Haha yeah I know all this, the hangups normies have with porn just amuses me is all. Most of these ideas are pretty common among the religious and such as well and I deal with a lot of the religious in my every day life.
I do find your point of view interesting when it comes to the character of those who work in the industry though lol.
The only question anyone who defends porn needs to answer is...How would you feel if your daughter did it? Another decent follow up might be, would you marry someone who did porn?
Now of course there are varying degrees of porn and Erika Ellison was actually on one of those obtuse love shows on US network TV, and she is a fairly well known porn star but not hardcore. She didnt last long regardless.
Then of course to play lets twist this topic even more, if porn isnt that bad then why would her doing it and someone making it known that she did it be harassment? Also are any of those on her ImDb page? I know she has one she claims to be an actress after all. So more questions there, if they are then why does she care if there were links to them to another site? if they arent then why arent they?
People always want to play the martyr or take the high ground but simple Socratic method can reveal what all parties think if the correct questions (and truthful answers) are given.
Derek Smart being harassed solely because he is African American makes exactly as much sense as the early claims that Sandi Gardiner is being harassed solely because she is female.
The only question anyone who defends porn needs to answer is...How would you feel if your daughter did it? Another decent follow up might be, would you marry someone who did porn?
Now of course there are varying degrees of porn and Erika Ellison was actually on one of those obtuse love shows on US network TV, and she is a fairly well known porn star but not hardcore. She didnt last long regardless.
Then of course to play lets twist this topic even more, if porn isnt that bad then why would her doing it and someone making it known that she did it be harassment? Also are any of those on her ImDb page? I know she has one she claims to be an actress after all. So more questions there, if they are then why does she care if there were links to them to another site? if they arent then why arent they?
People always want to play the martyr or take the high ground but simple Socratic method can reveal what all parties think if the correct questions (and truthful answers) are given.
My answers are fine and sure. Once again I don't have hangups over sex whether it's paid for or not. People do what they do and considering sex is a normal part of the human experience I find the level of concern people have with it rather surprising.
As to why would bringing it up be bad; I never said that it was did I? But let's not beat around the bush (get it, a vag pun! ) the only reason people brought it up about Sandi was to get at her. Hell we don't even know if the porn links even bothered her do we? Did she claim they did or did people white knighting for her claim so?
That whole paragraph is rather pointless.
As to your closing argument, I find an amusing level of "objective morality" coming off these last few words. I don't think either you or anyone can decide what all parties think, and I don't venture to guess because that is foolish and rather pointless in the overall argument.
Meanwhile... when pretty much everybody here agrees this is not because she is a woman... You still make the African American comment...
The Gaming Industry is not Hollywood, imagine if games had to get prizes and good reviews because the developers where black... Oh the standards our worlds gets to...
Oh come on we all know you are going to go on and on until you are the only one standing. You clearly have an agenda and you are going to disparage D Smart right up to the end and beyond.
I have an agenda? I condemn him for continuing this public shamming campaign and provocative behavior that leads to one circle of harassment and unjustifiable extremist behavior from both sides that has been going for way to long!
Or i can go to to your level and just say you have an agenda to just Defend DS to the end and beyond... Whatever makes you happy pal, i don't care about what you think.
Oh come on we all know you are going to go on and on until you are the only one standing. You clearly have an agenda and you are going to disparage D Smart right up to the end and beyond.
I have an agenda? I condemn him for continuing this public shamming campaign, and provocations that lead to one circle of harassment and unjustifiable extremist behavior from both sides.
Or i can go to to your level and just say oyu have an agenda to just Defend DS to the end and beyond...
.... and there you go again. Tying S Gardiner's recent actions to D Smart without any proof that they are connected. You just circle around taking bite after bite without actually addressing the issue.
I actually came into this thread with a pretty low opinion of D Smart but after 25 pages of this I can't help but think, despite his excesses, that he has a point.
.... and there you go again. Tying S Gardiner's recent actions to D Smart without any proof that they are connected. You just circle around taking bite after bite without actually addressing the issue.
I am NOT, where the hell are you getting that from? I am talking specifically what DS has been doing on that matter towards her and also what he has been getting in return for it. This on both past and present time. As I as well several others have been discussing about in case you missed.
Or maybe you'd wish to stop doing claims out of hot air and show me where i did tie the points you imply. In fact, i have pointed that on the very first post on i made on this thread.
.... and there you go again. Tying S Gardiner's recent actions to D Smart without any proof that they are connected. You just circle around taking bite after bite without actually addressing the issue.
I am NOT, where the hell are you getting that from? I am talking specifically what DS has been doing on that matter towards her and also what he has been getting in return for it. This on both past and present time. As I as well several others have been discussing about.
... and there it is again the partial quote.
Despite your denial again you link D Smart to whatever current harassment S Gardiner was complaining about and still provide no proof of the link. Again, D Smart was blocked from S Gardiner's social media accounts. So unless you have some evidence he was using a sock puppet account why are you tying him to it, over and over again? And what is this reward you imply DSmart is getting from his non existent posts to S Gardiner's social media accounts?
.... and there you go again. Tying S Gardiner's recent actions to D Smart without any proof that they are connected. You just circle around taking bite after bite without actually addressing the issue.
I am NOT, where the hell are you getting that from? I am talking specifically what DS has been doing on that matter towards her and also what he has been getting in return for it. This on both past and present time. As I as well several others have been discussing about in case you missed.
Or maybe you'd wish to stop doing claims out of how air and show me where am i trying to tie the points you imply. In fact, i have pointed that on the very first post on i made on this thread.
Then just stop it. Its very simple. Ask yourself the questions I asked and if you cant answer any then dont comment until you can answer some of them. As a refresher...
Who said what to make her want to stop posting on twitter? (two for one) Where is the specific objectionable comment that finally 'broke' her? What could have been so bad NOW (as opposed to the past 2 years) that was THAT bad it made her make that statement)? Why did she do it now (as opposed to a year ago when it was at its peak)?
We all know what Derek Smart has done IN THE PAST. We also know she has taken it without issue for years. We also know she has him blocked (whether she sneaks peaks at his feed is another speculation). So really what could derek Smart have done that he hasnt already done to make her make ths decision. Or for that matter what could ANYONE do to make her make that decision.
As I said (and its opinion) no one did anything. she is creating drama and letting you and other fill in the blanks and do what youre doing. Rather than asking the questions I just gave you to ask yourself. The irnony is all the SC backers like to think theyre the smartest people in the room or on the forum when in fact thyere all just getting played for fools by everyone involved at CiG. Thats why the whole 'cult' talk came about in the first place.
Youre not alone dont worry many many actually intelligent people get fooled by cults and religions all the time. The main reason it works is because these entities ask you to trust a higher power and stop asking questions for yourself. Not that faith and religion are bad things you just have to temper them with a little common sense. Just like wanting to believe SC isnt what it probably is isnt a bad thing and hoping it will be all that you want it to be isnt a bad thing, but at this point its time to let some common sense creep in and realize what it is and what it isnt going to be. Which no one can answer right now, but after another decade we might.
Despite your denial again you link D Smart to whatever current harassment S Gardiner was complaining about and still provide no proof of the link. Again, D Smart was blocked from S Gardiner's social media accounts. So unless you have some evidence he was using a sock puppet account why are you tying him to it, over and over again? And what is this reward you imply DSmart is getting from his non existent posts to S Gardiner's social media accounts?
Your agenda is now illuminated in neon lights.
Despite your hot air only meant to attack me without standing grounds... I have not linked that whatever was the cause of the message that came from SG was X or Y. Again i was discussing the situation of harassment that goes in-between DS and SG in specific, as other users also were. As it's a situation that exists and it's there to everybody to see.
I am NOT claiming that it was him that triggered the SG's reaction. And i won't claim it.
So i'd ask you to put your agenda down and stop claiming lies against me. I am not claiming any ties on both situations, specially not as any factual thing as they are not.
Then just stop it. Its very simple. Ask yourself the questions I asked and if you cant answer any then dont comment until you can answer some of them. As a refresher...
No i don't have to stop anything you disprove lol.... The fact we don't know what was the trigger towards her reaction recently does not change anything towards the discussion of harassment DS as put against her (something that IS ongoing) that are part of the harassment topic even though it's not factual they were the cause for the latest event. Now everybody is very much allowed to discuss this as speculate that the trigger was a complete different situation. Yet both discussions are pretty much open for discussion, you like or not.
Also thanks for your comments on the Cult Part... It's just the classic move, save yourself the trouble of continuing talking to me, i am putting you on my Ignore List, i'm tired of people that resort to that discussion attempting to validate points.
Then just stop it. Its very simple. Ask yourself the questions I asked and if you cant answer any then dont comment until you can answer some of them. As a refresher...
No i won't stop it. The fact we don't know what was the trigger towards her reaction recently does not change anything towards the discussion of harassment DS as put against her that are part of the harassment topic even though it's not factual they were the cause. Now everybody is very much allowed to discuss this as speculate that the trigger was a complete different situation.
..... and there it is again the partial quote.
Then we're back to disparaging D Smart and yes there it is linking him to whatever harassment S Gardiner was referring to and again no evidence other than a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' the agenda continues.
But it is nice to see an acknowledgement that in fact there is no known link, although it didn't stop you assuming one anyway.
Then we're back to disparaging D Smart and yes there it is linking him to whatever harassment S Gardiner was referring to and again no evidence other than a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' the agenda continues.
But it is nice to see an acknowledgement that in fact there is no known link, although it didn't stop you assuming one anyway.
Wait it took a while but i finally catch up with flawed logic here. So you're saying that as it is not factual for the moment that SG did post that comment because of DS... that DS never harassed her? Is one situation supposed to imply the other does NOT exist? Means that all that happened and is happening did not happen because she didn't name anyone? Means that discussion about that very same situation between them is not allowed somehow? I am not tying that the trigger was him, yet i am discussing the topic of harassment from him towards SG that doesn't need to have she saying his name so people can read and analyze towards what's publicly available and make their own conclusions and views.
Then we're back to disparaging D Smart and yes there it is linking him to whatever harassment S Gardiner was referring to and again no evidence other than a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' the agenda continues.
But it is nice to see an acknowledgement that in fact there is no known link, although it didn't stop you assuming one anyway.
Wait it took a while but i finally catch up with flawed logic here. So you're saying that as it is not factual for the moment that SG did post that comment because of DS... that DS never harassed her? Is one situation supposed to imply the other does NOT exist? Means that all that happened and his happening did not happen because she didn't name anyone? Means that discussion about that very same situation between them is not allowed somehow? I am not tying that the trigger was him, yet i am discussing the topic of harassment from him towards SG that doesn't need to have she saying his name so people can read and analyze towards what's publicly available and make their own conclusions and views.
Nope your lack of sleep is showing. D Smart has undoubtedly posted stuff about S Gardiner in the past, perhaps even currently (that's the post hoc part) I even think that at least some of it rises (falls?) to the level of harassment.
Now for the propter hoc part, tying him to the closure of S Gardiner's social media accounts. No evidence (no ergo) for that.
Of course that doesn't stop you from again tying it to him. Now with the added bonus of stating that S Gardiner implied it by saying nothing about it.
So yet again your agenda is showing D Smart is the villain of the piece, because reasons.
Nope your lack of sleep is showing. D Smart has undoubtedly posted stuff about S Gardiner in the past, perhaps even currently (that's the post hoc part) I even think that at least some of it rises (falls?) to the level of harassment.
Now for the propter hoc part, tying him to the closure of S Gardiner's social media accounts. No evidence (no ergo) for that.
Of course that doesn't stop you from again tying it to him. Now with the added bonus of stating that S Gardiner implied it by saying nothing about it.
So yet again your agenda is showing D Smart is the villain of the piece, because reasons.
I did not, I am not and i will not tie her reasons to him. There's no villain or heroes, DS on my opinion harassed her and that was what the discussion was about as others were involved on it. What specifically lead to her statement today is speculative however.
Your are just setting up this whole show against me for another discussion several people on the thread were having, what i find ridiculous (and part of your agenda likely)...
...you can keep claiming it against me what isn't true and you're doing nothing but being manipulative and twisting about it. btw if you continue accusing me of having and agenda i'm just not going to bother anymore and put you on Ignore.
Nope your lack of sleep is showing. D Smart has undoubtedly posted stuff about S Gardiner in the past, perhaps even currently (that's the post hoc part) I even think that at least some of it rises (falls?) to the level of harassment.
Now for the propter hoc part, tying him to the closure of S Gardiner's social media accounts. No evidence (no ergo) for that.
Of course that doesn't stop you from again tying it to him. Now with the added bonus of stating that S Gardiner implied it by saying nothing about it.
So yet again your agenda is showing D Smart is the villain of the piece, because reasons.
I did not, I am not and i will not tie her reasons to him. There's no villain or heroes, DS on my opinion harassed her and that was what the discussion was about as others were involved as well. What specifically lead to her statement today is speculative however.
Your are just setting up this whole show against me...
... Yet you can keep claiming it against me what isn't true and you're doing nothing but being manipulative and twisting about it. btw if you continue accusing me of having and agenda i'm just not going to bother anymore and put you on Ignore.
If what you say is even remotely true. Then why is D Smart even being mentioned by you (and others) in a thread about 'Sandi Gardiner Stops Social Media Over Targeted Harassment'?
That my porcine friend is what the discussion is about, but no you keep bringing it back to D Smart and what he did in the past. Your agenda is still up there in neon lights.
Of course you did not tie her reasons to him, because you can't but it doesn't stop you from tying him to her actions. In this latest post you do it again.
If what you say is even remotely true. Then why is D Smart even being mentioned by you (and others) in a thread about 'Sandi Gardiner Stops Social Media Over Targeted Harassment'?
That my porcine friend is what the discussion is about, but no you keep bringing it back to D Smart and what he did in the past. Your agenda is still up there in neon lights.
Because it is a discussion about harassment of her. It's clearly part of the topic you like it or not, as all the speculation about her reasons also is. Several media websites that reported on this also talked about DS, even though they have not linked that he were the cause for her message they talked about the harassment of his against her.
You do not decide what gets discussed and what not just because you don't like it. If you are so outraged about DS being discussed here, i fully encourage you to use the "Flag" button my posts and report me for Off-Topic.
(not to mention you have a go at me after many pages of others talking about a movie lol)
As you went once again on accusing of agendas even after i asked you, i'll put you on my Ignore List and at least try to have discussions with people who won't go as low with things as "African American".
Stating a fact about someone who puts himself in the public eye can it really be called harassment? Now if you keep putting forth lies toward that person then you can sue the person for it, but if the person is making statements that are untrue and you call them out on that it isn't harassment!
So unless you guys can show any statement from Smart that wasn't true or didn't deal with statements she made can you really blame him? Also there is no proof Smart went looking for these pictures of her, he just stated it was out there from goons. Also retweeting a picture from an actor's site I disagree that is doxing, harassment or whatever else you would like to call it.
This all comes down to Star Citizen and if they are wasting backer money, not having the game done after Roberts calling for the game's release then going back on it. That is all it is and yet people would love to argue it's all Smarts fault. Yes you really can't make this stuff up, just amazing and yet very entertaining.
I think what makes this whole thing entertaining is the extreme difference both sides go with.
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.
Stating a fact about someone who puts himself in the public eye can it really be called harassment? Now if you keep putting forth lies toward that person then you can sue the person for it, but if the person is making statements that are untrue and you call them out on that it isn't harassment!
So unless you guys can show any statement from Smart that wasn't true or didn't deal with statements she made can you really blame him? Also there is no proof Smart went looking for these pictures of her, he just stated it was out there from goons. Also retweeting a picture from an actor's site I disagree that is doxing, harassment or whatever else you would like to call it.
It is harassment on my opinion and view of it. You have your own opinions and views. You will disagree with that person yet that person will also have their own views and opinions of the same situation.
It's not the level of harassment that can be considered a crime, or even a solid reason to sue over though.
If what you say is even remotely true. Then why is D Smart even being mentioned by you (and others) in a thread about 'Sandi Gardiner Stops Social Media Over Targeted Harassment'?
That my porcine friend is what the discussion is about, but no you keep bringing it back to D Smart and what he did in the past. Your agenda is still up there in neon lights.
Because it is a discussion about harassment of her. It's clearly part of the topic you like it or not, as all the speculation about her reasons also is. Several media websites that reported on this also talked about DS, even though they have not linked that were the causes for her message they talked about the harassment of his against her.
You do not decide what gets discussed and what not just because you don't like it. If you are so outraged about DS being discussed here, i fully encourage you to use the "Flag" button my posts and report me for Off-Topic.
As you went once again on accusing of agendas even after i asked you, i'll put you on my Ignore List and at least try to have discussions with people who won't go as low with things as "African American".
Nope I don't get to choose what gets discussed on this or any other thread. But no I don't think D Smart is a legitimate target on this thread because you don't like him, heck I don't like him. But if you want to bring him in over and over again provide some legitimate linkage to the topic.
Appealing to the (non existent) authority of media websites and their lazy journalism doesn't help. Make a case. Stop pushing your agenda and think for a while.
Of course you always have the option of ignoring me, but I expect you will respond again and you still won't make a case for linking D Smart to S Gardiner's actions.
Stating a fact about someone who puts himself in the public eye can it really be called harassment? Now if you keep putting forth lies toward that person then you can sue the person for it, but if the person is making statements that are untrue and you call them out on that it isn't harassment!
So unless you guys can show any statement from Smart that wasn't true or didn't deal with statements she made can you really blame him? Also there is no proof Smart went looking for these pictures of her, he just stated it was out there from goons. Also retweeting a picture from an actor's site I disagree that is doxing, harassment or whatever else you would like to call it.
It is harassment on my opinion and view, as well of others. You have your own opinions and views. You will disagree with that person yet that person will also have their own views and opinions of the same situation.
It's not the level of harassment that can be considered a crime, or even a reason to sue over though. Because as we know, this is the Internet.
Wrong, if you harass a person with lies then it can be taken to court and a monetary settlement will result. The definition of harassment is very clear and to say people's opinions would be different is complete BS. It is as plain as the hairs on our balls.
Now if anything Smart has posted in blogs, emails whatever was false there is no doubt in my mind Roberts would go full force at him to sue his butt off. Those two certainly do not like each other and I believe either one would take the other to court without blinking an eye.
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.
Wrong, if you harass a person with lies then it can be taken to court and a monetary settlement will result. The definition of harassment is very clear and to say people's opinions would be different is complete BS. It is as plain as the hairs on our balls.
If you harass one person with lies then it's specifically defamation. For harassment it doesn't matter if it is truth or lie, it matters what you do with it towards the person that on this case was a public shaming show of SG, that was and still is ongoing.
I'd provide my example, if i grab pictures of you, edit it with an hate message (on this case a truthful one), print them and then go to posting them on walls of public spaces...
...you can betcha your ass you could sue me over harassment. If it was lies you could go extra and add defamation over it. This of course on my country i wouldn't have specifics on how this case would turn out everywhere.
Wrong, if you harass a person with lies then it can be taken to court and a monetary settlement will result. The definition of harassment is very clear and to say people's opinions would be different is complete BS. It is as plain as the hairs on our balls.
If you harass one person with lies then it's specifically defamation. For harassment it doesn't matter if it is truth or lie, it matters what you do with it towards the person that on this case was a public shaming show of SG, that was and still is ongoing.
I'd provide my example, if i grab pictures of you, edit it with an hate message (on this case a truthful one), print them and then go to posting them on walls of public spaces...
...you can betcha your ass you could sue me over harassment. If it was lies you could go extra and add defamation over it. This of course on my country i wouldn't have specifics on how this case would turn out everywhere.
Thank you for understanding my point. So if Smart did anything wrong in that regard then this week we should hear something being filed. If not then Smart hasn't done anything wrong legally!
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.
Comments
Now of course there are varying degrees of porn and Erika Ellison was actually on one of those obtuse love shows on US network TV, and she is a fairly well known porn star but not hardcore. She didnt last long regardless.
Then of course to play lets twist this topic even more, if porn isnt that bad then why would her doing it and someone making it known that she did it be harassment? Also are any of those on her ImDb page? I know she has one she claims to be an actress after all. So more questions there, if they are then why does she care if there were links to them to another site? if they arent then why arent they?
People always want to play the martyr or take the high ground but simple Socratic method can reveal what all parties think if the correct questions (and truthful answers) are given.
As to why would bringing it up be bad; I never said that it was did I? But let's not beat around the bush (get it, a vag pun!
That whole paragraph is rather pointless.
As to your closing argument, I find an amusing level of "objective morality" coming off these last few words. I don't think either you or anyone can decide what all parties think, and I don't venture to guess because that is foolish and rather pointless in the overall argument.
The Gaming Industry is not Hollywood, imagine if games had to get prizes and good reviews because the developers where black... Oh the standards our worlds gets to...
You clearly have an agenda and you are going to disparage D Smart right up to the end and beyond.
Or i can go to to your level and just say you have an agenda to just Defend DS to the end and beyond... Whatever makes you happy pal, i don't care about what you think.
I actually came into this thread with a pretty low opinion of D Smart but after 25 pages of this I can't help but think, despite his excesses, that he has a point.
Despite your denial again you link D Smart to whatever current harassment S Gardiner was complaining about and still provide no proof of the link. Again, D Smart was blocked from S Gardiner's social media accounts. So unless you have some evidence he was using a sock puppet account why are you tying him to it, over and over again? And what is this reward you imply DSmart is getting from his non existent posts to S Gardiner's social media accounts?
Your agenda is now illuminated in neon lights.
Who said what to make her want to stop posting on twitter? (two for one)
Where is the specific objectionable comment that finally 'broke' her?
What could have been so bad NOW (as opposed to the past 2 years) that was THAT bad it made her make that statement)?
Why did she do it now (as opposed to a year ago when it was at its peak)?
We all know what Derek Smart has done IN THE PAST. We also know she has taken it without issue for years. We also know she has him blocked (whether she sneaks peaks at his feed is another speculation). So really what could derek Smart have done that he hasnt already done to make her make ths decision. Or for that matter what could ANYONE do to make her make that decision.
As I said (and its opinion) no one did anything. she is creating drama and letting you and other fill in the blanks and do what youre doing. Rather than asking the questions I just gave you to ask yourself. The irnony is all the SC backers like to think theyre the smartest people in the room or on the forum when in fact thyere all just getting played for fools by everyone involved at CiG. Thats why the whole 'cult' talk came about in the first place.
Youre not alone dont worry many many actually intelligent people get fooled by cults and religions all the time. The main reason it works is because these entities ask you to trust a higher power and stop asking questions for yourself. Not that faith and religion are bad things you just have to temper them with a little common sense. Just like wanting to believe SC isnt what it probably is isnt a bad thing and hoping it will be all that you want it to be isnt a bad thing, but at this point its time to let some common sense creep in and realize what it is and what it isnt going to be. Which no one can answer right now, but after another decade we might.
Despite your hot air only meant to attack me without standing grounds... I have not linked that whatever was the cause of the message that came from SG was X or Y. Again i was discussing the situation of harassment that goes in-between DS and SG in specific, as other users also were. As it's a situation that exists and it's there to everybody to see.
I am NOT claiming that it was him that triggered the SG's reaction. And i won't claim it.
So i'd ask you to put your agenda down and stop claiming lies against me. I am not claiming any ties on both situations, specially not as any factual thing as they are not.
Also thanks for your comments on the Cult Part... It's just the classic move, save yourself the trouble of continuing talking to me, i am putting you on my Ignore List, i'm tired of people that resort to that discussion attempting to validate points.
Then we're back to disparaging D Smart and yes there it is linking him to whatever harassment S Gardiner was referring to and again no evidence other than a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' the agenda continues.
But it is nice to see an acknowledgement that in fact there is no known link, although it didn't stop you assuming one anyway.
Now for the propter hoc part, tying him to the closure of S Gardiner's social media accounts. No evidence (no ergo) for that.
Of course that doesn't stop you from again tying it to him. Now with the added bonus of stating that S Gardiner implied it by saying nothing about it.
So yet again your agenda is showing D Smart is the villain of the piece, because reasons.
Your are just setting up this whole show against me for another discussion several people on the thread were having, what i find ridiculous (and part of your agenda likely)...
...you can keep claiming it against me what isn't true and you're doing nothing but being manipulative and twisting about it. btw if you continue accusing me of having and agenda i'm just not going to bother anymore and put you on Ignore.
That my porcine friend is what the discussion is about, but no you keep bringing it back to D Smart and what he did in the past. Your agenda is still up there in neon lights.
Of course you did not tie her reasons to him, because you can't but it doesn't stop you from tying him to her actions. In this latest post you do it again.
You do not decide what gets discussed and what not just because you don't like it. If you are so outraged about DS being discussed here, i fully encourage you to use the "Flag" button my posts and report me for Off-Topic.
(not to mention you have a go at me after many pages of others talking about a movie lol)
As you went once again on accusing of agendas even after i asked you, i'll put you on my Ignore List and at least try to have discussions with people who won't go as low with things as "African American".
So unless you guys can show any statement from Smart that wasn't true or didn't deal with statements she made can you really blame him? Also there is no proof Smart went looking for these pictures of her, he just stated it was out there from goons. Also retweeting a picture from an actor's site I disagree that is doxing, harassment or whatever else you would like to call it.
This all comes down to Star Citizen and if they are wasting backer money, not having the game done after Roberts calling for the game's release then going back on it. That is all it is and yet people would love to argue it's all Smarts fault. Yes you really can't make this stuff up, just amazing and yet very entertaining.
I think what makes this whole thing entertaining is the extreme difference both sides go with.
Rob Manuel
It's not the level of harassment that can be considered a crime, or even a solid reason to sue over though.
Appealing to the (non existent) authority of media websites and their lazy journalism doesn't help. Make a case. Stop pushing your agenda and think for a while.
Of course you always have the option of ignoring me, but I expect you will respond again and you still won't make a case for linking D Smart to S Gardiner's actions.
Now if anything Smart has posted in blogs, emails whatever was false there is no doubt in my mind Roberts would go full force at him to sue his butt off. Those two certainly do not like each other and I believe either one would take the other to court without blinking an eye.
Rob Manuel
I'd provide my example, if i grab pictures of you, edit it with an hate message (on this case a truthful one), print them and then go to posting them on walls of public spaces...
...you can betcha your ass you could sue me over harassment. If it was lies you could go extra and add defamation over it. This of course on my country i wouldn't have specifics on how this case would turn out everywhere.
Rob Manuel