“What else was in the package Dave received? See why piquing the public’s my curiosity was such a bad idea?”

I keed, I keed…

Seriously though, I have work to do and I can’t go around in circles with you anymore. Kudos for at least sticking around and making an argument rather than running away, like our misguided friend Mr. Treacher. If you’d like to post anything more I’ll check the thread tomorrow.

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Do hurry back.

I’d ask you to back that up, but I suppose that’d be naive.

And dishonest.

You’d better hope so because God knows you can’t do it.

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:09 PM

You’re reminiscent of the Black Knight. More specifically, the limbless torso of the Black Knight.

Seriously though, I have work to do and I can’t go around in circles with you anymore. Kudos for at least sticking around and making an argument rather than running away, like our misguided friend Mr. Treacher. If you’d like to post anything more I’ll check the thread tomorrow.

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM

If the thread is still on the board tomorrow I’ll return.

The poster explicitly refers to the blackmailing, and says it was ok because of his “bad decisions”. They’re approving of the extortion.

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:51 PM

I believe I noted that you had found one that made an excuse. But where does the poster state that blackmailing was “OK”?

The absence of making the distinction does not indicate that posters believe the distinction does not exist. To use that absence to vilify a broad range of people is not a good way to make an argument.

Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM

That’s why I use examples like this…

What’s awful? That he was being blackmailed? Sorry, he’s not the victim here, he made bad decisions and paid the price for them, literally. Don’t want to get blackmailed? Don’t boink your employees.

clearbluesky on October 1, 2009 at 10:54 PM

The poster explicitly refers to the blackmailing, and says it was ok because of his “bad decisions”. They’re approving of the extortion.

Looks like chuckles was to flustered to use the strike function correctly. It was a bit confusing, even for you.

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Yep, hot keys can be confusing if they aren’t shown. Could be a ctrl-s or something.

Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM

especially to target an individual poster with the inference rather than a specific example.

dang there must be a hot key for strikeouts….hmm

Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Looks like chuckles was to flustered to use the strike function correctly. It was a bit confusing, even for you.

Well my whole point is that the vast majority of the posters didn’t make the distinction, in fact many criticized AP for making that distinction (and feeling sorry for Letterman about the extortion). They had no problem with the extortion.

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:44 PM

The absence of making the distinction does not indicate that posters believe the distinction does not exist. To use that absence to vilify a broad range of people is not a good way to make an argument.

You’re getting closer here. I believe even CSD was one even of those people to explicitly make that distinction.

Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Well my whole point is that the vast majority of the posters didn’t make the distinction, in fact many criticized AP for making that distinction (and feeling sorry for Letterman about the extortion). They had no problem with the extortion.

Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 8:40 PM

dang there must be a hot key for strikeouts….hmm

Granted there were some people who said “the blackmail was wrong, as is what Letterman did”, which is fine. But that was maybe 9 or 10 posters. Literally everyone else seemed to have absolutely no problem with extortion. It’s nuts.

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:39 PM

You’re getting closer here. I believe even CSD was one even of those people to explicitly make that distinction.

Everyone who gets blackmailed did something wrong you moron. So saying “well, he did something wrong and I don’t have sympathy” is still approving of the blackmail. Get it?

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:38 PM

no, fortunately it’s not. The original action is INDEPENDENT of the blackmail. Check the order of events and causality.

It’s fun to watch you squirm.

And this is really exactly my point from earlier about the goalposts. Despite the fact that I’ve posted example after example of people approving of or celebrating the blackmail, you’ll never admit it’s “evidence”. Because you can’t. Even if I posted someone saying “blackmail is great!” you’d say it was “sardonic”.

Of course you know this, which makes it that much more satisfying to toy with you.

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:35 PM

once again you try assert that “posters” are revelling in blackmail, and yet you post over and over again quotes that enjoy lettermans loss of face. You then try to switch that out to an approval of blackmail.

Still hasn’t happen. BTW….did you find CSD’s post yet?

No sympathy for Letterman, not a statement that blackmail is acceptable practice.

Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Everyone who gets blackmailed did something wrong you moron. So saying “well, he did something wrong and I don’t have sympathy” is still approving of the blackmail. Get it?

What’s awful? That he was being blackmailed? Sorry, he’s not the victim here, he made bad decisions and paid the price for them, literally. Don’t want to get blackmailed? Don’t boink your employees.

clearbluesky on October 1, 2009 at 10:54 PM

And on…

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:31 PM

That’s close to an excuse, but once again read the bold. No sympathy for Letterman, not a statement that blackmail is acceptable practice.

Fighton03 on October 2, 2009 at 8:31 PM

It’s fun to watch you squirm.

And this is really exactly my point from earlier about the goalposts. Despite the fact that I’ve posted example after example of people approving of or celebrating the blackmail, you’ll never admit it’s “evidence”. Because you can’t. Even if I posted someone saying “blackmail is great!” you’d say it was “sardonic”.

Of course you know this, which makes it that much more satisfying to toy with you.

What’s awful? That he was being blackmailed? Sorry, he’s not the victim here, he made bad decisions and paid the price for them, literally. Don’t want to get blackmailed? Don’t boink your employees.

clearbluesky on October 1, 2009 at 10:54 PM

And on…

…. but even so, my heart breaks for the guy for having his privacy violated so egregiously

Pull-eze!

RobCon on October 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM

And on…

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM

New shovel…..quick!

…. but even so, my heart breaks for the guy for having his privacy violated so egregiously

Pull-eze!

RobCon on October 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM

And on…

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Thank you, Lord!

GoldenEagle4444 on October 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM

I could go on….

crr6 on October 2, 2009 at 8:29 PM

you certainly could continue to go on posting things that don’t support your assertion. but as they say, the first rule of holes is stop digging.