact them. Even if he'd still rather be in biglaw than public interest, they should be able to point him in the right direction.
I think he needs to get some of the good guys on his side. He's just getting raped by the traditional legal media. He needs to take his case to O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Joe Scarborough, Limbaugh, etc.
He should call O'Reilly's show and try to get on the factor. This is exactly the kind of thing they eat up. Liberal political correctness out of control