David C.
@davidcernat.bsky.social
Programmer, lover of film and music history. I try to get along with everyone when possible.
I'm the lead developer of TES3MP, also currently working on my own game.
I'm the lead developer of TES3MP, also currently working on my own game.
Ancestry sometimes shows me random people from my family tree.
Here's the one that inspired me:
Here's the one that inspired me:
November 28, 2025 at 4:16 AM
Ancestry sometimes shows me random people from my family tree.
Here's the one that inspired me:
Here's the one that inspired me:
What details did he distort? Do specify them.
Also, do you realize the two women even perjured themselves in the declarations they made during the California lawsuit? They demonstrably lied about small things that they had no good reason to lie about. Here:
Also, do you realize the two women even perjured themselves in the declarations they made during the California lawsuit? They demonstrably lied about small things that they had no good reason to lie about. Here:
![A paragraph from Avellone's "Opposition (to Defendants' Motions to Quash, Strike & Dismiss)" submitted on 29 July 2021 during his California lawsuit. The paragraph is too long to fit into alt text, but here is most of it:
"It is important for this Court to note that Defendants and their counsel have lied under penalty of perjury in the declarations attached to their compound motions. Barrows claims she has “never travelled to California to attend any video-game [sic] industry event” (Decl. Barrows ¶ 4), when she has made public admissions to the contrary. (Decl.Avellone ¶ 24; id., Exh. 10.) She claims she made her public statements “to stand in solidarity with [unnamed] other women who had made similar statements” (Decl. Barrows ¶ 5), but no other “similar” public statements were published preceding her own (Decl. Avellone ¶ 16; see, e.g., Defs.’ Mot 8:27-9:2 [“Another woman, responding to Ms. Barrows’s [sic] statements . . . .”). Barrows also declares that she “did not direct any of [her] statements to California or anyone specifically located in California.” (Decl. Barrows ¶ 5.) To the contrary, the Complaint puts at issue her statements directed with particularity at Avellone (Compl. 11:1-5 [“Hey Avellone . . .”]; id., Exh. 1 [same]) and she has acknowledged numerous times that she indeed knows that Avellone resides in California (E.g., Decl. Johnson, Exh. 1 at 01:37:54-01:38:04; 01:39:05-01:39:06; Decl. Avellone, Exh. 11; see id. at ¶ 25). Barrows also claims she made the screenshots attached to Defendants’ motion as Exhibit E using her mobile phone (Decl. Barrows ¶ 6), but Defendants’ Exhibit E shows the avatar of Avellone’s former casual girlfriend2 (the woman pictured immediately adjacent to the words “Tweet your reply”), not Barrows (e.g., Compl. Exh. 1 [showing Barrows’ Twitter avatar]), which evidences that Barrows did not make the screenshots herself. [...]"](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:dcggz6arwcp3wvm55ls2nqwe/bafkreid2aomtlaoypknvh65kwecvixhm2jqclt5jlxhdos3lkslt7ladgy@jpeg)
November 28, 2025 at 1:46 AM
What details did he distort? Do specify them.
Also, do you realize the two women even perjured themselves in the declarations they made during the California lawsuit? They demonstrably lied about small things that they had no good reason to lie about. Here:
Also, do you realize the two women even perjured themselves in the declarations they made during the California lawsuit? They demonstrably lied about small things that they had no good reason to lie about. Here:
He wrote for the game from 2016 to 2018, so the allegations had nothing to do with his involvement on it.
November 26, 2025 at 5:12 PM
He wrote for the game from 2016 to 2018, so the allegations had nothing to do with his involvement on it.
I'm assuming you haven't even looked at the witness statements from people in the same friend group that were all in his favor:
October 16, 2025 at 5:12 PM
I'm assuming you haven't even looked at the witness statements from people in the same friend group that were all in his favor:
You should also listen to the witness statements from the same friend group, like this one, also from a woman:
October 5, 2025 at 9:33 PM
You should also listen to the witness statements from the same friend group, like this one, also from a woman:
The SA allegations ring different in light of the witness statements that were all in Chris' favor:
September 25, 2025 at 2:09 PM
The SA allegations ring different in light of the witness statements that were all in Chris' favor:
This is wrong. Tim and Chris are friends in real life, and Tim has defended Chris' interpretation of Fallout's themes as you can see here:
August 26, 2025 at 3:43 AM
This is wrong. Tim and Chris are friends in real life, and Tim has defended Chris' interpretation of Fallout's themes as you can see here:
Alright, I wonder the definition is in Black's Law Dictionary. Surely that's as prestigious a law dictionary as you're going to find.
Oh...
Well, what do you think of that?
Oh...
Well, what do you think of that?
August 21, 2025 at 2:00 AM
Alright, I wonder the definition is in Black's Law Dictionary. Surely that's as prestigious a law dictionary as you're going to find.
Oh...
Well, what do you think of that?
Oh...
Well, what do you think of that?
Nope, it was in the exact same situation of being a psychological term that people were misusing as an insult. It's literally the immediately previous iteration of the same phenomenon:
August 21, 2025 at 12:59 AM
Nope, it was in the exact same situation of being a psychological term that people were misusing as an insult. It's literally the immediately previous iteration of the same phenomenon:
Is there a particular reason you're ignoring what the Virginia State Bar website calls it?
August 20, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Is there a particular reason you're ignoring what the Virginia State Bar website calls it?
I see the Virginia State Bar has also made this common mistake. Perhaps you should take it up with them first:
August 20, 2025 at 8:10 PM
I see the Virginia State Bar has also made this common mistake. Perhaps you should take it up with them first:
As mentioned, the Virginia State Bar claims to be a "bar association" (lowercase) on its own website:
August 20, 2025 at 8:07 PM
As mentioned, the Virginia State Bar claims to be a "bar association" (lowercase) on its own website:
I'm saying State Bars are also "bar associations", or rather a type of "bar association" which it's okay to still call a "bar association". Your friends are disagreeing (and derailed the original topic into this).
I think what you and them are doing is imposing a colloquial definition:
I think what you and them are doing is imposing a colloquial definition:
August 20, 2025 at 8:02 PM
I'm saying State Bars are also "bar associations", or rather a type of "bar association" which it's okay to still call a "bar association". Your friends are disagreeing (and derailed the original topic into this).
I think what you and them are doing is imposing a colloquial definition:
I think what you and them are doing is imposing a colloquial definition:
Do you care about what is said on the website of the Virginia State Bar which you are a part of?
August 20, 2025 at 7:56 PM
Do you care about what is said on the website of the Virginia State Bar which you are a part of?
I wonder why the American Bar Association is referring to them as "state bar associations" in its own FAQ!
August 20, 2025 at 6:43 PM
I wonder why the American Bar Association is referring to them as "state bar associations" in its own FAQ!
He is a member of a "bar association" (lowercase) even if he's not a member of that particular state's Bar Association (uppercase), as you can see for yourself:
August 20, 2025 at 6:30 PM
He is a member of a "bar association" (lowercase) even if he's not a member of that particular state's Bar Association (uppercase), as you can see for yourself:
The Black's Law Dictionary pictures that were mentioned:
August 20, 2025 at 1:36 PM
The Black's Law Dictionary pictures that were mentioned:
What he said when I sent him this additional message of yours:
August 20, 2025 at 1:33 PM
What he said when I sent him this additional message of yours:
His direct reply to this particular message of yours:
August 20, 2025 at 1:31 PM
His direct reply to this particular message of yours:
According to the witnesses from the same group of friends, he didn't do anything:
August 20, 2025 at 10:44 AM
According to the witnesses from the same group of friends, he didn't do anything:
The image he included alongside the text, where he highlighted the first paragraph in Rule 305 of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules, which you can find for yourself here:
ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-res...
ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-res...
August 18, 2025 at 8:41 PM
The image he included alongside the text, where he highlighted the first paragraph in Rule 305 of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules, which you can find for yourself here:
ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-res...
ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-res...
We're going in circles because you seem to only remember the last thing you quoted at any given moment.
Out of curiosity, did you try passing the bar exam? How did that go?
Out of curiosity, did you try passing the bar exam? How did that go?
August 18, 2025 at 8:30 PM
We're going in circles because you seem to only remember the last thing you quoted at any given moment.
Out of curiosity, did you try passing the bar exam? How did that go?
Out of curiosity, did you try passing the bar exam? How did that go?
He is saying it can be construed as both.
It's fortunate that we have this other reply from him where he reiterates that it can be construed as *both* a 6 figure and a 7 figure payment, "depending on your chosen definition".
It's fortunate that we have this other reply from him where he reiterates that it can be construed as *both* a 6 figure and a 7 figure payment, "depending on your chosen definition".
August 18, 2025 at 5:30 PM
He is saying it can be construed as both.
It's fortunate that we have this other reply from him where he reiterates that it can be construed as *both* a 6 figure and a 7 figure payment, "depending on your chosen definition".
It's fortunate that we have this other reply from him where he reiterates that it can be construed as *both* a 6 figure and a 7 figure payment, "depending on your chosen definition".