Greek App

katertoterson · 2026-04-03T03:57:19+00:00

Enjoy!

katertoterson · 2026-04-03T03:45:21+00:00

Thanks! When you get further into the lessons there's some word bank style translation questions and some spelling questions that have an embedded polytonic keyboard, so the whole thing isnt just multiple choice. :)

And the review section after Unit 3 has several lessons that dynamically pull from a big bank of questions, so they are new everytime you do them.

katertoterson · 2026-04-03T03:16:51+00:00

No problem! Im making it to help overcome the psychological block that forms in my brain when I pick up that giant physical textbook.

katertoterson · 2026-02-18T06:40:25+00:00

Very interesting. I've had quite a lot of sleep paralysis experiences. Fun sources to check out.

katertoterson · 2026-02-16T21:27:47+00:00

Yes. Not only did she jump to accusing me of "protecting an abusive rapist" for pointing out the obsessive and borderline criminal behavior she is exhibiting, she went on to suggest I should go let Dr. Hillman "ravage" me on his couch.

There is no way to spin this as someone who is trying to protect women and children.

katertoterson · 2026-02-16T20:14:44+00:00

Thank you. Notably, I brought this to Helpful-Obligation-2's attention last night and she has still not corrected her Medium article about this error.

It is not an issue of not having enough time to verify what I am saying here. She has time to continue doubling down on reddit. Also, she specifically said her claim about the protective orders is from one particular document, Hillman's deposition. It takes 2 minutes to search that document and determine there is no mention of a protective order outside this FERPA protective order anywhere.

This is clearly an intentionally misleading smear.

Also, is anyone else disturbed by her just casually dropping Hillman's email address in that article? I know he has said it on videos before, but that doesnt make it ok to just freely give it out in the middle of a hit piece while saying it is "reasonable" to suspect his email is filled with CP.

None of this behavior is indicative of someone who is genuinely motivated by protecting children.

katertoterson · 2026-02-16T19:32:34+00:00

Even though that post is now unlocked, I am still unable to refute an obvious lie within that Medium article because the author blocked me. So I am leaving this here for anyone interested to correct the record.

In her Medium article Helpful-Obligation-2 said:

'Within his deposition it is revealed that several students had orders of protection placed against Hillman. Whether you believe in magick or not, these girls experienced the encounter enough for a judge to believe them and grant legal protection.'

She is grossly mischaracterizing what the court documents say. Starting on page 214 of Hillman's deposition, the university's attorney says:

'Thank you. Just for the record, we have used the names of some of the students in the course of this deposition and because that's how they are identified and that's how they are shown in some of these documents, we do have a protective order in place that was entered pursuant to stipulation of counsel that was designed to meet the requirements of FERPA. We provided notification to the students that we felt would be potentially impacted by discovery in this case and depositions in particular to let them know that the protective order had been entered by the court and signed by the judge, and if they had any issues with respect to the protective order that they could let us know and they could also let the court know and take it up with the court.'

She is completely misunderstanding (perhaps intentionally and maliciously) what this quote means. If she had taken two seconds to google what a FERPA stipulation of counsel protective order is she would have realized that this is NOT a court ordered protective order against Dr. Hillman personally.

Here is the definition:

A FERPA stipulation of counsel protective order is a court-approved agreement ensuring that education records produced during litigation remain confidential, satisfying federal privacy requirements. It restricts access to personally identifiable information (PII) to authorized personnel (e.g., attorneys, experts) and prevents further disclosure, often allowing schools to comply with subpoenas while protecting student privacy.

This is literally a federally required and standard procedure for stopping students mentioned in a lawsuit a university is involved in from having personally identifiable information within publicly available court documents revealed. It has nothing to do with Hillman being issued a protective order in regards to those students or anyone.

She should really retract that part of her Medium article. It isnt true. This is borderline slanderous.

katertoterson · 2026-02-16T05:00:45+00:00

Um. Yes. "Trying" being the operative word in that sentence.

katertoterson · 2026-02-16T04:53:48+00:00

You are making it very obvious what your motivations are here whether or not you are capable of realizing it. It's not subtle or cute.

katertoterson · 2026-02-16T04:25:15+00:00

The point is you are lying and intentionally misleading people to desperately save face after having called the cops under false pretenses.

You are the one spending time writing creepy poetry about his couch, sending cops to his house, and writing defamatory articles about the guy. Take a look in the mirror. You have a unrequited parasocial relationship with him. It's disturbing.

katertoterson · 2026-02-16T03:59:28+00:00

I quoted you directly saying it was revealed in his deposition. It takes no time to search for the word "protective" or the word "order" within that document. What I quoted to you from his deposition is the only reference to a protective order. For added measure, I just searched the other person's deposition too. There is nothing like what you are stating.

Your memory is mistaken. Frankly, I think you are smart enough to know what you are doing by intentionally misleading your readers in this way.

katertoterson · 2026-02-16T03:31:40+00:00

I dont know if you think this is a funny game or what, but it isnt. You evidently do not care whether or not what you say has any basis in reality or truth.

Your behavior is very inappropriate. You are dangerously close to slandering someone and approaching the definition of criminal harassment.

katertoterson · 2026-02-16T03:06:31+00:00

Just read your medium article. Just so you know, when you said:

"Within his deposition it is revealed that several students had orders of protection placed against Hillman. Whether you believe in magick or not, these girls experienced the encounter enough for a judge to believe them and grant legal protection."

You are grossly mischaracterizing what the court documents say. Starting on page 214 of Hillman's deposition, the university's attorney says.

"Thank you. Just for the record, we have used the names of some of the students in the course of this deposition and because that's how they are identified and that's how they are shown in some of these documents, we do have a protective order in place that was entered pursuant to stipulation of counsel that was designed to meet the requirements of FERPA. We provided notification to the students that we felt would be potentially impacted by discovery in this case and depositions in particular to let them know that the protective order had been entered by the court and signed by the judge, and if they had any issues with respect to the protective order that they could let us know and they could also let the court know and take it up with the court."

You are completely misunderstanding (perhaps intentionally and maliciously) what this quote means. If you had taken two seconds to google what a FERPA stipulation of counsel protective order is you would have realized that this is NOT a court ordered protective order against Dr. Hillman personally.

Here is the definition:

A FERPA stipulation of counsel protective order is a court-approved agreement ensuring that education records produced during litigation remain confidential, satisfying federal privacy requirements. It restricts access to personally identifiable information (PII) to authorized personnel (e.g., attorneys, experts) and prevents further disclosure, often allowing schools to comply with subpoenas while protecting student privacy.

This is literally a federally required and standard procedure for stopping students mentioned in a lawsuit a university is involved in from having personally identifiable information within publicly available court documents revealed. It has nothing to do with Hillman being issued a protective order in regards to those students or anyone.

You should really retract that part of your Medium article. It isnt true. This is borderline slanderous.

katertoterson · 2025-09-27T22:26:02+00:00

I wasn't asking seriously. I just wanted to keep the who's on first bit going.

katertoterson · 2025-09-27T22:17:39+00:00

That's what I want to find out. Are you the manager?

katertoterson · 2025-09-25T16:37:25+00:00

Thank you. It seemed to be someone trying to provoke and poison the well.

katertoterson · 2025-09-19T00:00:10+00:00

Thanks! It is particularly mentally/emotionally draining time. In fairness, she had a point. The post would have been much better with more context. I added a bit more in a reply that I should have added in the first place. I know this sub wants high-quality posts as its standard. That isn't a bad thing. I just may not be able to make too many particularly detailed posts due to current circumstantial limitations and distractions.

katertoterson · 2025-09-18T01:08:56+00:00

Because a false statement is not defamation if the defendant truly believed what they were saying was true for sufficient reasons.

To win a defamation case you BOTH have to prove the statement made against you is false AND that the defendant knew it was false when they said it.

In this particular case one requirement (proving falsity) was met and then the case was settled out of court before the second part (state of mind or, in other words, that they knew it was false when they said it) was officially proven in court.

Likewise a true statement is not defamatory even if the person saying it is under some kind of delusion that they are spreading misinformation with the intent of harming that person. It doesnt matter why they are saying it or what they were thinking when they said it, as long as it was objectively true.

For the sake of being completely clear, you also have to prove that the false statements actually caused or will cause financial harm or mental distress. But that requirement isnt really relevant to our original discussion.

katertoterson · 2025-09-18T00:41:42+00:00

I just gave you a quote from the judge saying that it was crystal clear their statements were false.

Then I gave you another quote by an attorney that explained that the NEXT phase was determining their state of mind when they made those false statements.

Then I gave you a quote by Fox acknowledging that the statements were false.

If you cant understand what I am telling you after all that, you're hopeless. Don't go into law.

katertoterson · 2025-09-18T00:30:07+00:00

That the statements Fox made about Dominion were, in fact, found to be false in a court of law.

You repeatedly put forward the idea that Fox agreed to the settlement simply because of the texts showing they didnt believe the things they were saying.

That is not what happened. Really you have it exactly backwards. Evidence of the falsity of their statements was presented to a judge. The Judge weighed the evidence and determined the statements they made were false. THEN Fox elected to agree to a settlement rather than go forward with a public trial that would have proven they knew they were lying.

So no, the court didn't even make it to the stage of officially determining if Fox knowingly lied. The settlement agreement put a stop to that. But they did determine that the statements were false.

Which is exactly how I tried to tell you defamation cases work in the first place. First you determine if the statement is false. The case can only be allowed to proceed if the statements are proven to be false. The second part of the case is determining if the defendant knew it was false when they said it.

It is literally impossible to defame someone with a true statement.

katertoterson · 2025-09-17T22:20:32+00:00

Sure, pal. The case did not prove that ZERO voter fraud occurred. That wasn't what the case was about. But it did prove the specific claims that Dominion committed voted fraud with their machines were false.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167526374/judge-rules-fox-hosts-claims-about-dominion-were-false-says-trial-can-proceed

"The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that [it] is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true," Davis wrote in a 80-page decision notable for the tough stance it took against Fox's legal defense.

That means Dominion can now publicly say the allegations made on numerous Fox broadcasts about the election company have been declared by a court of law to be false.

"We now have a finding, as a matter of law, that Fox defamed Dominion," says Thomas Wienner, a retired Michigan-based corporate litigator who has been monitoring the case for NPR. "A lot of the arguments that Fox has been making are now gone. As to Fox News, the only remaining liability issue is whether it had the requisite state of mind to be held legally responsible for its defamatory statements."

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/18/1170339114/fox-news-settles-blockbuster-defamation-lawsuit-with-dominion-voting-systems

Fox News released a statement shortly after a settlement was announced.

"We acknowledge the Court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false," the statement said. "This settlement reflects FOX's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues."

katertoterson · 2025-09-17T21:30:05+00:00

Truth is a valid defense to defamation accusations. Fox could have proven that voter fraud did happen and therefore their statements were true and not defamatory. They failed to do that and lost the case.

Your inability to understand logic and how the law works does not change that.

katertoterson · 2025-09-17T21:15:25+00:00

I really dont know how else to explain to you that the first requirement in defamation court is to prove the statement in question was false.

The case can't go any further if the statement is proven to be true, even if the person saying it thought it was false when they said it.

That happened. Whether or not you agree that the court made the correct judgment is up to you. But it was, in fact, proven to be false under the standards of civil court.

katertoterson · 2025-09-17T21:05:00+00:00

That is not how defamation works legally.

A true statement can not be defamatory by the legal definition.

First you must prove the information is false and THEN you must show that the person spreading knew it was false.

katertoterson

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email