Go read my original post so you can see how Erillion decided to edit my post so he could attack me indirectly. If he's willing to do that then makes you wonder what else he's willing to edit to further his agenda
Feel free to show where I changed your post.
So I "could attack you indirectly". ;-)
Do not insinuate. Do not hint. Do not allude. Show EXACTLY where you believe your text was changed. Show us the "before" and "after" version.
Have fun
I'll do it for Kefo, his quote was:
"Well how about you post the links that shows its worldwide gross then? I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release. Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
You cut it down to:
"it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
So by doing so you lost the context of the comment. It's not the first time I've noticed you doing this on posts.
“Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” ― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
Shocked this hasn't been closed yet. Love how it never ends and all from the same people that by what I see need to protect Roberts and Star Citizen at all costs. But I can see why people on the outside get so entranced with this in my opinion failed game. Just unbelieveable!
What is unbelievable is the fact that you and 2 others immediately jumped in DS's defense and went in all possible lengths and efforts in order to rationalize and sanctify his actions by twisting info and extrapolating hilarious stuff out of nothing. Even the ones concerning his children. It is apparent that the minute you and others see the words "Star Citizen" drop any moral, rationality or ethic boundaries and are more than ready to indiscriminately throw mud at everyone involved with SC.
One even characterized Suzie Ford as being "disconnected from reality" just for expressing her opinion and siding with Sandi Gardiner.
I only went with facts I could understand.
1. Did Sandi and Roberts post pics of their child on a PUBLIC site? Answer = Yes!
1a. That would give people the right to share the child's pics. But why haven't you guys gone after the person Smart retweeted? Isn't that person really the guilty one by your definition? Bet you don't even know the person's name that did original tweet? Heck it could have been a complete setup by Roberts side just to get Smart to tweet it.
(sorry really into mystery's and this is turning into a great one)
2. Very apparent you guys do the exact same thing. Heck took less than 25 minutes to answer any thread in Star Citizen. So you really should just leave that one alone, you guys monitor this forums which really amazes me and am sure others do the same.
Anybody who use sombodies children in any form of an attack no matter where they got the pictures from is a fucking creep period.
Give your head a fucking shake.
I think the pictures in question, were used as evidence that Sandi was married to Chris, something they were trying to keep quiet for reasons unknown.
These days children are no proof of whether someone is married or not and sharing the children's photos and involving them in this melodrama is plainly wrong wrong wrong.
Too many creeps in the world as there is. Last thing a responsible adult would want to do is link innocent children into an SC controversy.
Well I agree the child's pictures should never have been put up on a web site for actors. The parents clearly had no problem with exploiting their child so I would blame them and not the person who tweeted it, whoever that was.
Sometimes it's not always about what you can see or hear but what's under the hood of a game that's most impressive. Between those thousands and thousands of lines of code, magic happens. Sometimes the most amazing feats of gaming wizardry happen without you even noticing.
Well I agree the child's pictures should never have been put up on a web site for actors. The parents clearly had no problem with exploiting their child so I would blame them and not the person who tweeted it, whoever that was.
So it's the parent's fault that their child's photo online was used by someone else in a harassment campaign because they had a picture of their child online...
Yeah, no, that logic makes perfect sense; after all if you don't lock your door it's your fault someone stole your stereo and they did nothing wrong. Seem's legit.
Go read my original post so you can see how Erillion decided to edit my post so he could attack me indirectly. If he's willing to do that then makes you wonder what else he's willing to edit to further his agenda
Feel free to show where I changed your post.
So I "could attack you indirectly". ;-)
Do not insinuate. Do not hint. Do not allude. Show EXACTLY where you believe your text was changed. Show us the "before" and "after" version.
Have fun
I'll do it for Kefo, his quote was:
"Well how about you post the links that shows its worldwide gross then? I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release. Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
You cut it down to:
"it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
So by doing so you lost the context of the comment. It's not the first time I've noticed you doing this on posts.
So ... no changing of the wording of his text whatsoever.
>>>> If he's willing to do that then makes you wonder what else he's willing to edit to further his agenda >>> (see what i did there ;-) ? "Da dastardly kriminal" did it again .... )
So maybe I am NOT the evil mutator that some people seem to think I am ;-)
I could have added some URL text of porn websites to a picture of his post. But HEY, thats nuffing as some people claim in this thread.
I could have told someone else to post pictures of his kids and then added that link to my post.
I could have posted an ad for the appartment complex he lives in in my reply post.
I could have insinuated that he previously worked as an escort.
Sorry but not once did he post any links to Sandi's porn videos in his twitter feed. Not a single link.
Not to her video now, yet her picture with a porn website on it that i just blurred out because rules against pornography...
Also with the hashtag people were sending her support just because why not...
Also he did before on his twitter feed direct links one uploaded version of the porn video, that is a fact.
You even know what that site is? Has nothing to do with porn.
Sometimes it's not always about what you can see or hear but what's under the hood of a game that's most impressive. Between those thousands and thousands of lines of code, magic happens. Sometimes the most amazing feats of gaming wizardry happen without you even noticing.
Shocked this hasn't been closed yet. Love how it never ends and all from the same people that by what I see need to protect Roberts and Star Citizen at all costs. But I can see why people on the outside get so entranced with this in my opinion failed game. Just unbelieveable!
What is unbelievable is the fact that you and 2 others immediately jumped in DS's defense and went in all possible lengths and efforts in order to rationalize and sanctify his actions by twisting info and extrapolating hilarious stuff out of nothing. Even the ones concerning his children. It is apparent that the minute you and others see the words "Star Citizen" drop any moral, rationality or ethic boundaries and are more than ready to indiscriminately throw mud at everyone involved with SC.
One even characterized Suzie Ford as being "disconnected from reality" just for expressing her opinion and siding with Sandi Gardiner.
I only went with facts I could understand.
1. Did Sandi and Roberts post pics of their child on a PUBLIC site? Answer = Yes!
1a. That would give people the right to share the child's pics. But why haven't you guys gone after the person Smart retweeted? Isn't that person really the guilty one by your definition? Bet you don't even know the person's name that did original tweet? Heck it could have been a complete setup by Roberts side just to get Smart to tweet it.
(sorry really into mystery's and this is turning into a great one)
2. Very apparent you guys do the exact same thing. Heck took less than 25 minutes to answer any thread in Star Citizen. So you really should just leave that one alone, you guys monitor this forums which really amazes me and am sure others do the same.
Anybody who use sombodies children in any form of an attack no matter where they got the pictures from is a fucking creep period.
Give your head a fucking shake.
I think the pictures in question, were used as evidence that Sandi was married to Chris, something they were trying to keep quiet for reasons unknown.
These days children are no proof of whether someone is married or not and sharing the children's photos and involving them in this melodrama is plainly wrong wrong wrong.
Too many creeps in the world as there is. Last thing a responsible adult would want to do is link innocent children into an SC controversy.
Well I agree the child's pictures should never have been put up on a web site for actors. The parents clearly had no problem with exploiting their child so I would blame them and not the person who tweeted it, whoever that was.
You even know what that site is? Has nothing to do with porn.
Have you even visited the website? Example right on the homepage... A video of 2 blonde girls sucking a penis is not porn? the website he actually posted on this thread is indeed porn that ds posted on his feed on a pic of SG.
You even know what that site is? Has nothing to do with porn.
Have you even visited the website? Example right on the homepage... A video of 2 blond girls sucking a penis is not porn?
Oh sorry I thought we were talking tickleme stuff. I didn't go any further into the site to see exactly what was there. Clearly you have. So am wrong I guess. But I didn't see her doing anything like that. But then I never went looking any further
Sometimes it's not always about what you can see or hear but what's under the hood of a game that's most impressive. Between those thousands and thousands of lines of code, magic happens. Sometimes the most amazing feats of gaming wizardry happen without you even noticing.
I have never once claimed that Sandi attacked Derek, nor have I ever absolved Derek of anything he has said, so I would appreciate not being lumped in with whoever you were debating with previously in the thread.
If you want to absolve anyone who personally targets Derek Smart on social media , simply because you feel that his indirect attacks against Sandi justify it, then that is who you are.
I am saying that online harassment in all forms from all sources should be the topic here, not a which hunt against Derek Smart.
For starters, I think people having to essentially dox themselves (having real verified names and info) on their social media accounts, would be a huge step in combating online harassment. Online anonymity is one of the biggest enablers of online harassment.
What are your thoughts and recommendations on the matter?
This thread was not created as a general converse about harassment.
This is about someone "assassinating" in a calculated and organized manner a specific person on his social media using scummbag tactics. Removing the perpetrator from the spotlight and putting in his place a vague theme about online harassment only benefits him and does his victim a disservice.
This is what a number of individuals, not you, are doing during the course of this thread. For obvious reasons.
This thread was created off of the news that Sandi quit twitter due to targeted harassment, and that supporters of hers attribute it to a specific element.
Though Derek Smart is one of the main catalysts to much of the negativity towards Sandi, he was not the one sending her targeted threats. As bad as Derek Smart is, people like him will always exist. Its the ones who are actually sending the threats that we should be focusing on. Derek is not going to get his account deleted just because someone who reads his feed tells Sandi to kill herself.
My point is that as wrong as those are who were sending Sandi targeted threats and harassment on twitter are, the ones doing the same to Derek Smart are just as wrong. Internet harassment on the whole is wrong. If we forgive online harassers simply because we dislike their target, you leave the door wide open for people to think that type of behavior is justified.
Simply because you feel Derek Smart deserves it, doesn't make the targeted harassment of him any less wrong.
This is not a defense of Derek Smart.....its an attack on ALL online harassment..FFS
Shocked this hasn't been closed yet. Love how it never ends and all from the same people that by what I see need to protect Roberts and Star Citizen at all costs. But I can see why people on the outside get so entranced with this in my opinion failed game. Just unbelieveable!
What is unbelievable is the fact that you and 2 others immediately jumped in DS's defense and went in all possible lengths and efforts in order to rationalize and sanctify his actions by twisting info and extrapolating hilarious stuff out of nothing. Even the ones concerning his children. It is apparent that the minute you and others see the words "Star Citizen" drop any moral, rationality or ethic boundaries and are more than ready to indiscriminately throw mud at everyone involved with SC.
One even characterized Suzie Ford as being "disconnected from reality" just for expressing her opinion and siding with Sandi Gardiner.
I only went with facts I could understand.
1. Did Sandi and Roberts post pics of their child on a PUBLIC site? Answer = Yes!
1a. That would give people the right to share the child's pics. But why haven't you guys gone after the person Smart retweeted? Isn't that person really the guilty one by your definition? Bet you don't even know the person's name that did original tweet? Heck it could have been a complete setup by Roberts side just to get Smart to tweet it.
(sorry really into mystery's and this is turning into a great one)
2. Very apparent you guys do the exact same thing. Heck took less than 25 minutes to answer any thread in Star Citizen. So you really should just leave that one alone, you guys monitor this forums which really amazes me and am sure others do the same.
Anybody who use sombodies children in any form of an attack no matter where they got the pictures from is a fucking creep period.
Give your head a fucking shake.
I think the pictures in question, were used as evidence that Sandi was married to Chris, something they were trying to keep quiet for reasons unknown.
These days children are no proof of whether someone is married or not and sharing the children's photos and involving them in this melodrama is plainly wrong wrong wrong.
Too many creeps in the world as there is. Last thing a responsible adult would want to do is link innocent children into an SC controversy.
Well I agree the child's pictures should never have been put up on a web site for actors. The parents clearly had no problem with exploiting their child so I would blame them and not the person who tweeted it, whoever that was.
"I see your true colours shining through"
My true colors? I'm a member over at imdb and I see a lot of child actors on that site. It is there for that exact purpose to get them out there to be known!
Sometimes it's not always about what you can see or hear but what's under the hood of a game that's most impressive. Between those thousands and thousands of lines of code, magic happens. Sometimes the most amazing feats of gaming wizardry happen without you even noticing.
Not going to lie to you, I am impressed this thread is still running. Usually these kinds of subjects turn into giant cluster fucks within the first 5 pages.
Shocked this hasn't been closed yet. Love how it never ends and all from the same people that by what I see need to protect Roberts and Star Citizen at all costs. But I can see why people on the outside get so entranced with this in my opinion failed game. Just unbelieveable!
What is unbelievable is the fact that you and 2 others immediately jumped in DS's defense and went in all possible lengths and efforts in order to rationalize and sanctify his actions by twisting info and extrapolating hilarious stuff out of nothing. Even the ones concerning his children. It is apparent that the minute you and others see the words "Star Citizen" drop any moral, rationality or ethic boundaries and are more than ready to indiscriminately throw mud at everyone involved with SC.
One even characterized Suzie Ford as being "disconnected from reality" just for expressing her opinion and siding with Sandi Gardiner.
I only went with facts I could understand.
1. Did Sandi and Roberts post pics of their child on a PUBLIC site? Answer = Yes!
1a. That would give people the right to share the child's pics. But why haven't you guys gone after the person Smart retweeted? Isn't that person really the guilty one by your definition? Bet you don't even know the person's name that did original tweet? Heck it could have been a complete setup by Roberts side just to get Smart to tweet it.
(sorry really into mystery's and this is turning into a great one)
2. Very apparent you guys do the exact same thing. Heck took less than 25 minutes to answer any thread in Star Citizen. So you really should just leave that one alone, you guys monitor this forums which really amazes me and am sure others do the same.
Anybody who use sombodies children in any form of an attack no matter where they got the pictures from is a fucking creep period.
Give your head a fucking shake.
I think the pictures in question, were used as evidence that Sandi was married to Chris, something they were trying to keep quiet for reasons unknown.
These days children are no proof of whether someone is married or not and sharing the children's photos and involving them in this melodrama is plainly wrong wrong wrong.
Too many creeps in the world as there is. Last thing a responsible adult would want to do is link innocent children into an SC controversy.
Well I agree the child's pictures should never have been put up on a web site for actors. The parents clearly had no problem with exploiting their child so I would blame them and not the person who tweeted it, whoever that was.
"I see your true colours shining through"
My true colors? I'm a member over at imdb and I see a lot of child actors on that site. It is there for that exact purpose to get them out there to be known!
Did'nt Hanna Montana come from there ?
" Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Would Threaten It " MAGA
Go read my original post so you can see how Erillion decided to edit my post so he could attack me indirectly. If he's willing to do that then makes you wonder what else he's willing to edit to further his agenda
Feel free to show where I changed your post.
So I "could attack you indirectly". ;-)
Do not insinuate. Do not hint. Do not allude. Show EXACTLY where you believe your text was changed. Show us the "before" and "after" version.
Have fun
I'll do it for Kefo, his quote was:
"Well how about you post the links that shows its worldwide gross then? I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release. Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
You cut it down to:
"it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
So by doing so you lost the context of the comment. It's not the first time I've noticed you doing this on posts.
No text was edited and no context was lost.
The context in Kefo's post was about the movie not releasing in theaters outside the U.S with the argument being that he could not find any info on "multiple sites".
His last phrase was not a question. It was a statement stating that the movie did not release out of the U.S
Go read my original post so you can see how Erillion decided to edit my post so he could attack me indirectly. If he's willing to do that then makes you wonder what else he's willing to edit to further his agenda
Feel free to show where I changed your post.
So I "could attack you indirectly". ;-)
Do not insinuate. Do not hint. Do not allude. Show EXACTLY where you believe your text was changed. Show us the "before" and "after" version.
Have fun
I'll do it for Kefo, his quote was:
"Well how about you post the links that shows its worldwide gross then? I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release. Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
You cut it down to:
"it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
So by doing so you lost the context of the comment. It's not the first time I've noticed you doing this on posts.
No text was edited and no context was lost.
The context in Kefo's post was about the movie not releasing in theaters outside the U.S with the argument being that he could not find any info on "multiple sites".
His last phrase was not a question. It was a statement stating that the movie did not release out of the U.S
In the bunny's defense the way he shortened the quote did not change the argument Kefo was putting forward so I don't see what the argument is here.
Kefo's argument was that it did not release outside of the US, he even puts forward evidence as such with the comment; "Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US" applying an argument from incredulity. Thus the thesis of his argument is simply; "it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
The bunny did not misrepresent Kefo's argument in this case.
Go read my original post so you can see how Erillion decided to edit my post so he could attack me indirectly. If he's willing to do that then makes you wonder what else he's willing to edit to further his agenda
Feel free to show where I changed your post.
So I "could attack you indirectly". ;-)
Do not insinuate. Do not hint. Do not allude. Show EXACTLY where you believe your text was changed. Show us the "before" and "after" version.
Have fun
I'll do it for Kefo, his quote was:
"Well how about you post the links that shows its worldwide gross then? I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release. Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
You cut it down to:
"it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
So by doing so you lost the context of the comment. It's not the first time I've noticed you doing this on posts.
No text was edited and no context was lost.
The context in Kefo's post was about the movie not releasing in theaters outside the U.S with the argument being that he could not find any info on "multiple sites".
His last phrase was not a question. It was a statement stating that the movie did not release out of the U.S
In the bunny's defense the way he shortened the quote did not change the argument Kefo was putting forward so I don't see what the argument is here.
Kefo's argument was that it did not release outside of the US, he even puts forward evidence as such with the comment; "Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US" applying an argument from incredulity. Thus the thesis of his argument is simply; "it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
The bunny did not misrepresent Kefo's argument in this case.
his last sentence, "or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly." was actually a supposition not a statement.
By editing it down Erillion made it seem like a statement.
“Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” ― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
his last sentence, "or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly." was actually a supposition not a statement.
By editing it down Erillion made it seem like a statement.
ok, he wrote "or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly." that is what is called a supposition, which means it's a hypothesis ie it could have been a reason why the film may or may not have been shown outside of the US.
As he stated " I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release." he has no evidence to say it was never shown outside of the US, only info that showed it was shown in the US.
“Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” ― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
ok, he wrote "or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly." that is what is called a supposition, which means it's a hypothesis ie it could have been a reason why the film may or may not have been shown outside of the US.
As he stated " I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release." he has no evidence to say it was never shown outside of the US, only info that showed it was shown in the US.
Correct. Now, why did he propose the hypothesis and what was the purpose of the hypothesis?
To explain why he believes: " it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
The statement in it's entirety can be reduced to that sentence because bunny boy was not addressing the hypothesis proposed by Kefo but rather his specific claim at the end.
Break down Kefo's post:
"Well how about you post the links that shows its worldwide gross then? I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release."
This is the beginning of Kefo's argument. He asks Eri for proof of his claim and explains why he personally rejects the claim until evidence is given. This is not his argument it is his rebuttal to Eri's argument.
"Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US"
Here Kefo makes a rhetorical remark as a followup to his rebuttal.
"or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
This is the final argument. Now if we take away the supporting sentence structure that is only necessary if the sentence is a whole sentence:
"it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
The argument is unchanged. You can argue that bunny boy should have used the whole quote but the fact is he did not change the argument and he was specifically arguing against this point.
No, I totally agree with you, the only thing I would add is that 'Bunny Boy' (took me a few mins to figure that one out lol) said he didn't edit it, which he clearly did.
“Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” ― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
No, I totally agree with you, the only thing I would add is that 'Bunny Boy' (took me a few mins to figure that one out lol) said he didn't edit it, which he clearly did.
Oh well no he totally edited it; I think he was arguing that he didn't edit it to change the meaning. At least that's what I got from his post, I could be wrong.
I am bout to bring something up because if ever there were a time,it is with the entire SC heirarchy from the lawyer/accountant to brother to sandy to Chris.
Bring on the people trained in psychiatry !!
Sandy does not say "i am taking a break for personal reasons" as we USUALLY see people do when hiding something.Instead she WANTS this out there or could be as simple as she wants out and wants a break but enjoys fueling the fire with this type of comment.
She specifically uses the phrase "TARGETED harassment".
Now if that does not sound like an agenda,i don't know what does.
Sounds like two things..
1 asking for sympathy from her loyal fans.backers
2 About to utilize LAWYERS/Law to stifle ANYONE's further opinions involving her name.
First of all,how much of this harassment did she receive BEFORE Star Citizen?i am willin gto bet that it was almost NOTHING,non existent.So obviously it is just maybe perhaps anger towards the way SC and it's team does business??
Now being an intelligent women as i assume she is,she could EASILY deduce that it is SC hate and NOT targeted harassment,unless of course the target is directly SC,then i would tend to agree.
Sandy acts like her husband Chris and the business that is SC has received NONE such anger/hate,but instead makes claim it is TARGETED at HER !!! to that i say lmao and she knows better but is using this PHRASE to garner some kind of sympathy attention or other agenda not yet known to us.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Comments
"Well how about you post the links that shows its worldwide gross then? I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release. Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
You cut it down to:
"it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
So by doing so you lost the context of the comment. It's not the first time I've noticed you doing this on posts.
― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
Rob Manuel
Yeah, no, that logic makes perfect sense; after all if you don't lock your door it's your fault someone stole your stereo and they did nothing wrong. Seem's legit.
So ... no changing of the wording of his text whatsoever.
>>>> If he's willing to do that then makes you wonder what else he's willing to edit to further his agenda >>>
(see what i did there ;-) ? "Da dastardly kriminal" did it again .... )
So maybe I am NOT the evil mutator that some people seem to think I am ;-)
I could have added some URL text of porn websites to a picture of his post. But HEY, thats nuffing as some people claim in this thread.
I could have told someone else to post pictures of his kids and then added that link to my post.
I could have posted an ad for the appartment complex he lives in in my reply post.
I could have insinuated that he previously worked as an escort.
I could have done all that - but did not.
Have fun
Rob Manuel
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
MAGA
Rob Manuel
This thread was created off of the news that Sandi quit twitter due to targeted harassment, and that supporters of hers attribute it to a specific element.
Though Derek Smart is one of the main catalysts to much of the negativity towards Sandi, he was not the one sending her targeted threats. As bad as Derek Smart is, people like him will always exist. Its the ones who are actually sending the threats that we should be focusing on. Derek is not going to get his account deleted just because someone who reads his feed tells Sandi to kill herself.
My point is that as wrong as those are who were sending Sandi targeted threats and harassment on twitter are, the ones doing the same to Derek Smart are just as wrong. Internet harassment on the whole is wrong. If we forgive online harassers simply because we dislike their target, you leave the door wide open for people to think that type of behavior is justified.
Simply because you feel Derek Smart deserves it, doesn't make the targeted harassment of him any less wrong.
This is not a defense of Derek Smart.....its an attack on ALL online harassment..FFS
Rob Manuel
Did'nt Hanna Montana come from there ?
MAGA
The context in Kefo's post was about the movie not releasing in theaters outside the U.S with the argument being that he could not find any info on "multiple sites".
His last phrase was not a question. It was a statement stating that the movie did not release out of the U.S
Kefo's argument was that it did not release outside of the US, he even puts forward evidence as such with the comment; "Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US" applying an argument from incredulity. Thus the thesis of his argument is simply; "it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
The bunny did not misrepresent Kefo's argument in this case.
By editing it down Erillion made it seem like a statement.
― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
As he stated " I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release." he has no evidence to say it was never shown outside of the US, only info that showed it was shown in the US.
― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
To explain why he believes: " it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
The statement in it's entirety can be reduced to that sentence because bunny boy was not addressing the hypothesis proposed by Kefo but rather his specific claim at the end.
Break down Kefo's post:
"Well how about you post the links that shows its worldwide gross then? I've looked it up on multiple sites and all of the sites never mention it being outside the US for theatre release."
This is the beginning of Kefo's argument. He asks Eri for proof of his claim and explains why he personally rejects the claim until evidence is given. This is not his argument it is his rebuttal to Eri's argument.
"Now either multiple sites just happened to forget to record the movies earnings outside the US"
Here Kefo makes a rhetorical remark as a followup to his rebuttal.
"or perhaps the simpler explanation is it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
This is the final argument. Now if we take away the supporting sentence structure that is only necessary if the sentence is a whole sentence:
"it never did go to theatres outside the US because it did so poorly."
The argument is unchanged. You can argue that bunny boy should have used the whole quote but the fact is he did not change the argument and he was specifically arguing against this point.
Do you disagree with my breakdown?
― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
Bring on the people trained in psychiatry !!
Sandy does not say "i am taking a break for personal reasons" as we USUALLY see people do when hiding something.Instead she WANTS this out there or could be as simple as she wants out and wants a break but enjoys fueling the fire with this type of comment.
She specifically uses the phrase "TARGETED harassment".
Now if that does not sound like an agenda,i don't know what does.
Sounds like two things..
1 asking for sympathy from her loyal fans.backers
2 About to utilize LAWYERS/Law to stifle ANYONE's further opinions involving her name.
First of all,how much of this harassment did she receive BEFORE Star Citizen?i am willin gto bet that it was almost NOTHING,non existent.So obviously it is just maybe perhaps anger towards the way SC and it's team does business??
Now being an intelligent women as i assume she is,she could EASILY deduce that it is SC hate and NOT targeted harassment,unless of course the target is directly SC,then i would tend to agree.
Sandy acts like her husband Chris and the business that is SC has received NONE such anger/hate,but instead makes claim it is TARGETED at HER !!! to that i say lmao and she knows better but is using this PHRASE to garner some kind of sympathy attention or other agenda not yet known to us.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.